Monique Ryan
Kooyong · Independent · Australia
“I second this motion and commend the member for Curtin's motion to refer the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 to the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. This should not be a controversial request.”
“What about the clinicians, the researchers, the public health experts and the community organisations who have spent years documenting the devastating impact of gambling addiction? Some of them have been given days to review this complex legislation and provide feedback on it to a very limited extent.”
“After this sort of delay, the government has no excuses for not getting this legislation right. But it's rushing to introduce legislation that has been denied input from the public.”
“They're special relationships, the glue that holds us together. For Emily, Matt and Lucy, Noah and Maia, Millie and Rory—I know you share those special relationships and I know that they'll continue. I know that Rich knew that too. Parkrun is something we all do together. It's really symbolic of Rich.”
“We were fortunate to have people in our lives who gave us a sense of what was possible—doctors, engineers, teachers and scientists. We learnt the importance and the wonder of learning and science. There was always plenty of sport. We participated in everything, but particularly footy.”
“The government has not responded to that recommendation appropriately. Its proposals fall well short of that. There are ongoing and serious questions about the extent to which this legislation will provide any support or any protections for children and for vulnerable Australians.”
The complete record
Every one of 938 lines we hold for Monique Ryan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 19.
“When we think about what has shaped the cultural identity of most of the people fortunate enough to sit in this place, we think of the stories told on our screens. We recall with fondness Skippy the Bush Kangaroo , A Country Practice , Hey Hey It's Saturday and, particularly for those of us who grew up in Melbourne, Neighbours . Old people like me think of Seven Little Australians and The Sullivans . Some of us picked up career inspiration from shows like The Young Doctors , and some of the more wily members of this house likely picked up a few tips on how to win friends and influence people from Prisoner , Total Control , or even Underbelly . Those shows did more than just entertain us; they reflected who we are on screen.”
“My question is for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Australian medical research saves lives. It boosts our economy. It improves our domestic security and it provides aid to our region. The Medical Research Future Fund was established to support the sector with $1 billion dollars a year, but your government is spending only $650 million annually. Could you please tell the dozens of medical researchers in the gallery today why it is that you're withholding the support that we committed to, and that their sector needs and deserves?”
“Australia's air and water would be protected from actions that would significantly impact their quality, and there would be civil penalties and offences in place to enforce those protections. I commend the amendment to the House.”
“We don't yet have the promised national environmental standards for matters of national environmental significance, but these could, in any case, be bypassed by ministerial rulings or by the national interest loophole. And this bill's definition of unacceptable impact is so loaded with qualifiers and sets a threshold so high that it will not capture habitat essential to the survival of even the most critically endangered species, nor will it prevent the contamination of groundwater aquifers. So I propose this amendment, which seeks to raise clean air and water to the same level of national environmental significance as our most important environmental values.”
“The WHO estimated that, globally, air pollution causes seven million deaths every year. Last year, outdoor air pollution was estimated to be linked to almost 4,000 premature deaths in Australia alone. Effective environmental governance is absolutely essential to protect air and water quality. Instruments such as the US Clean Air Act and the US Clean Water Act have already demonstrated the potential for regulatory frameworks to reduce pollution and to restore ecosystems. As it is, this bill offers inadequate protection for the water trigger that we've already legislated in this House. Under the current laws, it is specifically excluded from bilateral approval agreements and from regional plans; under this bill, it is subject to devolution.”
“According to the European Environment Agency, 73 per cent of ecosystems in the EU exceeded critical loads for nitrogen deposition in 2022. That threatens species diversity and ecosystem stability. Pollution induced by diversity loss is particularly severe in freshwater ecosystems, where reduced pH levels and chemical contamination, including with PFAS, disproportionally affect aquatic species. Airborne pollutants also damage forest and soil microbiomes; they weaken the ecological networks that sustain terrestrial biodiversity. The link between environmental quality and public health is well established. Exposure to polluted air causes respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Contaminated water contributes to gastrointestinal infections, to neurological disorders and to developmental issues in children.”
