Pat Conaghan
Cowper · National Party · Australia
“Yesterday, we heard Labor spruiking their changes that came into effect with the new financial year, and there was a lot of chest beating and oversimplified statements around the standards of living that would make anyone not living in the real world think that things have never been better.”
“Small businesses, we haven't forgotten you. We know that your input costs are already through the roof and your profit margins are even slimmer. We know that the number of annual insolvencies has tripled this financial year when compared with 2022.”
“Insurance is up 42 per cent. Household electricity bills are up 38 per cent. Gas is up 37 per cent. Rents are up, and your weekly food shop is up 17 per cent.”
“Australians deserve honesty. They don't deserve to be treated like mugs by their own government. But yesterday we saw the Prime Minister call those on this side of the floor 'the axis of grievance' while evading giving an actual answer to any question posed by the opposition on behalf of those we represent.”
“As representatives, we are here to make sure that the collective grievances of our constituencies are heard by those opposite—that their legitimate and real pressure points are being expressed and considered in the policies we create and not swept aside by spin and gaslighting.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister: I refer to another mean-spirited act by the Prime Minister—cutting the private health insurance rebate for Australians aged over 65.”
The complete record
Every one of 388 lines we hold for Pat Conaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“That is why we're seeing new taxes, new thresholds and new rules that reduce choice throughout the system. The real problem facing this government is not that Australians are paying too little tax. The real problem is that this government cannot control its spending. When governments run out of fiscal discipline, they start looking for new places to collect revenue, and that is with the taxpayer. Today it's super balances above $3 million. Tomorrow that threshold can change quickly. We know there is a massive Labor deficit, and they have endless wasteful new spending to add to it. It's worth remembering how we arrived at this point. When the Treasurer unveiled his first superannuation tax proposal, Australians reacted very swiftly, and we, the coalition, opposed it. The community raised serious concerns about the Treasurer's proposal.”
“I'm very pleased but somewhat concerned to rise and speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 because these bills represent a fundamental shift in how the government views Australians' retirement savings. For decades we've known that superannuation has been built on a simple understanding that Australians would lock away part of their hard-earned wages during their working lives, invest those savings productively and have in return certainty in the future of a secure retirement. But unfortunately this government increasingly sees superannuation not as Australians' savings but as a convenient pool of revenue for government spending.”
“We have criminal gangs running our streets—in Melbourne, in Sydney, in Brisbane—because this government won't act. We need a government that enforces our laws and that gives our AFP the funds and the muscle to fight against them. But we don't have that. All we have is denial and deferral and a government that doesn't recognise what is going on in this country, and we should condemn them for it.”
“The ISIS sympathisers should never come back. They should not be in this country, because they hate us. They hate what we stand for. They hate what we do. We've heard the vomit, the disgusting words, of some of those ISIS brides about what they should do to teachers, about what they should do to the public and about what they should do to Australia. We do not want you in this country, and the coalition will do absolutely everything to keep you out of here, because you do not deserve this country. You do not deserve to be here, and you do not deserve the benefits of what this beautiful country offers to all those beautiful migrants who come into this country and offer what they have. You will not spew your violence into this country. Then, we look at 'deny' and the denial of the government's policy in relation to illegal tobacco.”
“They were angry that this government had diverted the attention from them and their failures to change the gun laws against them, to punish them and to divert the spotlight from the Prime Minister and from his failure to do what he had to do over a period of two years. Now, they'll lose their guns and they'll have to comply with other laws. We have the strictest laws in Australia, but, because of the diversion and because of this government's failures, we have to change. Then, we look at 'deflect'. This week, the coalition has been criticised for asking questions about the ISIS brides—or should I say ISIS sympathisers. These are people who left our country, left our shores and left the best country in the world to work and fight for ISIS. But what does the government do? They don't answer the questions that we ask about repatriating them.”
“This Labor government has plenty of slogans, but the one they should adopt is 'divert, deflect and deny' because that is exactly what they have done for the past term and a half, and Australians know that. I can give you three examples of 'divert, deflect and deny'. For 'divert', the horrible Bondi massacre was preceded by over two years of ignoring the warnings by the director-general of ASIO and by the people in the Jewish community that something was coming. Yet, when we saw that horrible massacre, what happened? We saw diversion; we didn't see action. We saw this government blame gun laws—not radical Islamists but gun laws. I went to a rally in my electorate with over 700 good, honest, decent gun-owning people.”
