Garth Hamilton
Groom · Liberal National Party · Australia
“Every parent wants better for their kids. That's why we turn up to work. That's why we save. That's why we drive them to piano lessons, take them to sports and put effort into their lives—because we want better for them.”
“I think these are terribly challenging things when we consider that. But part of the solution to dealing with these issues about making the future brighter is positioning our policy around our kids' future and reminding ourselves of the hard work that not only parents must do but governments must do to prepare that better future.”
“I don't blame that, because the thrust of the conversation was good jobs and good pay and finding the balance between those who wanted to invest and those who wanted to invest their labour, and then, between that, finding that balance to say, 'I want you to have your job; I want to protect your job, but I want to make sure that business i…”
“I talk to young kids about the impact of social media and what they see on a regular basis, what my kids see on a regular basis, and how that impacts them. We hear the challenges of social cohesion right here in Australia, let alone what's happening around the world.”
“on indulgence—With reference to the incident in the chamber yesterday, I would like to withdraw my statement. I would like to apologise to the House and to you personally, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the member for Hunter and others opposite for their kind friendship during this period.”
“1 message I got back from them was that they were concerned about what was laid out in their future; they could not see the pathway to prosperity that had been laid out for previous generations—the way that they could have the same things that previous generations had. They didn't want to take it away from those who'd got there.”
The complete record
Every one of 208 lines we hold for Garth Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“I think these are terribly challenging things when we consider that. But part of the solution to dealing with these issues about making the future brighter is positioning our policy around our kids' future and reminding ourselves of the hard work that not only parents must do but governments must do to prepare that better future. The appeal of chaos diminishes the longer into the future it has to be in place. I think that's part of the political debate that we have to have here. That left-right debate is a good debate when it speaks to stability, when it speaks to balance and when it speaks to finding the best way for Australians to have good jobs and good pay. For our communities to be protected and for their jobs to be protected, I think this is the conversation we should be having.”
“I don't blame that, because the thrust of the conversation was good jobs and good pay and finding the balance between those who wanted to invest and those who wanted to invest their labour, and then, between that, finding that balance to say, 'I want you to have your job; I want to protect your job, but I want to make sure that business is thriving so that your jobs are encouraged and our nation can grow and prosper.' That's a good conversation to be having today. Today we find ourselves questioning the very value of our institutions. I can't believe we're doing this. We're questioning the value of consensus between parties. We're seeing a 'my way or the highway' approach to politics. We're questioning political gradualism versus urges for revolution in the political sphere.”
“I talk to young kids about the impact of social media and what they see on a regular basis, what my kids see on a regular basis, and how that impacts them. We hear the challenges of social cohesion right here in Australia, let alone what's happening around the world. These are things that we never thought we'd see, with Australians pitching themselves against Australians. I think that drags down that sense of optimism that we've all carried—that sense of optimism that's the reason we do the hard work. That future somehow looks a little bit less bright. There was a time in this place when politics was a bit more left-right.”
“Every parent wants better for their kids. That's why we turn up to work. That's why we save. That's why we drive them to piano lessons, take them to sports and put effort into their lives—because we want better for them. One of the great things about Toowoomba, while we have great schools, great hospitals and people coming to our region, is the opportunity that's provided in a region like mine. But the more I talk to my constituents, particularly in these times, I find that parents are losing that optimism. Having watched the changes that are taking place in the world around us, I can't blame them. When we turn on the news, we hear of geopolitical changes, with the world moving from rules based order back to spheres of influence. We see populist instability right across the world and the challenges to stable government that it presents.”
“on indulgence—With reference to the incident in the chamber yesterday, I would like to withdraw my statement. I would like to apologise to the House and to you personally, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the member for Hunter and others opposite for their kind friendship during this period.”
