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 3 of 19.
“The ACCC found that, despite capacity growth outpacing passenger demand for six consecutive months to January 2026, fares in December 2025 was still 4.3 per cent higher than December 2024. The Qantas Group and Virgin Australia now service nearly 99 per cent of Australia's domestic passengers. In a duopoly, if you are unhappy with your service, you have limited options. We see the limitation of options in the recent actions of Virgin, where it put in place a situation where Australian consumers were about to lose $93 million in credits relating to COVID era cancellations. The fact is that if an airline cancels your flights, you may then lose your reason for taking that trip. The reasonable response to that would be for the airline to refund the money you have paid for that ticket.”
“In 2025, Qantas recorded a domestic cancellation rate of 2.7 per cent, significantly above the long-term industry average of 2.2 per cent. QantasLink did worse: 3.6 per cent. On-time-arrival performance across the city fell below historical benchmarks, with fewer than 80 per cent of flights arriving on time in several of the months of 2025. In December 2024, only 73.7 per cent of flights arrived on time, well below the long-term average of 80.5 per cent. One in five flights are not arriving when they are scheduled to. Despite some improvements since the chaos of the post-pandemic years, Australian passengers still have to contend with delays and cancellations that are among the highest in the developed world. There has been some recent improvement in those measures, but the numbers are still too high. Meanwhile, airfares remain elevated.”
“I've previously, in this House, referred to Qantas and Virgin as 'the mafia of the skies'. For far too long we have seen the airline industry fail to respect and protect the consumer rights of passengers. This legislative package, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill and its associated bills, does represent some progress. The establishment of an independent aviation consumer ombudsperson, an aviation consumer protection authority and the framework for a passenger rights charter are all steps in the right direction. But the legislation still falls short of the changes which have been recommended both by experts and the AEC. It falls well short of the protections that are delivered in comparable countries and the protections that Australian travellers deserve. Let me begin with the facts.”
“Together, these amendments strengthen the bill's legislated objective of empowering consumers, of improving transparency and fairness and of restoring confidence in a private health system that has to work for patients, not against them.”
“Finally, transparency is meaningful only if its effects are monitored, and amendment 5 introduces an annual reporting requirement on trends identified in pricing and billing data. This would enable a parliament to monitor whether or not this legislation is working, whether specialist fees are moderating and whether the millions of Australians who access specialist care every year are actually and genuinely benefiting from the information that will be available to them as a result of this legislation. By embedding these amendments in the primary legislation, we will give those millions of patients greater certainty.”
“Amendment 3 will create a culture in which specialists can be confident about adjusting fees downward, knowing that the system will recognise, reflect and reward those actions. The legislative objective of this bill centres on transparency. In my view, the bill must not allow fee figures or the high-fee threshold to be determined behind closed doors. Amendment 4, therefore, requires the minister to publish, through legislative instrument, the method used to calculate those figures. The medical sector should be able to see, to understand and, where necessary, to scrutinise how the system assigns a fee against the services that they deliver. An opaque methodology would undermine trust, and it would contradict the transparency that this legislation is designed to deliver.”
“The quality of specialist service varies, sometimes significantly, but not in the way that fee structures imply. Publishing quality indicators will empower patients to choose medical practitioners on their merits, and it provides the system with an important signal: quality matters just as much—in fact, even more than—fees. Amendment 2 also enables the publication of information about practitioners who charge upfront fees or who rely on gap cover arrangements. These can be key drivers of unexpected out-of-pocket costs. Next, access to timely data matters. If a specialist materially reduces their fees, the Medical Costs Finder should reflect that. Amendment 3 ensures that doctors who lower their fees will not be punished by outdated, high, historical figures presented as their fees of record.”
“That's what the government is proposing under this legislation. Patients need to know what a physician's or surgeon's typical costs look like, but they also need to be able to identify those doctors who bill a lot more than their peers. Publishing distributional price information will help patients recognise unusually high fees and compare specialist fees more readily—and, in time, could shift demand away from those outliers who bill excessively. Amendment 2 broadens the information that may be published under this bill to include quality indicators, things like complication rates, readmissions, repeat procedures and patient reported outcomes. Many people innocently assume that, when it comes to medicine or even the law, higher fees signal higher quality. But the evidence—and my experience as a doctor—does not support that assumption.”