“For those reasons, the coalition cannot support this bill at this time. We will seek proper scrutiny through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, because the coalition protects our longstanding institutions. We believe in good governance and transparency, and the government simply has not made the case for reform. Debate adjourned.”
“The government should demonstrate examples of failure under the current structure that demand reform. It should make clear the case for reform and invite stakeholders to provide their views on the merits. The government should welcome that scrutiny. Australians expect this parliament to focus on the pressures they are feeling now. In financial services, that means insurance affordability, access to banking in regional communities, protection from financial abuse and scams, and affordable financial advice. Instead, this government has prioritised restructuring institutions that have operated effectively for decades. Before dismantling this proven system, the government must answer three simple questions: What has failed? What will materially improve? Why is this urgent? Those answers have not been clearly provided.”
“In the January 2025 consultation process, stakeholders were told that views were not being sought on the merits of abolishing the three bodies and establishing a single entity. That is not only remarkable; it is extremely concerning. If the case for reform is strong, it should withstand scrutiny. If the benefits are clear, stakeholders should be invited to test them. At present, this appears to be institutional reform without institutional failure, and that should give parliament concern. This bill is not time critical. There are no urgent regulatory emergencies. There is no immediate crisis requiring structural overhaul. The Senate Economic Legislation Committee should examine governance safeguards, independent protections, appointment processes and limits on ministerial intervention.”
“We have seen in recent years, as the government has added sustainability and climate related issues to financial disclosures, which have now become increasingly contested, how climate risks are recognised, how supply chain emissions are disclosed and how international sustainability standards are interpreted. These are technical matters, but they will sit within a politically charged environment. Precisely for that reason, technical decision makers must be structurally protected from political pressure. The current system has ensured protection from political pressure for decades, and this bill weakens those protections. But let us return again to the central question: what failure justifies abolishing three longstanding institutions? What systemic breakdown has occurred?”
“This bill also enables the minister to confirm additional reporting functions by legislative instrument. Under the existing framework, expanding core standard-setting responsibility would typically require the primary legislation and full parliamentary scrutiny. This Labor government seems to take the opportunity whenever it can to reduce parliament scrutiny and oversight. That should concern every member of this parliament. It is important to note that these accounting standards do not only apply to private companies; they also affect the public sector accounting for Commonwealth entities. The standards governing transparency in public reporting must themselves be insulated from undue influence, particularly in areas that have become politically sensitive.”
“This bill will consolidate authority into a single entity, and that is extremely concerning. Stakeholders have also raised concerns about reduced separation between oversight and technical standard-setting, risk to the independence of technical experts and expanded governing-board influence. Appointments to the governing council will continue to be made by the minister, as is currently the case for the FRC and heads of the technical boards. But, under this new model, the governing council will have greater potential influence over technical standard-setting functions. The coalition cannot support a governance framework that increases the risk or even the perception of politicisation of accounting and auditing standards, because, once confidence is weakened, it is very difficult to restore.”
“Accounting and auditing standards may not always attract public attention, but they matter enormously. They determine how companies report profits and losses, how assets and liabilities are recognised and how risks are disclosed. They give investors confidence in the reported financials of companies, so, when investors decide to invest, they rely on the credibility of those standards. Australia's reputation as a stable, rules based economy has been built over decades. That reputation rests on strong, independent, standard-setting institutions. One of the central concerns by stakeholders with this bill is the concentration of power. Currently, authority is distributed across three bodies. That distribution acts as a safeguard and as a separation of powers. It creates institutional distance between oversight and technical decision-making.”
“Under the current framework, there is a deliberate structural separation: the AASB sets accounting standards; the AUASB sets auditing standards; the FRC provides oversight. Each has an independent role. The oversight body does not write technical standards, and that separation is very intentional. It creates internal checks and balances, provides institutional distance and protects the independence of technical experts. This bill seeks to remove that structural separation. Instead of three independent statutory bodies, there will be one consolidated entity governed by a single board. Whilst technical boards will sit beneath it, they will not be independent statutory bodies in their own right. It is a fundamental redesign, and, without demonstrated failure, it demands careful scrutiny.”
“To add to that, the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms have stagnated for months. The reforms were designed to make financial advice more affordable for everyday Australians. Those reforms were supported across the sector by superannuation funds, by advice professionals and by the banking industry, and yet they remain on hold. We're again told there are not enough drafting resources. This excuse is repeated far too regularly, but somehow there are sufficient resources for this reform, which fixes institutions no-one has demonstrated are broken. This bill abolishes three longstanding statutory bodies—the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board—and it replaces them with a new consolidated body called External Reporting Australia.”