“And, goodness me, when we got to the heart of why this stuff mattered—for some of them, it was starting businesses, but, for all of them, it was starting families and how this impacted their chances of having not just the prosperity but the same happiness that previous generations had had. I was encouraged, as I always am when talking to the younger generations—I'm incredibly optimistic. They see the dangers of just wallowing in protest; they want to get involved. So my message to them was very clear: get involved in politics. It's the same thing I say to all kids who reach out and talk to us. Get involved; don't protest. It's fun. It feels good. You can vent your anger. Get involved. Join a party, whatever side you feel inclined towards. Get involved in politics. Make a difference.”
“1 message I got back from them was that they were concerned about what was laid out in their future; they could not see the pathway to prosperity that had been laid out for previous generations—the way that they could have the same things that previous generations had. They didn't want to take it away from those who'd got there. They wanted their own pathway and they wanted a future laid out for them. They made that very clear. The other thing that they said that really struck home was that they just wanted there to be some structural advantage to being an Australian—some in-built way that gets us ahead because of the hard work we do. They wanted structural advantage for trying hard, and they felt that was being removed from them. They wanted some structural advantage from working and saving their money.”
“I asked them, 'How politically engaged are you?' because it was interesting to see in that group—from about 24 to 27 in age—how switched on they were. They all said the same thing. They've never been switched on to politics before, but this budget drew them in. They were genuinely concerned about what the impacts would be. They'd seen a lot on social media—they'd seen all the memes go through—from other small businesses in the area, in Toowoomba, that were raising their concerns that this incredibly coordinated fear campaign Labor dreamed up was happening. Small businesses in my region were saying, 'We're really worried about where this is going.' So I went out to see them and I spoke to these kids. The No.”
“On the 8th of this month, I received an email from Nicole Carlile. This was after the budget. She wanted to reach out to me and share with me her concerns. She's a small-business owner in Toowoomba who owns Freedom Lifestyle and Fitness, which is just down the road from my office. The tax changes that she'd seen come through caused her to write in. She has three employees in her team of 10 who own their home already, but she was really concerned for the other seven, following conversations with them about what their hopes and dreams were for the future and what this budget did for them. She wrote to me, and I thought it was important to go and to hear her concerns, so, two days later, I was down in her office, meeting with her team. We had most of those seven in the room.”
“I was very, very pleased this week to receive a call from Minister Burke that he'd just signed permanent residency papers for these people. This was a case that my office had worked very closely with the minister's office on, and I could not be more grateful for this outcome. This is a family that my community got behind. This is a family that started a business, employs locals and helps out at the soup kitchen. They're engaged in their community. They're the people that we need. In a time when there's a conversation about monoculture, I say this: these are the people that I am so proud to represent. They've come here and they've contributed and they're a part of my community, and I am so grateful for the way that my community got around them.”
“Visitors in the gallery are about to see the rather combative nature of this place. I want to tell a story of something rather different, about when this place works and how that matters for local communities. Reyna Nangan and Karin Yechoku are two locals who came to this country with the desire to have a go, to work and to make a better life for themselves. They came to Australia and, through no fault of their own, got caught up in our immigration system. This case shows to anyone interested just how difficult it is for people to work their way and navigate their way through our immigration system. But, for 10 years, these guys, Raina and Corin have fought and tried to make their case because they wanted to be here. They wanted to be Australians.”
“In accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to multiple overdue questions in writing: questions 140, 146 and 161. I ask that you write to the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and seek explanations as to why they have chosen not to answer my excellent questions in writing within 60 days.”
“When we look ahead to what's in front of us in where costs are heading and why costs will continue to go up, we see it's storage and transmission. Sixty per cent of the energy cost rises will be due to storage and transmission costs. These are unavoidable components of the net zero plan. Costs will go up. There is a trade off. We will pay more.”
“I think it's fantastic to go back to that line, 'Trust the science.' Listen to the CSIRO: decreasing emissions will increase your 2050 electricity costs. This couldn't be clearer. This is a message that isn't just being delivered by the CSIRO. We are watching the world slowly turn away from those days when we were blindly told to trust the science. Of course, the US has turned. I find it extraordinary to watch Tony Blair arguing with the UK leadership to drop their net zero policies. They would only be following groups like the Net-Zero Banking Alliance or the major banks of the world who've walked away from this. The Net-Zero Insurance Alliance is much the same. We could look to our biggest trading partners, particularly China, who pay absolutely nothing more than lip service to it.”
