Ted O'Brien
Fairfax · Liberal Party · Australia
“My question goes to the Prime Minister. Over recent weeks, shots have been fired at an Australian Border Force vessel from an illegal boat. We've seen the biggest seizure of cocaine in Australia's history, with police believing the drugs were imported by sea.”
“Too many businesses on the Sunshine Coast are closing. A local business is far more than just a business; it is the sponsor of local footy clubs. They're the ones who pay the salaries to local employees. They're the ones who do the hard work. Behind all the shopfronts we might see across the Sunshine Coast lies a personal story.”
“This is what is happening to local communities right across this country, and this government is showing absolute disregard for small business. It's why, on 8 July, I will host an 'Understanding the Budget' forum, so local businesses on the Sunshine Coast in my area of Fairfax can understand what the Labor Party is doing to them.”
“Australia is drifting. That is the conclusion from the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia's 2026 State of the nation report. Productivity, investment and innovation are going backwards. Knowledge, skills and workforce are going backwards.”
“They lie awake at night not knowing if they can make payroll. They do not know if their employees will have enough money to put food on the table for their own families. This is symptomatic of a decline of our national economy, felt on the ground at home in my communities.”
“You do not make an economy more competitive by taking away opportunities for entrepreneurs. You do not make an economy more competitive by treating profit making as a sin. If this government was so sure about increasing taxes, it should have had the courage to take it to the Australian people at last year's election. (Time expired)”
The complete record
Every one of 271 lines we hold for Ted O'Brien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“As they are under threat today, as borne out by the Bondi tragedy, we owe it to not just the victims and their loved ones but Australia as a whole, especially the next generation, to ensure these values are defended and promoted, so they once again can form the moral foundation of civil life in our country.”
“Let us actively look for answers, search for ways to ensure that this sort of atrocity does not happen again and defend and promote that one thing that has the capacity to unite us, especially as an increasingly diversified people, and that is a common set of values—values shaped by Judeo-Christian ethical traditions; values of freedom, equality and a fair go; a belief that with rights come commensurate responsibilities, and, where we have differences, they are met with tolerance. These values, right now, are being tested, and yet they have been the moral foundations of our civic culture that have influenced our institutions, our laws and social norms.”
“Providing this leadership is our responsibility as people elected to this, our national parliament. As political leaders, let us speak openly and honestly about the scourge of antisemitism, the evils of Neo-Nazism and radical Islamic extremists. Let us state unequivocally that there is no place in Australia for religious hatred or political or ideological violence of any kind.”
“In this parliament, through the actions we take, the laws we pass and the inquiries we run, it is imperative that we consider Bondi not as some unexpected out-of-the-blue tragedy, but the consequence of something far deeper and more sinister that has been allowed to fester and become normalised in Australian culture, and that is antisemitism. Antisemitism is a cultural cancer, and the strategies we adopt to try to remove that cancer—the actions, laws, the inquiries—are important. But there is a lesson of history that we must not forget: culture always trumps strategy. There is only one thing that can trump culture, one thing that can change it, and that one thing is leadership. Protecting our nation and countering hatred and extremism demands not an episodic burst of energy but sustained leadership, and our nation is screaming out for it.”
“These simple acts show that hatred and terror do not have the final word, but love and solidarity do. We have heard the voices of moral clarity, especially from religious leaders, including Jewish leaders who've signalled a desire to respond to hatred and terror with unity and dignity. Rabbi Oshy Goodman from my area of the Sunshine Coast said to me: 'moments like this remind us of the importance of moral grounding and spiritual depth in our society—that when our values are anchored in something higher than ourselves, including responsibility before God and conscience, it strengthens our capacity for compassion, respect, and choosing life'.”
“First and foremost, I honour the 15 innocent victims. They were parents, children, friends and neighbours. Each life taken was precious and each life mattered. The absence of each is being felt deeply by those who love them and by the nation that grieves for them. To the families of the loved ones, I extend my sincere condolences. I cannot pretend to understand your pain. To the extraordinary bravery of first responders and ordinary citizens who ran towards danger, I thank you. Your actions reflect the best of Australia: courage without hesitation, compassion without calculation and service without any expectation of recognition. In the days and weeks since, Australians have gathered across faiths, cultures and communities. Candles have been lit, hugs given, tears shed, prayers said and hands held.”