“(3) The Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 6 months after the end of the financial year. Australians deserve clear, accessible information about the true costs and quality of medical care. For much too long, we've been forced to navigate a system in which price signals have been opaque and quality indicators virtually invisible. These amendments will strengthen the government's bill such that patients and practitioners have meaningful transparency, information asymmetry is reduced and we can potentially create downward pressure on specialist fees. Firstly, amendment 1 explicitly allows the publication of median fees, interquartile ranges and information on fees that exceed a new high-fee threshold. Patients need to know more than just an average single fee.”
“(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 26 (after line 26), after section 66-12, insert: 66-13 Annual audit of product phoenixing practices (1) The Minister must cause a review of private health insurance product changes during each financial year beginning after the commencement of this section to be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year. (2) The review must consider: (a) each application made in the financial year in respect of a *product subgroup under section 66-8; and (b) each application made in the financial year in respect of an insurance premium under 66-10; and (c) each designated change to a *complying health insurance product in the financial year; and (d) the number of cases where product phoenixing behaviour was identified in the financial year; and (e) any issues or recommendations.”
“(6B) The amount worked out in relation to a particular kind of professional service, in accordance with a formula determined under subsection (6A), is the high fee threshold for that kind of professional service. (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 19), after section 124ZZA, insert: 124ZZB Annual report (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year beginning after the commencement of this section, the Secretary must publish a report about trends identified in the information published under section 124ZY. (2) Such trends may include: (a) movements in median price ranges in respect of particular kinds of professional services; and (b) geographical variation. (3) The Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 6 months after the end of the financial year.”
“(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 21), after subsection 124ZY(2), insert: (2A) The Minister must publish any formula used to work out an amount of medical expenses for the purposes of publication under this section. (2B) If the Minister publishes information about medical expenses in respect of particular kinds of professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners, and the Minister becomes aware of a material reduction in those expenses, the Minister must update the published information as soon as practicable after becoming so aware. (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 36), after subsection 124ZY(6), insert: (6A) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine formulas for working out amounts of medical expenses in relation to particular kinds of professional services.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6), circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 11), after paragraph 124ZY(2)(b), insert: (ba) information about amounts of medical expenses incurred in respect of particular kinds of professional services, including median and interquartile ranges for particular kinds of professional services; (bc) information about amounts of medical expenses incurred in respect of particular kinds of professional services that exceed the high fee threshold for those kinds of professional services; (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 21), at the end of subsection 124ZY(2), add: ; (e) quality indicators such as complications rates, re-admissions and patient-reported outcomes for particular medical professionals; (f) information on professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners that incur upfront fees; (g) information on professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners that utilise gap cover arrangements.”
“My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. Minister, the Kooyong community recently mourned the loss of Neale Daniher. Neil bore motor neurone disease with dignity and strength. I have another community member, Graham Crossan, also living with MND. Graham's 80. He's ventilator dependent, and he needs 24-hour care. But your integrated assessment tool says he doesn't qualify for the highest level of support. It's a disgrace. Minister, how can you possibly justify your integrated assessment tool to Australians like Graham?”
“It will come from building a transport system that is less dependent on imported fuels, that is electrified, that is energy efficient and that is insulated from global geopolitical shocks. That is the broader challenge before us: not simply how we choose to respond to the current fuel price crisis but how we prepare Australia for the next one.”
“Australians taxpayers are subsidising very profitable companies to continue to burn imported fossil fuels. They are sending taxpayer money up in smoke. If we are serious about strengthening Australia's energy resilience, about reducing our exposure to global fuel shocks and about accelerating the transition to cleaner transport then we cannot continue to subsidise fossil fuel consumption, on one hand, while scaling back support for lower emissions alternatives on the other. The lesson from recent months is clear. Temporary fuel excise relief may help households, and it might help businesses weather an energy crisis, and for this reason I do support the measured tapering the government has proposed in this bill. But long-term energy resilience will not come from emergency excise cuts.”