“I think it was missed during the events at Bondi in December, which many of us will remember. This report didn't get covered at the time, but that line and that sentence is absolutely crucial to understanding Australia's future. There was a time when we were told to trust the science. Particularly, the people who gave us that line were people who were very strong proponents of net zero and of the moral cause of reducing our emissions. The staple of the argument was that lower emissions and lower energy costs would come without a trade off. That's what we were told. Australians were told that you could have both these things. You could have the morally good feeling and it would come at no cost to you.”
“I'm going to start by quoting from the CSIRO's GenCost report, on page 55: There is a clear trend that decreasing emissions increases 2050 electricity costs. I will repeat that: There is a clear trend that decreasing emissions increases 2050 electricity costs. This is from the CSIRO. This is from the draft version of their GenCost report. It's a report that's regularly referred to by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, though not that particular line. That line is often left out in quoting, but it's an important line because it could not be more definitive that lower emissions will come at a higher cost. That's the CSIRO; that's not me. That's not an opinion. That's not the coal industry. That is word for word, verbatim, in the CSIRO's own report, which came out in December.”
“Very simply, when you reduce supply and maintain demand, the price will go up. That is what will happen. That is basic economics. We've seen that time and time again. Debate adjourned. House adjourned at 22:00”
“We'll see fewer homes built by the private sector—35,000 fewer homes is the estimation of the government themselves, of Treasury. The number from Treasury is 35,000 fewer homes. That's what this is doing. It's as simple as that. In assessing the outcome of these bills, of these taxation changes, we will have fewer homes. If the societal benefit were to produce fewer homes, sure. The societal benefit put forward by the government was intergenerational fairness—that we would create more opportunity for the next generation. Well, we're not doing that. It's clearly failing the very test the government set out. This does not provide more fairness for the younger generation. This does not create greater opportunity to enter into the housing market for the younger generation. What it does is reduce the number of houses that will be built.”
“From taxes collected by Australians, which means that taxation revenue that would have been used for other things—hospitals, roads, schools and who knows what other good things—will now have to be deployed into the housing sector to make up for the 35,000 fewer homes that will be built as a direct result of these taxation settings. The worst bit about this isn't the outcome. The worst bit is that we all knew this was what was going to happen. It's exactly what happened in New Zealand when they did the same thing. As soon as you remove these, there will be a downward pressure. We will see less investment in the housing sector. When you tax something, you get less of it. So we will see less investment in the housing sector.”
“But the consequence is clearly a downward pressure on economic activity—in this case, in the housing sector. The fact that that particular detail was included in the budget papers was rather extraordinary because it really does just lay bare the biggest counterargument to every speech we've heard so far on this debate—that these taxation settings are driving down the number of houses that will be built by the private sector. The only way possible the government comes up with offsetting that is that we'll build houses ourselves. We'll fund social housing. Well, where is that going to be paid from?”
“I'm reminded of that when I hear my colleagues use the line, 'When you tax something, you get less of it.' That's just a modern way of saying the same thing. When you tax something, you get less of it. In the budget and the bill that we're speaking to tonight, we see a perfect example of that played out. I can remember very clearly reading page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 with great surprise that that budget paper would include in it the explicit line that the result of applying these taxation settings as proposed in this bill would be 35,000 fewer houses built by the private sector. That is a perfect example of taxation settings being deployed—no doubt with good intentions. There is no doubt that the societal benefit that they sought to deploy was there.”
“So we have this adage, which in the US context speaks to the issue of states' rights and that contest between the state and federal government, but in the broader context we talk about it in regard to how a government can apply its taxation settings and the careful balance that every government must find in using taxation settings to generate some sort of societal good to shape the economy around the needs of those who are most vulnerable or to provide opportunity for areas in growth which the government wants the nation to build towards. That must be balanced with the power of taxation to disincentivise investment. When done to a certain extent, to its fullest extent, the outcome is the death of a certain industry. That's what that comes to.”