“Degradation of these resources through pollution disrupts ecological balance and leads to cascading effects across our ecosystems. Air pollution, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, releases harmful substances, like particulate matter, nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide, which contribute to acid rain, smog formation and global warming. Water pollution introduces toxic substances into our rivers, wetlands, lakes and oceans. It affects aquatic life, causes algal blooms and harms biodiversity. Biodiversity underpins the resilience of ecosystems by supporting essential systems like pollination, nutrient cycling and climate regulation. Air and water pollution are among the leading drivers of biodiversity loss.”
“Clean air and water are foundational to the health of our ecosystems, to human populations and to our planet at large. As the global community grapples with the escalating challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and public health crises, the protection of these vital resources has become more urgent than ever. Safeguarding air and water quality is not just an environmental necessity; it's also a prerequisite for sustainable development and for human wellbeing. Air and water are integral components of the planet's life support systems. Clean air regulates climate, supports plant photosynthesis and maintains atmospheric balance. Similarly, clean water sustains aquatic ecosystems. It supports biodiversity, and it's essential for agriculture and for human consumption.”
“Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code . 24F Requirement for informed public participation The Minister must be satisfied that that any decision to permit increased air or water pollution in any area to which this Act applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed public participation in the decision making process. To ensure environmental protections and to underpin conservation, our ecology has to be protected as a whole. That's why I'm introducing an amendment to this bill to include clean air and water as matters of national environmental significance.”
“(4) Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency or person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) there is in force a determination under section 79E that the action may continue to be taken and the action is taken in accordance with the conditions (if any) specified in the determination; or (c) Part 4 lets the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency or person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (d) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (e) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process).”
“Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495. Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.”
“Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495. Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C. (3) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person takes an action that: (i) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or (ii) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance; and (b) the action is taken in: (i) a Commonwealth area; or (ii) a Territory.”
“(2) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person takes an action that: (i) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or (ii) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance; and (b) the action is taken for the purposes of trade or commerce: (i) between Australia and another country; or (ii) between 2 States; or (iii) between a State and Territory; or (iv) between 2 Territories. Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.”
“Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495. Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.”
“I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 18), after item 60, insert: 60A After Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 of Chapter 2 Insert: Subdivision FC — Clean air and water 24F Requirement for approval of activities that may affect air and water quality (1) A constitutional corporation, or a Commonwealth agency that does not enjoy the immunities of the Commonwealth, commits an offence if the corporation or agency takes an action that: (a) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or (b) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance.”
“The Freedom of Information Act 1982 is legislated as an act 'to give to members of the public rights of access to official documents of the government of the Commonwealth and of its agencies'. That is a worthy activity for any government. Any restrictions on those rights of access have to be limited and they have to be proportionate to prevent transgressions of those rights. I commend these amendments to the House.”
“If we let these provisions of secretiveness pass, if we hide who has lobbied the government, if we hide what information is before ministers and if we hide who is benefiting from government decisions, we are losing our battle for integrity and accountability in this democracy. Amendment (6) addresses the right to freedom of information. It changes the requirement for exempting cabinet documents from requiring a dominant purpose to requiring only a substantive purpose of being for cabinet consideration. I support the member for Mackellar in her related amendment to section 7 regarding the addition of new considerations for not releasing these documents. Those considerations, as given in this legislation, are too broad, too loose and too easy to misapply.”
“I now come to the more egregious parts of the government's bill: its deliberate move to keep Australians in the dark on this flimsy pretext of national interest. We see this pretext in this and other bills, including the environmental protection of biodiversity conservation bills currently being debated in the House, which reference the FOI Act as grounds for the minister not to publish decisions in the so-called national interest. If the government's decisions are lawful, sound, based on the best advice, in the public interest and, indeed, in the national interest, then they should be shared with the people. We need to stop the rot.”
“To protect the privacy of individuals, it is appropriate that a person seeking their personal records should provide their name and their proof of identity so that personal material is not wrongfully given to another person. However, in seeking public interest material, there may be a reason—a very good reason in some instances—for a requester not to be identified. If release of the material is in the public interest, it doesn't matter who the requester is. It only matters that an address for response is provided to facilitate the actual provision of the information. My amendments (4) and (5) make this distinction, protecting the privacy of individuals and the anonymity of public interest requests.”