“Can I say from the outset to the member for Macnamara: you need not apologise for the beautiful sound from your child. I think it's a sombre reminder to all of us that we are here for a condolence motion and, indeed, we have an obligation to the next generation, so thank you for having your little one in the parliament with us. I also express my deepest sorrow for the loss of 15 innocent lives resulting from an act of mindless terrorism on Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. I speak today with a heart that is heavy and with a profound sense of responsibility as a member of this, our national parliament, because, when violence strikes at the heart of any one of our communities, our nation's social fabric frays. In attacking innocent Jewish Australians, the terrorists attacked all of us, for, when Jewish people are unsafe, we are all unsafe.”
“My question goes to the Prime Minister. With inflation running well above the RBA's target band and markets indicating the next rate move will be up, the Treasurer's economic failure is exposed. With 28 days until Christmas, what does the Prime Minister say to struggling mortgage holders paying $1,800 more in interest in December and every month thereafter than under the coalition?”
“Given it is the Australian government which is signatory to the UN's human rights treaties and optional protocols, the Commonwealth has obligations in this regard. Mr Kazal has sought to meet with this government's former and current attorneys-general but has not been granted a meeting. I too have made representations without success. I therefore stand in this parliament today to ask the Attorney-General (1) will an apology be made to Mr Kazal, in compliance with the UN decision, and (2) will she take the time to meet with Mr Kazal?”
“Fourteen years is a long time to be wrongfully labelled as corrupt; 14 years is a long time to be told by banks and other institutions that there is a red flag against your name and that dealing with you would be a reputational risk; 14 years is a long time to be denied justice, to be egregiously wronged and recognised as such and yet refused closure. Yet it has been 14 years for a constituent of mine—Mr Charif Kazal. The case of Kazal v Australia ran for six years, between 2017 and 2023, after Mr Kazal was wrongfully labelled corrupt by the New South Wales ICAC. A decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee cited that New South Wales ICAC had operated outside of its powers and appropriate steps should be taken to resolve the matter.”
“My question goes to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, today's ABS data shows inflation continues to accelerate under this government. Meanwhile, the Treasurer's spending spree continues, forcing the RBA to keep mortgage rates on hold indefinitely. Twenty-nine days before Christmas, what does the Prime Minister have to say to struggling mortgage holders facing no rate relief in sight?”
“I second the motion. If the Leader of the Opposition uses a descriptor about a minister being part time, there is no reason why that would be unparliamentary or out of order. It was not a title bestowed upon the minister by the Leader of the Opposition; it was a descriptor. It begs the question of what else we should use in its place. Should he be the 'intermittent' minister—when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, the minister isn't working? Is that how we should describe this minister? Maybe the 'irregular' minister—one who relies only on batteries? The battery only works for two hours, and then there's nothing.”
“My question goes to the Treasurer. The RBA's forecast shows that, if it were to offer any further rate relief, inflation would not get back to the 2½ per cent target. Noting the national accounts show government consumption still growing faster than household consumption, will the Treasurer admit that, with his foot on the accelerator and the governor's on the brake, he is making it impossible for the RBA to offer further relief?”
“My question goes to the Prime Minister. Given the RBA's decision to keep interest rates on hold, millions of Australian mortgage holders will start wondering whether interest rates are as low as they'll ever go under this government. The Treasurer's spending spree is at the heart of the problem. Government spending is running four times faster than the economy. Given that the Treasurer repeatedly refuses to take responsibility for this, Prime Minister, will you take responsibility?”
“My question goes to the Prime Minister, and it follows the Treasurer's earlier remarks about today's RBA statement. What the Treasurer didn't reveal about that statement is the RBA's forecast for headline inflation to peak at 3.7 per cent in the middle of next year—well above the target band—and not to return to the band until 2027. My question to the Prime Minister is: given the government's spending is running four times faster than the economy, isn't it time to rein the Treasurer in to stop his spending spree?”
“My question goes to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has overseen a litany of economic disasters but always blames someone else: higher energy prices—someone else's fault; the fastest fall in living standards in the developed world—someone else's fault; 12 interest rate rises—someone else's fault; unemployment's up—someone else's fault; on our way to a trillion dollars of debt—someone else's fault. Will the Treasurer take some responsibility for his economic mismanagement?”
“It is why you continue to see a lagging growth in the Australian economy. It is why you continue to see Australia looked at by others in the world as a potential investment location—and then they shrug their shoulders, wondering why this country that was once ambitious is now in the slow lane. For this to be called the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill speaks to what this government has become. It's a government and an administration not just lacking ambition but lacking any thought leadership. It has effectively walked around the house, chosen those little things that need to be fixed up, and cobbled together, as worthy as some of those items are, an omnibus bill. This will give no inspiration to the private sector, to potential investors, to businesses or to households. Thank you very much.”