“From the bottom of my heart, thank you very much, Speaker. I rise with great joy and enthusiasm this evening to speak on these tax reform bills. From listening to the debate so far, I'm reminded of the old adage that the power to tax is the power to destroy. This comes from the 1819 Supreme Court of the US finding in McCulloch v Maryland. At that time, the states were trying to destroy the federation's ability to produce banknotes. This was the second Bank of the United States. When a government decides to destroy something, when it decides to bring something down, the most powerful tool it has is taxes.”
“For years, we've been told that lower emissions and lower electricity prices were one and the same. But now we see, from the CSIRO, that there is a trade-off. Australians understand this. We understand that policy choices come with a cost. The issue isn't that there is a cost; the issue is that we've been told there wasn't a cost, and now the CSIRO is showing us the huge gap between Labor's ideology and reality—the gap between the slogans and the evidence, and the growing gap between what Australians have been promised and what they are paying each month in their power bills. You are not wrong if you think electricity prices are going up. It's because of this net zero obsession.”
“For years, Australians have been told the same thing: renewable energy was the cheapest form of power. We were told that net zero would deliver lower electricity prices. And we were told that, if we just followed this net zero obsession, households and businesses would be better off. But now, we have a remarkable admission—a remarkable admission from the CSIRO's own GenCost draft report. On page 55, it reads: 'decreasing emissions increases 2050 electricity costs'. Think about that. The government's chief scientific advisers are acknowledging what we all know: lower emissions come only with higher electricity costs. These aren't the words of the coalition or the coal industry. It's not an opinion piece. This is the CSIRO's own modelling. It's coming back on the Labor government, which has referred to this report over and over again.”
“I certainly have family history of it. I come from a regional community and town. Sadly, it's a fact of life. I have friends who have told stories about it. I have extended family members who have told me their stories. It is really difficult and confronting to do so. I remember my father telling me he was raised in a household that had domestic violence, and I always thought the best thing about my father was that he was somehow able to not continue that cycle on, and how he did that I have no idea. But that's a topic I want to talk about more—how we break that cycle. That was such an effort for him to say. I think on and hope that, in some way, I can take his example and bring it to this place and, in a cooperative, way work together to make this issue one that we can be proud of the efforts that we've done here.”
“Whilst we might have different views as to the solutions and the priority of solutions that we would have, I have always believed that we have a bipartisan approach to dealing with this. On my side, I'll acknowledge Peter Dutton's strong positions with regard to domestic violence and the discipline that he's certainly brought into our party in dealing with that issue as strongly as we can. I'll also acknowledge Julia Gillard's National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children in 2011. The effort to treat the issue seriously is from both sides. I would hope that is a continuing theme of my time in this place. The hard part is—and this is where I hope to get better with it. The truth is so many people have a domestic violence story connected in their lives, and it's really difficult to talk about.”
“I think, in the way that he does it, coming from a former policeman's view, there is the sufficient black and white when we're talking about where crimes have been committed and what lines have been crossed, but there's also a conversation to talk about men who are open to change. I think we need to have programs in place that deal with that. He addresses that very strongly. Between that strong law-and-order line and also working with people and being open and talking about it, I hope that there are things that we can do. I note the limitations of the federal government, and I know we have to work with the states and we have to work with our councils and our communities and those service providers as well. But I would really hope that that's something that can continue to have a bipartisan approach in this place.”
“A lot of people out in the west of Queensland and northern New South Wales, when they go through breakdowns, sadly often involving domestic violence—what we're seeing is this heightened group of women aged 55-plus who have decided to leave, and where do they come to from those regional communities? They come to Toowoomba because they hope that there are services there to support them, and the sad truth is our services are, like in a lot of places, just desperate. We do not have enough, and that's the truth. I thank Amanda for her work. I also will point out people like Tony Rehn from Toowoomba Together, who has really pushed the drive in Toowoomba to talk to men about domestic violence and what role men can play.”