“Similarly, the government has argued that departments risk being overwhelmed by FOI requests which are being generated by bots. It has sought to treat multiple requests for the same information as a single request, but this is irrational. If two or more requests for the same document are from different sources, they should clearly not be treated as the same request. For example, a matter of public interest might well be sought by more than one media outlet. The government's solution to this issue is unnecessarily restrictive. I therefore propose a solution in amendment (3) to maintain reasonable access, under which requests could be considered and treated as being different requests if different addresses are supplied under the section 15(2)(d) notification. The government has sought to prevent anonymous requests with this bill.”
“(6) Schedule 7, item 3, page 61 (line 4) to page 61 (line 10), omit the item. (7) Schedule 7, Part 3, page 64 (line 1) to page 65 (line 5), omit the Part. The FOI Act enshrines a right to access information and protects individuals' rights by providing them access to the information held by government about themselves. The objects of this act are clear and they should not be qualified or restricted. My amendments (1) and (2) omit the government's proposed qualifiers to this fundamental statement of the objects of the act. What is proposed by the government is the introduction of the notion that promoting representative democracy must be balanced with efficiency. Representative democracy is not practised only when convenient. The objectives of openness and transparency should not be qualified.”
“(5) Schedule 2, item 54, page 20 (lines 21 to 31), omit paragraph 15(2)(e), substitute: (e) if the applicant is seeking to access, on behalf of another person, a document containing personal information about the other person or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of the other person: (i) state that the request is being made on behalf of another person; and (ii) include the full name of the other person; and (iii) be accompanied by all of the following that are provided in a form and manner specified by the agency or Minister for the purpose of requests under this section: (A) proof of the applicant's identity; (B) proof of the other person's identity; (C) proof that the applicant is authorised to access the document on behalf of the other person.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 10 to 21), omit the item. (3) Schedule 2, item 41, page 16 (line 18) to page 16 (line 24), omit subsection 15AD(6), substitute: Multiple requests (6) For the purposes of this section, the agency or Minister may treat 2 or more requests as a single request if: (a) the agency or Minister is satisfied that: (i) the requests relate to the same document or documents; or (ii) the requests relate to documents, the subject matter of which is substantially the same; and (b) the details given in relation to the requests in accordance with paragraph 15(2)(c) are the same. (4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 20 (line 4) to page 20 (line 11), omit the item.”
“It is confounding that this government proposes to be so evasive and so circuitous. If the government's decisions are lawful, sound, based on the best possible advice and in the public interest and, indeed, the national interest, why be so coy? Get out there and share it with the people. I put it to the government that concerns regarding frank, fearless and timely advice from public servants are not best addressed by increasing secrecy, that it should proactively publish information as requested and needed by our constituents, that the principle of proactive disclosure underpins a confident and effective democracy and that a core democratic principle is accountability by the government to the people that it serves. On those grounds, I cannot support this legislation.”
“Revisiting the past yet again, I invoke the 2013 Hawke review, which agreed with the former Commonwealth Ombudsman John Wood that officials should be happy to publicly defend any advice they give to ministers and that, if they are not happy to do so, they should perhaps rethink that advice. Insertion of a public interest test at the same time that this government has expanded the capacity for national interest approvals via the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act presents the Australian public with the extraordinary possibility that this government could approve massive new fossil fuel projects, highly polluting critical minerals projects or rare earth mines and then deny to the public any information or any rationale relating to the basis of those approvals.”
“But by far the most egregious part of the bill—the attempt to draw the curtains, turn off the lights and hide behind the couch—is the insertion of a public interest test. This would allow ministers to block the release of documents if they determine that such is not in the public interest. One basis for the test is suggested to be that such disclosure would or could be reasonably expected to prejudice the frank or timely discussion of matters or exchange of opinions between participants in deliberative processes of government. This clause reflects the claim that FOI can impede the ability of senior public servants to provide frank and fearless advice to ministers.”