“However, I am astounded that, from this government—having been returned to office with all of its talk about wanting to improve productivity, all of its talk about improving regulation, and all of its talk, after its economic roundtable, about embarking on a program of regulatory reform—this omnibus bill is all we have. This is it. It is quite extraordinary. This goes to the complete lack of ambition on the part of the government. To think that the Treasurer came back for the second term and made such a loud song-and-dance about wanting to reform regulation in this country, and all we have before us is a bill that does some housekeeping and some little tidy-ups. As worthy as some of those items are, it is a sad indictment of the lack of ambition of this government. It is why you still see business investment so low.”
“If the goal is to enable future demand management standards, the government should say so. It should bring forward a separate bill with clear definitions, proper consultation and a full assessment of costs and benefits. If there is a clear case for new powers, it must be made openly and it must be tested. Slipping a new object into GEMS through an omnibus is not the way to do it. Our position is straightforward: remove the GEMS object change from this bill and consider it separately. The coalition of course supports the practical steps reflected in the bill that will make life simpler and easier for the Australian people—especially those items of the bill that make it easier to deal with government and make it easier for businesses to invest, to grow and to generate more jobs. We support the ambition of a more productive economy.”
“This is not what the act was designed to regulate. GEMS—that is, the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012—sets appliance standards. It does not set market behaviour, which is basically what this looks to be seeking to achieve. The second area of concern is that the key terms in this GEMS adjustment in the bill are not defined. Energy performance and management of demand are very broad statements and very broad ideas. Without clear boundaries, regulators could step from product standards into rules about how devices interact with the grid. That risks new compliance costs for households and businesses without a clear mandate from parliament. The third area of concern is that the explanatory memorandum does not explain what this change would require in practice.”
“It is a national interest test, so we thank the government for correcting course in response to the practical feedback that came from the coalition. Secondly, I refer to the GEMS Act and demand response, which is an item forming part of this bill. The bill would change the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act to include promoting 'improved energy performance through better energy use and management of the demand placed on the energy system'. On the surface, this may sound harmless. But in practice, it shifts the act from product efficiency towards system control-and-demand response. That is a fundamental change in intent. There are some problems with this approach. The first area of concern is that it expands the scope from how much energy a product uses to how and when energy is used across the system.”
“Among the rats and mice of tidy-ups in this bill are a couple of more substantive items, and these happen to be ones about which we have some concerns. The first relates to fuel security. The bill proposes to allow the minister to reduce or suspend minimum stockholding obligations of petrol, diesel and jet fuel in limited circumstances. The draft clause did not set a maximum period for reduction, which risked undermining the intent of the regime. We raised this issue with the government. The government has now circulated an amendment to address our concern. We will support that amendment, and I thank the government for listening to our advice. Fuel security should not be a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan trophy.”
“It also helps Australians who rely on government services. No-one should miss out on support, but, when you have a maze of forms and paperwork that get in the way, missing out is exactly the risk that arises. Again, that's why we on this side of the House continue to beat the drum for this government to tackle real regulatory reform, not just a list of household duties to only somewhat ease the way. Before I get into some of the details of the bill, I must first remark on the government's claim of its intent to create a more productive Australia, a worthy intent when you consider how dire the situation is under this government. Australia's competitiveness ranking has slipped. The government has already added over 5,000 new regulations, and there are more to come.”
“This government wears, as a badge of honour, the overregulation of the economy, but, unfortunately, it is leading to the poor economic outcomes that are shown every single time that the economic figures are released by the ABS. It will also no doubt be reflected in the RBA's decision later today. You see, when you have excessive regulation, it ultimately slows down investment and discourages innovation. Good regulation protects the public interest without trying to anchor the economy, without bringing it down and tying it down. That's what good regulation is all about. What Australia needs is less regulation and improved regulation. That's what good regulation is. A simpler and more predictable regulatory regime is what helps small and medium businesses to grow, to hire, to invest and, for many, to export.”
“Until the government stops its spending spree, the private sector will continue to be squeezed, and productivity and living standards will continue to languish. To be clear, the coalition supports real regulatory reform because a competitive and productive Australia requires rules which are proportionate and efficient. Excessive regulation lifts costs for households and businesses, and I make the point that this government has indeed enhanced its regulatory regime. We have seen 5,000 new pieces of regulation added to the books under this government—quite an achievement. But, of course, the more that regulations are introduced, the more that they burden those actors within the economy.”