“It's difficult for them to tell, and it's actually difficult to hear. I was speaking to the Minister for Social Services today about what help can be provided to electoral offices, because they have to deal with that too, and I think this is an important part. Sometimes people do come to us in their darkest hours. I'll be honest, what's forced me into talking about this—I'll be part of an article in the media in over the weekend that is, in part, based around the impacts of domestic violence. I felt it was important to talk up about this. Certainly, as a local member, when I go to places like Protea Place, a women's crisis shelter run by the unstoppable Amanda Dalton—she's done a great job of talking to me about the issues we face in a regional community like Toowoomba.”
“I'm going to use this opportunity to speak on the very difficult issue of domestic violence. In doing so, I will praise and acknowledge the work of the member for Lingiari. I've spoken to her in private, and also from dispatch boxes previously, acknowledging the hard work she does in talking about this issue—and also about empowering women, as she's done in her most recent speech. I've spoken on the issue before, but it's something I want to get better at. The reality is that it's a really tough conversation not only for us to have; I am sure that every one of us who's been in this job for a while will have had someone come into the electoral office and begin this conversation. What they're telling you, in essence, is that the person they love has done something very, very bad, and that's a really difficult conversation.”
“It reduces their opportunities to get into affordable housing. It will not help them. But there's one thing about this budget that I think really rubs people who I've spoken to about it. The idea that we would be introducing a death tax in 2026 is extraordinary, and I think that will hurt people a lot—particularly young people, who are looking ahead. Young people in my electorate wanted to have the opportunities we had. They wanted to have the pathway to prosperity that was created for my generation. It'll have to be a different pathway—sure. But we have to create it. That's our job. We have to find that. And this budget does not find that. There is no new pathway to prosperity. All there is is the closing of a door for the young generation, who are looking ahead and saying, 'I wanted that,' and now can't have it.”
“A basic, entry-level view of any economic theory will show that, if you maintain demand and reduce supply, prices will go up. But it is much worse than that for young people, because this budget confirms that there will have been two million people arrive in Australia during the first two terms of this Albanese government. This is an issue of simple mathematics. Not only are we reducing the supply of homes; we're increasing demand. You add both of those things together and the mathematics go one way: prices go up. Sadly, there is no moral outrage that one can apply to mathematics. It simply is. That is what will happen. Those are the courses that this government has chosen to take—to reduce supply and to increase demand. Prices will go up. So, on any assessment, does this budget help young people? No.”
“1 and read very clearly that the result of the government's taxation changes would be 35,000 fewer homes built by the private sector. It was exactly as everyone had been concerned about—that if done in an inaccurate way, the result would be a downward pressure on supply, and that's exactly what we have. Thirty-five thousand fewer homes will be built by the private sector as a result of these changes. There is nothing that can make that a good news story—absolutely nothing. When you frame this within the context of a budget that was being sold as one that addressed intergenerational inequality—the disparity between those who have and those who want to have—this is a laughable attempt at addressing the concerns of young people who are trying to get into property, because what it is doing is reducing the supply of housing.”
“For a long time both sides have argued, based on evidence from a study in New Zealand, that to make such changes would result in a reduction in the supply of housing. There is evidence of that, and that's always been offered as a reason not to make changes. Much to the chagrin of my party's leader of the day, I said I was always open to this conversations. I though we should look at it and have a discussion about it, but I had always had the proviso that we should do so in a way that never puts downward pressure on supply. That was my obvious proviso: if you want to talk about these changes, we must maintain supply. Clearly, at a time when supply is at its lowest level in our history, any changes can't negatively impact supply. When the budget paper came out, I got to page 158 of Budget Paper No.”
“I would point out that most of the steps that have been put forward by Labor are steps that were previously put forward by the opposition, some also by the crossbench. They're steps that are quite reasonable. They were subject to scare campaigns then. The government is now putting them forward. Unlike the government, I won't fight back. I'm very happy to engage. I think it's an important conversation. It was important when I was saying it then, and it's still important now. The other issue I want to talk about—and I think this has been the subject of much conversation with regard to this budget—is the changes to tax settings. I refer particularly to those relating to housing—negative gearing and CGT.”