“Did it bring decarbonisation? No. Despite committing in its own climate strategy to trialling electric trucks from 2024 and rolling them out across its fleet in 2027-28, BHP has now spent more than $500 million on new diesel trucks and has put the brakes on its shift away from diesel trucking. It's not a coincidence; it is cause and effect. According to analysis by Fortescue, the 51.6c-per-litre fuel tax credit halves the return on investment on electrification. BHP's own leaked documents confirm as much with its internal modelling flagging changes to diesel pricing or credit availability as a potential decarbonisation risk factor and its internal projections suggesting that BHP expects to cut it's emissions by only one per cent by 2030.”
“What's most frustrating is the clear and apparent cognitive dissonance in the government's policy settings. While this government has long been emphasising the need for energy security, it has kept in place longstanding fuel tax concessions for some of Australia's largest fossil fuel users. I don't know how many times the crossbench has raised this issue in the House, but the Albanese government continues to provide over $10 billion every year in fuel tax credits which disproportionately benefit large, fossil-fuel-intensive industries. The diesel fuel tax credit is not a neutral tax concession; it is a $10 billion-plus annual incentive to industry to keep burning fossil fuels. BHP alone reportedly received $622 million in fuel tax credits in 2024 and at the same time posted around $10 billion in profit. What has that subsidy brought?”
“But, at the same time, at the very moment that consumers and businesses are considering alternatives to imported fuel, some of the government's policy settings, which have actively supported the energy transition, are being wound back. The fringe benefits tax exemption for electric vehicles is being narrowed from 1 April this year. I appreciate the government's desire to better target tax concessions, but we have to be very careful not to undermine one of the very few policies which has demonstrably accelerated the EV market and uptake in Australia. Some versions of the Tesla Model Y cost close to $90,000. If we limit the FBT tax exemption to cars under $75,000 from 1 April 2027, as is planned, we risk discouraging uptake of some of the most popular EV brands in Australia.”
“We cannot assume that the same combination of favourable circumstances, strategic stockpile releases and alternative supply routes will be available the next time we have a major disruption of this sort. Energy security should not simply be a crisis response; it must be a long-term national security priority. Record fuel prices have accelerated local interest in electric vehicles, with the Tesla Model Y becoming the first electric vehicle to top Australia's monthly vehicle sales charts when it became the country's bestselling car in May. That's not just a consumer trend; it's a reflection of Australians who are seeking protection from volatile global fuel markets. For many households, EVs are no longer just an environmental choice. They are increasingly an energy security choice and a cost-of-living choice.”
“Emergency measures always carry with them a degree of uncertainty and a degree of anxiety. Strategic reserves exist to cushion temporary disruptions, not to provide a permanent solution. Many of the stockpiles accumulated over decades have now been drawn down. Rebuilding them is going to take time, and that reality should serve as a reminder of the fragility of the global energy markets. The combination of geopolitical conflict, constrained shipping routes and tightening supply can quickly expose vulnerabilities in countries that rely heavily on imported fuel. Unfortunately, at this point, Australia remains one of those countries. Despite recent measures from the government, the reality is that our domestic refining capacity is modest. We remain highly dependent on imported refined fuels.”
“As a result, our reserves have been built up to 44 days worth of petrol, 39 days worth of diesel and 32 days worth of jet fuel. But the truth is that Australia has been protected from what could have been a much more severe supply shock. Major fuel-consuming nations, including Japan and China, drew heavily on their strategic reserves. China significantly reduced its imports, easing pressure on global markets. The International Energy Agency coordinated releases of 400 million barrels of oil from emergency stockpiles, helping to stabilise supply and moderate price volatility. Those measures were effective, but they were also quite extraordinary. I congratulate the Australian government—the Albanese government—on securing our energy security through this crisis.”