“But, instead, the Attorney-General proposes the very opposite. Instead of repealing the confidentiality exemption, this bill expands that exemption. No longer does a document have to be for the 'dominant' purpose of going to cabinet; it is enough if it is for a 'substantial' purpose. So documents which might be prepared to brief ministers on issues which might come up in cabinet would be included, and so would consultants' reports and other attachments to cabinet submissions. This, again, is directly in opposition to John Faulkner's establishment of the dominant purpose test in 2009. This administration is demonstrating regression on the standards set by previous Labor governments.”
“The robodebt royal commission found that documents related to robodebt were deliberately marked 'cabinet-in-confidence' to ensure that they were not released. In her report around the matter, the royal commissioner noted that the deception at the heart of robodebt would have been discovered much sooner had those cabinet documents been available to the public and to the media through FOIs. She recommended that the relevant section of the FOI Act be repealed and that the description of a document as a cabinet document should no longer be in and of itself justification for maintaining the confidentiality of that document. She suggested that confidentiality should only be maintained over cabinet documents, or parts of cabinet documents, where it can be reasonably justified for an identifiable public interest reason.”
“The bill also creates a means of refusal of requests for information, a practical reason to justify refusals if the work involved in processing the request is felt likely to substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, or, in the case of a minister, would interfere with the performance of the minister's function. These are somewhat nebulous and undefined reasons for refusal and they are clearly going to be open to abuse. The robodebt royal commission gave rise to grave concerns regarding abuse of cabinet confidentiality exemptions. Robodebt was an unlawful scheme. It caused immeasurable injury. Its authors knew that that was the case, but they deliberately, dishonestly and immorally acted to conceal that knowledge.”
“The bill also reintroduces fees to lodge a request, excluding those for personal information. FOI application fees were abolished in 2010 when then Australian Information Commissioner John McMillan argued this was a part of making public requests for documents, and that FOI requests should be more routine and accepted part of the daily business of government agencies. In 2013 the Hawk review explicitly recommended application fees for FOI requests not be restored. The Attorney-General has failed to provide any reason why this should happen. Again, these fees could block access to FOIs and to transparent government by the most vulnerable. They are an unjustified nuisance tax by what has become an arrogant administration.”
“The rationale for these changes was the purported involvement of foreign actors, but the government has failed to provide evidence supporting those claims. The government claimed that foreign adversaries are using FOI to obtain information in a way that could be contrary to our national interest. But FOIs reveal information that should be public, and they cannot force the government to release anything that would be inappropriate for the public to know. So in the absence of any evidence that foreign actors are actually submitting vexatious requests, we have to suspect this claim is speculative. The prohibition of anonymous applications could have a chilling impact on vulnerable individuals, potentially whistleblowers, and others who may fear retaliation for very legitimate reasons.”
“Labor's proposed freedom of information changes are a direct reversal of the reforms Labor itself introduced in 2009. One wonders what John Faulkner would think of them. It is true that the freedom of information system is experienced by most who engage with it as being slow and frustrating. Departments are under resourced, and they often use unreasonable and unnecessarily obstructionist tactics, which result in frustrating delays and backlogs. As Crikey described in its recent submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill, those tactics create a feeling of 'administrative torture so unfathomable as to be undemocratic'. The government has claimed it has been forced to address a flood of frivolous vexatious and AI-generated requests. Its response to these is to restrict FOI access to all Australians by prohibiting anonymous applications.”
“Those concerns were noted by now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese when he said in 2009 that we needed to reform our freedom of information laws so they could not be flouted by government. Indeed, prior to the 2022 election, the ALP said that Labor intended to make government more open, more accountable. They said they intended to strengthen freedom of information laws, and to foster compliance with them throughout the government. Sadly, the bill now before the House reflects a government which is actively seeking to limit the public's access to information about its administration. The government was returned this year with a massive majority yet it lacks clarity of purpose, integrity of action, and a real commitment to transparency and openness.”