“They include insurance affordability, regional banking access, financial abuse and consumer protections. The government have not responded to them, because they say there's not enough time and they don't have the capacity. But Labor have time for a structural overhaul of our accounting standards bodies that are working perfectly fine. You have to ask why is this the government's priority? More than a year ago, the government promised to reform education standards for financial advisers. That reform has not been delivered. We were told that there aren't enough legislative drafting resources. That means young finance graduates today are deciding whether to take on additional study—and additional debt, might I add—or keep waiting on the government to see them as a priority. They deserve better.”
“There is plenty of work for the government to do in financial services instead of trying to fix an institution that isn't broken. Take insurance, for example. Over the past five years, home insurance premiums have risen about 51 per cent. Families in disaster-prone and regional areas, such as mine in Cowper, are being priced out of insurance coverage altogether. Small businesses are facing enormous premium hikes and are asking whether or not they can afford to keep operating. These are the immediate and real pressures affecting household businesses and employers today. This is not to mention that at least eight parliamentary inquiry reports on financial services have been tabled since 2024 that the government still hasn't found time to address.”
“There has been no demonstrated governance failure, and the government has not produced evidence of a systemic breakdown. So why, we have to ask, are extensive structural reforms of a system that already work necessary? The coalition can't support this bill in its form at this time. We are not convinced that the changes will improve the current system or deliver better outcomes. Stakeholders have raised significant concerns about independence, governance and concentration of power under this bill, and those concerns deserve proper scrutiny. That is why we will seek examination of this legislation through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Any changes to institutions that underpin our financial system must be made carefully and only when the case is clear. That brings me to this government's priorities.”
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026 proposes a significant restructuring of Australia's accounting and auditing standard setting system. This bill would abolish the longstanding audit and accounting standard setting bodies that have served Australia for decades and implement a new centralised bureaucracy. Fundamentally, the bill proposes to reform a system that is not broken. It is a system that has been operating for a long time and is serving Australians well. Our audit and accounting standard setting bodies are respected and internationally aligned, and they function well. For decades, these bodies have underpinned our financial credibility. There has been no collapse. There have been no international credibility issues.”
“My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why can't the minister just be honest and give a straight answer to the Australian families who were promised a $275 reduction in their power bills by 2025?”
“We should be a nation that debates fiercely but respects deeply; a nation that welcomes newcomers but expects loyalty to shared values; a nation that honours its past while working towards a better future. Making flag desecration a criminal offence, and considering deportation for non-citizens who engage in it, is not about punishment for its own sake. It's about drawing a line—a calm, lawful, and principled line—around what we owe one another as Australians. We owe it to the Anzacs who never came home. We owe it to the athletes who carry our flag with pride. We owe it to future generations who deserve symbols that still mean something. Let us protect the Australian flag and the Australian Ensign—not as untouchable relics but as living reminders of who we are, what we value, and what we stand for.”
“Growing up as a child in the seventies and eighties, I can't recall ever seeing it happen. I can say, though, unequivocally, that, in the past three years since the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas and Palestinian militant groups on young Jewish people, we have seen a proliferation of flag burning and the importation of hate and division here in Australia. On 9 October, on the steps of our own Opera House, evil people celebrated the massacre; across our iconic Harbour Bridge, fringe groups chanted 'Death to Australia'; and at Invasion Day rallies around Australia on 26 January, we saw the national flag burned—the same national flag which stands proudly side by side the Indigenous flag around Australia, including in this place, as a symbol of recognition and acceptance of our history by the Australian people.”
“Citizenship carries responsibility. So does residency. Denouncing flag desecration is not about attacking individuals; it is about defending principles. We can and must say, without apology, that those who burn our flag are wrong. Their actions are divisive, disrespectful and damaging to our social cohesion. If we allow the deliberate desecration of our flag to become normalised, we send a message. We send a message to our veterans, to our sporting heroes, to new citizens, and to children learning what it means to be Australian. And that message is that nothing is sacred. That message is that sacrifice is optional. And that message is that unity is expendable. This is not the Australia I grew up in. It is not the Australia we grew up in. Let's not try and fool ourselves. The desecration of the Australian flag does not have a long history.”