“At a household level, the Australian economy today is smaller than the one Labor inherited three years ago and productivity is down over five per cent. Just as Australia's inflation crisis, otherwise known to many as the 'Jimflation' effect, is destroying our national prosperity, so too is Labor's productivity crisis. Labor has become the 800-pound gorilla in the Australian economy, muscling out the private sector and weighing down our economic growth. Government spending is growing four times faster than the economy. Spending is at its highest level outside of recession in nearly 40 years, blowing government spending out from 24 to 27 per cent of GDP. In the last three years, Labor has added $100 billion to the national debt, which is set to hit $1 trillion this year and $1.2 trillion by the time of the next election.”
“The latest September data revealed what Australians already know: under the Albanese government, households are poorer and our economy is weaker. The June quarter figures show Australia's economy grew at its slowest pace outside the pandemic since the 1990s. Since Labor came to office, Australians have suffered the deepest fall in living standards in the developed world and remain stuck in a cost-of-living crisis. The Albanese government promised a private-sector-led recovery, yet business investment is stalled. While household spending lifted modestly in the June quarter, helped by the holiday period and end-of-year sales, it is no substitute for sustained private sector investment and productivity growth.”
“We welcomed at the time the economic roundtable; I myself attended. I did warn, though, that the 20-odd people behind closed doors in parliament would not turn the economy around. I saw myself there as representing the 27 million Australians who were not in the room, who were locked out. I take this bill as evidence that the coalition was right to be sceptical of that process. Don't get me wrong; there are some worthy measures in the bill. But the government cannot argue that it is seriously tackling, with this bill, Australia's problem of being overregulated. If you were to listen to the Treasurer you might think so, but, sadly, I think not. The latest national accounts published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics reflect the economic crisis under this government.”
“On reading this bill, my initial thought was not in any way that a lot of the items were silly; the thing that got me was reading the detail of the bill and then reading the title again—the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill. The thing is: this isn't really reform. None of this is genuine, substantive red tape reduction. Rather, it is largely worthwhile housekeeping—things that simply should be done. The Treasurer says this bill follows on from his economic roundtable. Really? The government waited three years before then taking three months to organise a three-day economic roundtable. There's no doubt that regulatory reform was a big stated objective and also a big stated outcome from that roundtable. But then you read the details of this bill, the so-called Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill, and it is completely underwhelming.”
“I will not take the House through every single schedule. Instead, I'll set out the coalition's views on the package and then address two areas of contention. Where the bill makes it easier for Australians to deal with government, we are inclined to support it. A tell-us-once approach, which means Australians won't have to enter their details every single time they access a different government service, is common sense. Better use of health identifiers to avoid duplication looks like it will help patients and clinicians. Smarter information-sharing inside Services Australia looks to be good, especially and if privacy safeguards are upheld.”
“I rise to speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025. This bill seeks to modernise and streamline parts of the Commonwealth's regulatory framework. Some items are simply housekeeping. They tidy up outdated provisions, remove redundant laws and allow commonsense changes, like accepting secure digital identification or fixing minor compliance concerns. Other measures aim to make it easier for people to interact with government by improving data-sharing inside Services Australia, reducing duplication in health and pathology processes, and supporting a tell-us-once approach so Australians do not have to constantly re-prove who they are. On the surface, these all sound worthy. Some may well save time for households and small businesses. Some will clean up clutter that has been allowed to build for too long.”
“My question goes to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister finally pulled his Treasurer into line, forcing a backflip on his super tax. While the Prime Minister was overseas, inflation hit its highest level in 2½ years, smashing through the top of the RBA's target band. Now the Prime Minister has returned home, will he again pull his Treasurer into line to stop his spending spree, taking pressure off mortgage holders who are paying $1,800 more every single month on interest compared to when the coalition left office?”
“My question goes to the Treasurer. We learnt yesterday that inflation has smashed right through the top of the RBA's target band. This is a direct consequence of the Treasurer's spending spree. Labor's spending is growing four times faster than the economy and has reached a 40-year high outside of recession. What is the Treasurer's explanation for both unemployment and inflation being well above the RBA's forecast, not unlike the stagflation from the 1970s, which people nowadays are referring to as the 'Jimflation effect'?”