“It's 43 years since the initial freedom of information legislation was enacted in this place. It was at that time a significant achievement—a strengthening of our democratic process. Sadly, that achievement is undermined by the legislation which is now before the House. The FOI Act enshrines the right to access information. It protects individuals' rights by providing them with access to information about them held by the government. It protects the public interest by providing transparency of government expenditure around government activity and government decision-making. Over time, we have seen a number of governments wanting to prioritise efficiency over transparency but that's a concern for public integrity and it is a concern for the democratic process.”
“We need to join together across the political lines to effectively address an ongoing blight on the Australian industrial landscape.”
“It should establish a new oversight body and legislative framework, staffed by a cross-jurisdictional police taskforce and representatives from industrial regulators, government agencies and industry representatives, to provide us with the accountability and cultural change that is required to permanently address the issues within the construction sector—not just within the CFMEU but also within the labour hire industry and the construction industry more generally. This body should be developed with engagement across the parliament. It should be protected from political attack after every change in government. While bribery and corruption are allowed to fester in our construction industry, we all pay the price.”
“I ask the government to provide adequate resourcing to support all levels of police and all levels of government to conduct thorough investigations into cases involving misuse of public money, abuse of powers of the union and fraud by actors in the construction sector. I ask the Labor Party to put a permanent stop on receiving any donations or fees from the CFMEU. I ask the federal government to withhold infrastructure funding from state projects until the states show convincing evidence of their effective policing of criminal activity within the sector. I also ask the government to put in place a successor to the administrator.”
“That administrator, Mark Irving, recently noted that the work of his administration can only take the union so far. The problems across the industry are myriad. No single agent has the responsibility or the resources to fix all of them. On behalf of the citizens of Kooyong, who have long expressed concerns about the criminal activities of the CFMEU and their effect on housing costs in our state, I call on the government to have the courage to act on this issue and to ensure that this country has a construction industry in which criminal behaviour is not tolerated, in which public investment in infrastructure maximises value for money and productivity and in which politics and politicians prioritise public interest over financial and political relationships with unions and lobbyists.”
“Our concern then, which remains, was that the CFMEU's infiltration by criminal elements and its actions within the construction industry compromise the integrity of government spending. They cause individual and social harm through alleged criminal activity, they increase building costs and they worsen housing affordability, business costs and inflation while eroding our economic productivity. The Albanese government abolished the failed ABCC and the Regulated Organisation Commission, but it has not yet regulated an appropriate replacement body to exercise long-term oversight of the industry. The administrator it appointed in August 2024 has encountered very significant legal, operational and cultural challenges in reforming the union.”
“Elements of this behaviour have been documented repeatedly by royal commissions and other inquiries, but they've never been effectively dealt with. We've heard from courageous journalists and from members of the industry that legitimate businesses and individuals are too susceptible to intimidatory tactics—they're too frightened of the potential for commercial or personal retribution to seek redress or to speak publicly about the ongoing issues within the CFMEU. It's clear that the coalition's Australian Building and Construction Commission failed to bring these issues under control. It oversaw declining construction industry productivity and an increase in workplace injuries and deaths. In July 2024, along with crossbench colleagues, I asked the government for urgent and comprehensive action regarding the CFMEU.”
“For over a century, unions have played a vital role in securing Australian workers' rights by advocating for fair wages, safe working conditions and job security. They've helped enforce workplace laws, protected against unfair dismissal and promoted equality and inclusion, by driving major reforms like paid leave, superannuation and antidiscrimination protections. Today, women are more likely than men to be union members in Australia. Women unionists have led campaigns for equal pay, for paid parental leave, for antidiscrimination laws and for accessible child care. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, is an outlier. For years, it has been accused of corrupt and criminal misconduct and of having a culture of violence, intimidation, misogyny and bullying.”
“On behalf of Australia's 600 craft brewers, and on behalf of millions of Australian beer drinkers, I commend this bill to the House.”
“In that craft beer industry, beer sales support Australian workers and local economies. The independent beer sector employs more than 8,000 people directly, and many brewers also contribute to hospitality and tourism in the way that they've designed and run their businesses. A permanent cap on the draught beer excise would be of great benefit not just to the hundreds of local brewers who employ thousands of Australians but also to the communities in which they live. It would be a much bigger benefit to them than it would be to multinational beer corporations. Deputy Speaker Georganas, to paraphrase a famous old beer ad which both you and I are, sadly, old enough to remember, a hard earned thirst needs a big cold beer, and the best cold beer is one that you can actually afford.”