“If someone who is not a citizen chooses to publicly burn or desecrate our national flag, they are making a statement. They are declaring contempt for our country—contempt for we who have hosted them, protected them and offered them opportunity. It is entirely reasonable for Australia to consider deportation in such cases. In fact, I would go further to say it is more than reasonable; it is absolutely necessary in the interests and the safety of our country and our citizens. This is not about race, religion or background. It's about conduct. Every nation sets expectations for those who wish to live in its borders. Respect for national symbols is a minimal and reasonable expectation. If a non-citizen deliberately and publicly violates that standard, Australia has the sovereign right to reconsider their place here.”
“Think of our Olympians standing on podiums as the flag rises and the anthem plays—Ian Thorpe, Betty Cuthbert, Andrew Hoy, Emma McKean, just to name a few. When our teams compete on the world stage, the flag does not represent one race, one religion, or one political view. It represents all of us. Win or lose, it tells the world who we are. Burning that flag is a rejection of that identity. We must also address an uncomfortable but necessary question: what does it mean when noncitizens deliberately desecrate the Australian flag? Australia is a generous nation. We welcome migrants, refugees, students, and workers from around the world. Citizenship—and even residency—is not just a legal status; it is a relationship built on mutual respect.”
“It does not invite understanding. It is designed to offend, to divide, and to demean. And Australians who love their country have had enough. Making flag desecration a criminal offence would send a very clear message: you are free to criticise this country, you are free to criticise this government and its policies—but you are not free to deliberately destroy the symbols that represent the sacrifices of others. This respect is not limited to military service. It extends to the way the flag unites us in peace. Think of our sporting heroes. Think of Cathy Freeman carrying the Australian flag after her Olympic victory—the moment that showed the power of national symbols to unite rather than divide.”
“It was stitched onto uniforms, flown over camps, and folded with care at military funerals. For thousands of families, the Australian flag is inseparable from grief, pride, and remembrance. To burn that flag is not a neutral act. It is a conscious insult to those who served and those who died. The Australian ensign, including the red ensign, carries its own powerful legacy. Australian merchant sailors sailed under it in wartime, often without weapons, keeping supply lines open at enormous personal risk. For decades, their service was overlooked. Today, we finally recognise the ensign as a symbol of quiet bravery and national contribution. Some argue that burning the flag is a legitimate form of protest. I disagree vehemently. Protest is about persuasion and principle. Flag desecration is about provocation. It does not advance debate.”
“That is why we must seriously consider making the burning or desecration of the Australian flag and the Australian ensign a criminal offence. This bill does so by amending section 7 of the Flags Act 1953 to criminalise the burning of the flag or red ensign, with penalties of $16,500 or up to 12 months imprisonment for a first offence, or, in the case of a second offence, a minimum 12 months imprisonment. Further, in the case of a noncitizen convicted of this offence, there would be automatic referral to the minister for consideration of cancellation of the person's visa on character grounds. From Gallipoli to the Western Front, from Tobruk to Kokoda, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, the flag was present in moments of extraordinary courage and unbearable loss.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to speak to my private members' bill, the Flags Amendment (Protection of the Australian National Flags) Bill 2026—a bill to protect the Australian flag and the Australian ensign, a bill that has been called for by millions of Australians, and a bill that has serious consequences to those who act against it. The Australian flag and the Australian red ensign are not abstract ideas. They are not props for political theatre. They are national symbols earned through sacrifice, service, and shared history. And when those symbols are burned or deliberately desecrated, it is not an act of harmless protest; it is an act that strikes at the heart of our nation, our respect and our cohesion.”
“That is your money. That is not the government's money. Don't be fooled by a tricky Treasurer deflecting responsibility. This is his mess, and we have to live with it. (Time expired)”
“In fact, they've added $50 billion of discretionary spending this year alone. Public spending is currently growing twice as fast as the rest of the economy. The government sector is getting fat while the taxpaying private sector and small businesses are starving. This government's answer to everything is more debt. Take our housing affordability problem. Labor's answer is a five per cent deposit scheme a scheme that has driven up prices and encouraged our would-be first home buyers to take on the maximum amount of personal debt to acquire one of the few remaining homes over the past disastrous four years of rampant, irresponsible immigration by Labor. The repayments on a 95 per cent loan over 30 years are simply criminal. I say this: we are now paying $3 million an hour, $67 million a day and $24 billion a year in interest.”