“My question goes to the Treasurer, and it follows the Treasurer's humiliating backflip on his super tax proposal. Can the Treasurer advise the House whose rejection most influenced his decision to dump his tax? Was it (a) the coalition, (b) industry experts and economists, (c) the Prime Minister—”
“My question goes to the Treasurer. I refer to confirmation by Treasury officials today that the government is planning an economy-wide marginal abatement incentive. That is a carbon tax of around $300 a tonne. That is over 10 times more expensive than the carbon tax Julie Gillard introduced and the Australian people rejected. Will the Treasurer explain to the House the impact Labor's new carbon tax will have on the Australian economy?”
“They are spending $160 billion more this financial year than the coalition's last budget. They just can't help it. The Treasurer, who's not here, just can't help spending. This is a problem. I feel for the two assistant ministers underneath him, who actually understand how the economy works. My question is: Will the government stop the spending spree? Will the government start growing the economic pipe? Will the government introduce quantifiable fiscal rules?”
“Right now, younger Australians are struggling, but as they go through their life they are not only going to have more debt; they are, thanks to this government, going to have more tax. We can see that because the only tax proposal on the table from this government is to tax unrealised capital gains in superannuation funds. We know very well that that breaches a red line in tax law, and, of course, they're not indexing this, which means that more and more young people are going to be hit by this tax over time. Paul Keating himself has made his views on this very clear. This is unfair. There is a moral obligation here. The problem is that this government will not stop its spending spree, and it will not start to grow the Australian economy. Government spending is growing at four times the rate of the Australian economy.”
“The more they bump up debt, the more the next generation will be slugged with it to pick it up. We're talking here about younger Australians who already, thanks to the government, cannot find a house. Young Australians are struggling to find homes because this government has failed on all of its targets. Those few who have homes and have an average mortgage are paying about $1,800 more every single month thanks to this government. And that's just on interest payments. It's quite extraordinary. That's over $21,000 every single year due to this government. These are young Australians who are being lumped with so much debt. Here's the problem. It's only going to get worse from here. It's only getting worse.”
“A lot of this has to do with the budget position. In particular, we have seen debt go up. Debt is forecast by the Labor government to hit $1 trillion this financial year, up to $1.2 trillion by the time of the next election. To put this in context, every single minute of the day, an additional $50,000 is spent on interest payments on this government's debt. That is the situation we have today. If indeed the government had been acting prudently, responsibly, we would have $100 billion less debt today than we do. But they haven't done that. The thing is the more the debt grows, the more they are effectively placing a burden on the next generation of Australians. There is a moral aspect—or should I say 'immoral' aspect—to the government's actions here.”
“So, where there is a well-scripted speech about the economy, it is important to have the Treasurer there because he is best in class when it comes to the government's front bench on political communications. Indeed, he has a PhD in it. But, when it comes to these sorts of debates in the chamber, you often see him missing from action, and that's for good reason—he actually doesn't understand the economy itself. So I do give credit to those opposite who are here who actually do have some training in economics. What they understand as much as the coalition does is the Australian people are feeling poorer, because they are. The Australian economy is looking weaker because it is. Australia as a nation is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign supply chains because we are losing our own sovereign capabilities.”
“I wish to acknowledge the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, who's in the chamber today. I also want to acknowledge the Assistant Treasurer, who was here for the debate just passed. The reason I want to acknowledge both of these gentlemen is that the Treasurer himself has decided not to turn up today. On one hand, I sort of get it. His performance has been absolutely dreadful as the Treasurer. But I also get it because both the assistant minister for productivity and the Assistant Treasurer actually have PhDs in economics. They understand numbers. We know the Treasurer, to his credit, also has a PhD, albeit in political communications.”
“Let me state that again for those opposite, given their treasurer decided to go AWOL and not turn up. Over a two-year period, this treasurer is overseeing a deterioration in the federal budget of $58 billion, and he claims the budget is 'in good nick'. The simple question that has to be answered by the Treasurer, if he decides to bless this chamber with his presence, is: how does a $58 billion deterioration in the Australian budget equate to that budget being, in his words, 'in good nick'? I look forward to the Treasurer answering that question.”