“If you have a service provider who has the option of giving care at the same rate to someone with high needs versus someone with mild autism—I'm talking about the personal, intimate care that is required to be provided—they are going to choose the person with mild autism. They are not going to choose the person with high needs. Why would they? It's a much harder job, but they're being paid at the same level. I have seen that over and over again. We are disincentivising, through this scheme, care towards those who need it most. Sadly, I saw that firsthand. Residents in my electorate made me acutely aware of that, and I thank them for doing so. So I'm glad that we are finally addressing the growth of the NDIS. I think it's an important step.”
“I'm very happy and comfortable looking back at my public comments at the time, which I then doubled up again in 2025, repeating calls for the government to look at reforming the NDIS—again, much to the chagrin of the leader of my party of the day. I recall very clearly being absolutely shut down by Labor when I dared to raise the issue and say that it was worthy of reform, that it was worthy of keeping, and that to keep it, it required reform. I was the subject of something of a scare campaign. According to that scare campaign, it was my intention to kill the NDIS and to cut services—absolutely not. What I was concerned about was that there was a program in place that was disincentivising care and support for the most needy. We have seen that time and time again.”
“Back in 2024, I decided to raise my voice in public—much to the chagrin of the leader of my party of the day—that I thought that we needed to address the growth of NDIS spending. I made the argument then that this was becoming a very bad way of doing a very good thing. There's not a single Australian—and I stand very strongly with them—who feels that we shouldn't be spending some of our tax dollars looking after our most vulnerable and disadvantaged people. There's no question whatsoever. I'm proud of that. It makes us a good nation. It's something that we should always strive to achieve. However, it has been clear for a long time that the growth of the NDIS has been at an extraordinary rate.”
“What is the justification for keeping spending at that rate now? I think that's an important conversation for us, because it does have an impact. There is no surprise that in a period of continued heightened government spending that we are seeing inflation continue to stay high. In fact, homegrown inflation, as confirmed in this budget, will be five per cent. That's domestic inflation; that's not imported. That's what we're doing here. That's the result of domestic issues. We can't blame wars overseas for this. And that five per cent is above every other developed nation. There is a long-established link between government spending and inflation, and, sadly, we're seeing it here again.”
“If we look back to 2019, at the last budget before the pandemic hit, since then we have seen spending almost double. So we went through the pandemic. We agreed. Labor, then in opposition, supported and, in fact, wanted us to spend more and, on multiple occasions, pushed us to spend more than we were spending in our pandemic response. Having gone through that, we haven't reduced our spending at all. That spending hasn't come down. We've actually continued the same heightened levels of spending. We didn't come down afterwards, and I can't find the justification for that. During the pandemic, it was the decision of the government of the day to provide support to the states to allow them to individually manage how they responded to the pandemic. We provided that. We made that decision.”
“When you talk about the performance of a Treasurer or a government—the economic credibility, its legacy—one would think that the economic situation it leaves after it is the most important factor in determining that legacy. A government that leaves you a decade of deficits, after having delivered the highest taxing budget ever, that's an incredible legacy and one that this government should be ashamed of. It is also the highest spending budget in 40 years, outside of the pandemic. In the first term of this government, we heard about spending restraint from the Treasurer. I'm not sure that the word was being used as it is commonly understood. We have the highest spending budget in 40 years. There is no restraint. There is no spending restraint here at all!”
“I think that shows this government's lack of practical understanding of what it takes to do things. You can talk about a gas reservation all you like, but this will not create that. It's a challenge to the government. Can it put on paper something that can actually solve the problem it seeks to address? I look forward to that. But this budget is the highest taxing budget ever. Goodness me! In this economy, at this time, it is the highest taxing budget ever. What a challenge for future treasurers! How do you address the impact this will have? What this budget does in addition to being the highest taxing budget ever is it banks in 10 years of deficits.”