“Every day I hear about the choices they're being forced to make to keep their heads above water—choosing between mortgages and medicine or electricity bills and groceries. I hear from businesses who can no longer afford their input costs but can't put their prices up because their customers can't afford to pay for it. It's no wonder the insolvency rate reached its highest level in 35 years. And how did we get here? It's because this government is more focused on ideology than sound fiscal management. There's a Treasurer more concerned with headlines than households. And it's those that can least afford it that ultimately pay the price. For the next decade, the federal budget is a sea of red because Labor keep spending with reckless abandon on their own pet projects.”
“This week Australian mortgage holders and small business owners were slugged with the 13th interest rate rise since this government came into power—an unlucky number for what increasingly feels like an unlucky country. Once upon a time, we considered ourselves the lucky country, the land of the fair go, where, if you worked hard, you got ahead. Now, we're the country of the most rampant inflation problem of any major advanced economy. Since May 2022, gas prices are up 42 per cent, electricity is up 38 per cent, milk is up 24 per cent and eggs are up a whopping 37 per cent. These are the basic household goods that our people pay for. In my electorate of Cowper, the average household income is certainly on the low side of the national scale. They're small business owners, farmers, retail workers and modest retirees.”
“I'd like to commend mayor Steve Allan and MPs Michael Kemp and Brendan Moylan for driving this forward at a state and local level. But now it needs to be funded properly. Funding that had been earmarked in 2022 by the coalition at a state and federal level has since been rejected with the change of government. Since then, we've had a rolling procession of ministers who are there for the pics and the platitudes but never bring their chequebooks for the solution. It's time for our isolated communities to be recognised and safeguarded. We need a solution, and we needed it yesterday.”
“This week I've been inundated with calls and emails from frustrated constituents who have once again been negatively impacted by the closure of a main access road in my electorate, Waterfall Way. The 185 kilometre artery road sustains the lifeblood of the Dorrigo plateau region, connecting agricultural industries and communities to essential services. It's importance and natural beauty are matched only by its unreliability. These communities need a viable alternative route, and, frankly, it needed to be done years ago. While these pathways have proven difficult to map out in the past due to the multifaceted government solutions required to effectively manage this issue, in recent years, all representatives have come together and effectively scoped the best way forward.”
“That is why you have seen the increases in the price of electricity. That is why you've seen the increases in the supermarket—because of input costs. That is why you have seen the biggest insolvencies in 35 years. And that is a shame. That is a shame for Australia, but it is shame on this government. You talk about the policies, but you don't go out and consult. You make the decisions in your backrooms and then you turn around and point at us when we say we can't agree with that, because it's not our ideology and, from what our people are telling us, it doesn't work. You say you represent rural people. Well, I certainly don't see you representing them in here. The government needs to take stock, the Treasurer needs to take responsibility and this Prime Minister needs to own up to it.”
“In my electorate, we don't have the highest mortgages. But with this interest rate rise—and I've already spoken to people in my electorate—people are now deciding whether they pay for food or whether they pay for pharmaceuticals. These are business owners. These are farmers, pensioners, students and people going to university who are deciding whether to buy food or going-back-to-school supplies. It's no wonder that we have the highest insolvency rate of businesses in 35 years—35 years! But it's 'business as usual, and we'll ask a political question for the last question of question time.' We are going to see over the next decade a sea of red, of deficits, because of the policies and ideology of this government. They will continue along with net zero, and damn the cost for ideology.”
“It was about why standing orders were suspended. All they wanted to do was talk about what's happening in this bubble. They didn't want to talk about what's happening to people on the ground. The point of that is that it was completely political. The last question in question time—the show people want to watch to hear answers to questions from those across this side—was deliberate and political and had nothing to do with people because you don't care. The government doesn't care. It was complete spin. It was a very deliberate question, to take the shine and the spotlight away from a failing Treasurer and a failing government and a failing economy. What we see is that that will continue. We see the unlucky No. 13. This is the 13th rate rise since this government came into power—$1,300 a year. These are normal people who are being affected.”
“Before the member for Eden-Monaro leaves the chamber, I refer to her last contribution. In the past, with disasters in my area and in previous times, we have worked very closely together. Where credit is due, I will certainly give the member that credit. However, your last speech was rank with hypocrisy in saying we were looking at ourselves—looking backwards, not looking forward. What was the last question in question time about? Was it about the interest rate rise that will cause the majority of households to pay another $1,300 a year? No, it wasn't about that. Was it about the housing crisis? No, it wasn't about that. Was it about the fact that electricity prices have gone up 38 per cent? No. Was it about gas going up 42 per cent? No? What was the question about? Was it about the economy? Was it about how people are suffering? No.”