“That's a $16 billion surplus, plus a $10 billion deficit. That means that, in one financial year, the budget has deteriorated by $26 billion—a $26 billion deterioration over one financial year. Then you go to the Treasurer's current budget papers and ask, 'What's he doing this financial year?' This financial year he is forecasting a budget deficit of $42 billion. Let's again build on the sums, shall we? If last year finished at a $10 billion deficit, and now he's looking at a $42 billion deficit, that means we're going to have a further deterioration of $32 billion in this financial year. To finish off our wonderful mathematical gymnastics here, a $26 billion deterioration plus a planned $32 billion deterioration gives you a $58 billion deterioration over two financial years.”
“The thing that's confusing, though, is that only a couple of weeks ago the Treasurer then stood up in front of the Australian people and—guess what he said about his budget? He said, 'It's in good nick.' So it had gone from being unsustainable to being 'in good nick', within a matter of months, which begs the question: What have we come to know about the budget over the last couple of months? Has there been some sort of major change? The only major change is that we've received the final budget outlook for the last financial year, and what that tells us is that the budget for the last financial year delivered a deficit of $10 billion. If you go to the year before that and ask, 'What was the final budget outcome?' the final budget outcome then was $16 billion, but $16 billion as a surplus. Let's do the sums together, shall we?”
“I call on the members opposite to use their phones to personally reach out to the Treasurer and get him into this chamber to start answering questions. There are serious questions to answer, because right now the Australian people are becoming poorer, our economy is becoming weaker and, as a nation, we are becoming far more dependent on foreign supply chains. Only a few months ago, the Treasurer stood in front of the Australian people—in, I thought, a moment of honesty, and I credited him for this publicly—and conceded his budget was not sustainable. It was a big thing for the Australian Treasurer to admit that, and I gave him credit, because he was right: his budget is not sustainable.”
“I can't believe that we are here for consideration in detail about the budget and the Australian Treasurer decides not to turn up. Where is the Treasurer of the country? This is the opportunity for the parliament to hold the Treasurer to account, and he's gone AWOL! Can any of the Labor members in this chamber explain where the Treasurer is? No-one. Absolute silence. This is the opportunity for this parliament to hold the Treasurer to account. So I look down the barrel of the camera and I say to the Treasurer: Treasurer, get in here! Don't ignore the parliament. By virtue of ignoring the parliament, you are ignoring the Australian people. Treasurer, you are expected to be in this chamber to answer the questions of this parliament. If you disregard this parliament, you are disregarding the Australian people. It's an absolute disgrace!”
“What message does it send ASIC about whether or not this government wants them to fix problems? I think we know the answer to that rhetorical question. There are other issues and schedules. I won't go through them now. The reason is that, while the coalition will not oppose this bill in the House, we are referring it to a Senate committee. That Senate committee is the committee for economics. We will reserve our final position until after that committee has submitted its report.”
“Why would they bother? Meanwhile, everyday Australians, hardworking Australians, are losing their life savings. What's in this bill? What's the relevance here? Well, instead of actually scrutinising the likes of ASIC and APRA further and having assessments done every two years, what we see in this bill is the government saying, 'We'll only do it every five years.' Think about that. Australians have lost their savings. ASIC has a lot to answer for. This government has done nothing. It has been given reports and recommendations to fix it. They've done nothing. Then they put in this bill the idea, 'Actually, we don't need to look at ASIC every two years anymore; we're going to do it every five.' What sort of message does that send to those hardworking Australian families who have lost everything in some cases?”
“They're not actively trying to ensure that they are fixing the problems here. They are not looking into ASIC to make sure that this does not happen again. Indeed, in the October 2022-23 budget, Labor promised to review the regulatory framework for managed investment schemes, like those of First Guardian and Shield. That review was due over a year ago. No findings have been released. Australians have lost their savings; no findings have been released from that review. Indeed, there was a Senate inquiry done, led by Senator Andrew Bragg. That report goes to the issues which are impacting the likes of Shield and First Guardian and leading to losses by everyday Australians. Do you think the government has responded to that? No. They're too lazy. They're just too lazy. Fifteen months have gone by. They're not responding to that.”
“But then there are other schedules. I won't run through them all, but, if you look at schedule 3, this is quite a disturbing one. It is suggesting that the government wants to weaken the accountability of both ASIC and APRA. This is most disturbing because, basically, again, due to the competence of the coalition government, you have an authority that assesses these two important regulators to see if they're doing the job as expected. You would think that, of all times, now would be the time where the Labor government would ensure that these bodies are accountable. That's because of the effect of the likes of First Guardian Master Fund and Shield Master Fund, where you have over $1 billion being lost by hardworking, everyday Australians from their savings. This government has shown itself, again, to be completely lazy.”