“That gas travels through a pipeline from Queensland to Victoria that is currently at capacity. There is no more reservation. There is no more room. It's at capacity. To have an east-coast reservation, you're increasing either the number or the size of that pipeline or you are opening up new gas projects down south, at the southern end of that pipeline. That's what an east-coast reservation actually, practically looks like. People have this idea that the government's proposing to build these tanks or some sort of storage capacity that's got to be around. No, there's a pipeline that's already at capacity. You can't push more gas through it. We're already at capacity, so to actually address this requires some significant change—far more than what the government has envisioned in this budget.”
“Before I before I go to more details, I want to speak on one issue that this budget does address which is a worthy point of conversation: what an east-coast gas reservation might look like. I think this is an important conversation. We are going through a period of time where it's very clear that, in terms of our resources, self-sufficiency is something that has had a heightened level of acceptance that we need to address in this country. The government, to their credit, have started that conversation. I think they have some issues to address, and I want to I want to lay out the practicalities of what it takes to establish an east-coast gas reservation. Ninety per cent of the gas on the east coast comes from Queensland, but 90 per cent of the usage on the east coast is in the southern states and mostly in Victoria.”
“It was something that we were looking forward to. As I've mentioned in other speeches, we invested. Locally, I can speak to one project where over $50 million of private investment was made in preparation for Inland Rail coming in. There are other sites that have also made those sorts of investments. To us, to have that project taken away from is was a big hit. It was a big hit to our plans for the future, for our future economy. It's a project that we are going to fight to try and maintain. It's a project that we think still stacks up, and we hope very much that the government will listen to our pleas to bring the Inland Rail to Toowoomba. We still think there are plenty of benefits that can be achieved from our region and for the nation by doing so.”
“It's good to follow someone else speaking on regional Australia and the impact of this government's budget. We are on a unity ticket; this is very much a Labor budget. I'm going to address some of the issues that I have with this budget. I think it is important to reflect on both the local impact and the broader one. Obviously, I'll start locally with the news we had dropped two days before this budget: the announcement that the government would not be pursuing Inland Rail to Toowoomba, which has a huge impact on our local economy and on local confidence. This was a promise that this government had made that the Labor, when in opposition, had made that they would maintain. We were never under any doubt that this project would be delivered. This was a project that was going to deliver huge benefits to our region.”
“What we have now, sadly, appallingly, in Australia is a battle for funding among NDIS, health, aged care and even veteran support. When I talk to people in health, aged care and veteran support, they have the very strong feeling that in that battle the NDIS is winning and they are losing. I sat with a gentleman, Scott May, in my office, and he said: 'Watch this. I'm going to show you the most heartbreaking trick ever.' He called up an occupational therapist and said, 'I'm a veteran; I need to see you.' I sat listening in on the conversation. The occupational therapist said: 'You're on veterans coverage. I've got a six-month waiting list. Call me in six months.' We then went outside and he bought me a coffee, and we sat and had a coffee for five or 10 minutes.”
“I also pointed out in July 2025 that, at that point in time, 15 per cent of six-year-old boys across Australia were on the NDIS. I made the point that clearly 15 per cent of young boys are not disabled. For daring to say that, the minister of the day slammed me as being reckless and heartless—for daring to talk about reforming the NDIS. I'm not raising this just to flatter myself. I do that far too often anyway, and I have the member for Page to help me on occasion. I'm doing it because this is an important program and what we're dealing with at the moment, unfortunately, is a battle. I'm going to acknowledge the member for New England, who joined me in my criticisms of the NDIS in July 2025 in that particular article.”
“I pointed out that we needed to do something to it, not just from a pure economic sense but because this was such an important project that both sides of politics had embarked upon that we could not risk losing confidence in it. I was told by the Treasurer that I was engaging in heartless slash and burn politics in the Australian of the day. A year later, in 2025, I returned to my criticisms and I pointed out two things. One was that the program at that stage was growing at around 12, 16 or maybe 18 per cent, that this was an extraordinary rate of growth and that both sides of politics should come together and find a way to limit its growth to somewhere around four per cent, just above inflation. If the growth was just above inflation, we'd know that no-one would be left behind, and then we could go through a broader reform structure.”