“tap spirit means: (a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or (b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system. This relates to having spirits on tap. I've already spoken at length about that, and I commend it to the House.”
“(2) In this section: CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty in the following: (a) the rate column of subheading 2208.20, 2208.20.10, 2208.20.90, 2208.30.00, 2208.40.00, 2208.50.00, 2208.60.00, 2208.70.00, 2208.90.10, 2208.90.20 or 2208.90.90 in Schedule 3; (b) the rate column of an item in the table in Schedule 4A or a later Schedule that relates to a subheading in Schedule 3 specified in paragraph (a). indexation day has the same meaning as in section 19.”
“I move the amendment on sheet 2 circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 30), after section 19AABC, insert: 19AABCA Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits Temporary freeze in indexation (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 19(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days: (a) 1 August 2026; (b) 1 February 2027. Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year. Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 19(1)).”
“It is not based on health objectives or modern consumption patterns. Labor's Henry tax review all the way back in 2010 acknowledged it was a mess, but nothing was done, and it's only gotten worse. This amendment takes the sensible, responsible step to start fixing that mess. It requires Treasury to review the current alcohol tax system and report back to parliament with options for reform. This is a system we have had for over 100 years without a major review, and it's long past due. A review will create the evidence based policy that is needed to restore common sense to our alcohol tax settings, and I commend the amendment to the House.”
“That is what this amendment is about. To its credit, the government, under pressure from the National Party, has agreed to pause indexation on draught beer for two years, and it's no surprise that we support it. But it's really nothing more than crumbs from the Treasurer's table; it will deliver less than a cent per pint, and it's not good enough. It doesn't fix the system. It doesn't deal with the fundamentals. Only a thorough review of our alcohol tax settings can do that. For years now, on both sides of politics there has been a broad acceptance that Australia's alcohol tax system is broken. It is overly complex. It taxes similar products in wildly different ways. Beer, wine, spirits, cider and ready-to-drink products are all taxed under a completely different regime, often with no clear policy rationale.”
“Australians are already paying over $100 in tax on a litre of some spirits, compared to around $15 in the United States and about $60 in New Zealand. We know exactly what this kind of policy leads to. We've seen it with the tobacco excise. The government jacked up tobacco taxes year after year, ignored warnings and told Australians it was all about health outcomes. But what actually happened? Smoking rates went up, criminal gangs moved in, the illicit trade exploded and tax revenue collapsed. There were more smokers and less revenue—less revenue to fund health services, the exact opposite of what the tax was intended to achieve. That's one of the biggest public policy failures in Australian history, and I fear the same will happen with the tax on alcohol unless the government starts taking this problem seriously.”
“Having a drink with your mates is part of who we are, especially as Australians. It's how people stay connected, especially in regional Australia, yet today Australia has some of the highest alcohol taxes in the world and one of the most irrational systems for collecting the taxes. Alcohol taxes are automatically indexed to inflation twice a year, every February and August, regardless of what's happening in the economy, regardless of the cost-of-living pressures and regardless of whether pubs, clubs or consumers can afford them. This means Australians are getting hit twice—first, they're hit by inflation pushing up the price of everything, and then, second, they're hit by these automatic tax increases. You pay more, and they collect even more tax.”
“The amendment on sheet 1 would require the Treasury to conduct a comprehensive review of Australia's alcohol tax system by 2 November 2026. This amendment is about one simple truth: on our current course, the Australian way of life is being taxed and inflated away by the government prioritising ideology and spin over the lives of everyday Aussies. While inflation is easing overseas, Australia's inflation again rose in December. When the cost-of-living crisis is being added to by a further 3.8 per cent, it's becoming an emergency. Australians are doing it tough. Young families can't afford homes. People are struggling to put food on the table, and now, thanks to a government that has lost control of inflation and that is obsessed with taxing you, many Australians can't even afford a drink.”
“(2) In this section: CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty set out in: (a) item 2 of the Schedule; or (b) subitem 3.1, 3.2 or 3.10 of the Schedule. indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A. tap spirit means: (a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or (b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container: (i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and (ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system.”
“I move the amendment on sheet 1, circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert: 6M Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days: (a) 1 August 2026; (b) 1 February 2027. Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year. Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)).”
“This isn't a radical position, and it's not likely to break the government coffers. It's just basic fairness. At a time when Australians are struggling with the cost of living, the least we can do is make sure relief measures don't arbitrarily favour one group over another. I urge the House to back this sensible, fair and modest change and ensure that, when relief is provided, it's provided equally. Thank you.”