“Despite what many people think, these are not, or are no longer, Australian brands, and it might well be an issue for the ACCC to look at, because what I'm hearing from constituents and from people who own bars and have a strong interest in this issue within the electorate of Kooyong is that independent brewers face real challenges with the rising cost of ingredients and of energy. They're also dealing with softening consumer demand, and they're dealing with stiff competition from large retailers like Coles, which are increasingly selling their own home-brand beers in a way which largely mimics craft styles. Many small brewers for which excise increases were deferred during the struggles and the hard times of COVID are now struggling to deal with that debt in what has proven to be a persistently tough economic climate.”
“In fact, roughly 85 per cent of the Australian beer market is controlled by two foreign owned companies. I think it would surprise many pub goers to learn that household names like VB, Carlton Draught and XXXX are owned by large Japanese companies. Asahi owns CUB, 4 Pines, Balter, Yak Ales, Matilda Bay and Mountain Goat. Another Japanese brewer, Kirin, owns Lion, and hence it owns Little Creatures, Hahn, James Boag, Tooheys, James Squire, Stone & Wood and White Rabbit.”
“The impact of high inflation on the excise indexation over the last few years has left the price of draught beer simply too high. I'd make a case that we should stop automatically indexing the beer excise. This freeze should be permanent. A permanent cap on the indexation of draught beer excise will help millions of consumers tackle cost-of-living pressures in their homes. Right now, it's more expensive to enjoy a beer in my home city of Melbourne than it is in Tokyo, in New York or in London. Melbourne can't be the world's most livable city if you can't afford a beer while you live there. A permanent excise cap will also support Australia's emerging craft beer industry. Despite the rapid very recent growth of small independent brewers, the draught beer market in Australia remains saturated by big international brands.”
“The average price of draught beer has gone up by over 30 per cent in the last three years. This rise, which is considerably higher than that of inflation, has occurred in the middle of our cost-of-living crisis. Contributing to that rising cost is the automatic indexation of the beer excise every six months, which effectively forces price increases well ahead of the annual CPI. What that means is that, while households continue to face the rising costs of food, of housing and of energy, the humble beer has become almost a luxury item. There is some good news, though, for Australia's beer lovers. It is within this government's power to act on this particular cost-of-living issue. So it is pleasing to see the government's commitment to freezing indexation on draught beer, but it's not clear why we have to freeze it for just the two years.”
“As the inflation dragon has roared through our economy, the Albanese government has been at pains to tell us that there are limits on what it can control: the independent RBA sets the cash rate; Woolworths and Coles have become two of the world's most profitable supermarkets thanks to sharp rises in the cost of essential foods; and, on the east coast of Australia, domestic gas prices have surged since they were aligned with the global price for polluting gas. The price of most grocery items is set by the markets but the government is not a powerless bystander in this space. There are some everyday items in which the government does have a hand in price-setting, and one of those is the price of a draught beer. That's right—the price of a cold one, a pint, a schooner or a pot.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 but to suggest some means by which it could be improved. Australians continue to live in the grip of an ongoing, severe cost-of-living crisis. Tomorrow, the Reserve Bank is expected to keep an anticipated cash rate cut on hold after inflation exceeded recent forecasts. That has been driven by rising costs for basic necessities like housing, food and energy. The rising cost of living has been a challenge which has confronted millions of Australians for some years now, with inflation having risen so sharply since our economy bounced back from the COVID induced recession.”
“Then Australia will just be known around the world as vegemite lovers and addicted gamblers. I don't have any drama with being thought of as a Vegemite lover, but none of us want us to be thought of as a nation of addicted gamblers. To finish, this is what the kids said to me: We would like you to try and push for more government funding towards educating people about the effects of gambling on themselves and their loved ones. We want a proactive effort before it's a reactive effort. I thank the students from Auburn South for their powerful advocacy, and let me pledge to them that I will continue working on your behalf and push the government on this really important issue.”