“Before we commit hundreds of millions of dollars in additional support, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we should have a clear understanding of how much relief actually reached houses, businesses and freight operators. While the reduction in the fuel excise undoubtedly provided some relief, Australia has also been lucky in the last few months, particularly on the supply side. In the wake of the conflict, Australia was able to dramatically increase imports of crude oil from South Korea, jet fuel from Malaysia, and diesel and petrol from the US. Australian importers even bought 50 million litres of jet fuel from the US, which is a rare supply route. Our supply chains held together remarkably well, with 92 fuel shipments arriving in Australia over this period.”
“But, having said that, I think we need to be sure that these measures have genuinely translated into lower prices for consumers and for businesses. The measures in this bill will cost about $400 million, on top of the $2.9 billion in forgone revenue from the first three-month reduction in the excise. Australians deserve to know that the benefit will be reflected at the bowser and not absorbed elsewhere in the supply chain. Given that taxpayers themselves are funding this relief, parliament should be able to assess whether it has delivered the outcomes promised. I would welcome greater transparency from the government on how much the excise cut actually translated into price reductions at the bowser. The crossbench sought that data yesterday, when we were first briefed on this legislation, but it has yet to be provided.”
“They're now below the levels they were at the time the conflict first began. But although petrol prices have eased considerably, diesel prices remain elevated. They're still averaging about 20c a litre more than when the conflict broke out. We also have ongoing uncertainty about the resolution of that conflict. So an abrupt removal of excise relief would potentially impose a very significant shock on small businesses, transport operators, truck drivers, freight companies and the wider logistics industry, which is reliant on diesel to operate. A phased withdrawal provides businesses with greater certainty, and it will allow time to adjust to prevailing market conditions, acknowledging the ongoing geopolitical uncertainty and the failure to secure a clear end to hostilities in the Middle East.”
“On 1 April this year the government halved the fuel excise and suspended road use charges for heavy-vehicle operators. That was a direct response to disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East. As we know, that initial relief is due to expire next week, on 30 June. The government has now introduced this legislation to taper that relief, rather than abruptly withdrawing it. Under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026, the initial 50 per cent cut in the fuel excise of 30c per litre will drop to 16c per litre from 1 July and then phased out from 2 August. It's my view that tapering this relief is the right approach. Since fuel prices peaked at the end of March, petrol prices in most capital cities have dropped by about 90c a litre.”
“By 2029-2030 that will increase to nearly $30 billion. Some of those tax credits are legitimately helping farmers and other people in the agricultural sector, but nearly half are going to the mining sector to help it continue its fossil fuel use, rather than helping it to decarbonise. So, as we invest $500 million in sustainable transport over a decade, I ask the government whether giving $5 billion in diesel subsidies to mining companies every year is the right set of priorities for our country's future.”
“They're deliberately separated from traffic for safety and for amenity. There's a reason why we don't necessarily want them to be immediately adjacent to roads. Excluding them makes little sense if our goal is genuinely to grow safe, clean, quiet, low-emission active transport options. I call on the government to reconsider eligibility criteria for this fund and to revise them such that they reflect the full diversity of active transport infrastructure that communities want. While I'm here, I'm pleased that the government has invested $500 million over 10 years, but think about how much more we could invest if we didn't give hundreds of millions of dollars to fossil fuel subsidies. The last budget shows that, in the next financial year, the Commonwealth will provide nearly $11 billion to off-road diesel users alone.”
“It's an ideal candidate for federal and state funding to decrease traffic congestion, decrease emissions, improve commuters' health and increase the safety of pedestrians, bike riders and scooter riders as well. But the project is not currently eligible for funding under this scheme, because some sections of the trail aren't immediately adjacent to a road. This is exactly the sort of off-road greenway infrastructure which encourages people to choose cycling or walking over driving. It's the sort of route that feels pleasant, safe, green, connected to nature. It's a route that has birdlife, where you might enjoy a ride or a walk to work in fresh, clean air. You can see the odd kangaroo and sometimes even a seal in the Yarra. Many active transport paths run through bush, park or lakeside settings.”
“I call on the government to open up this process to local communities so they can contribute their needs and their desires. I'm calling on the government to expand the eligibility parameters for the fund. Currently only publicly owned road assets or corridors are eligible for funding under the Active Transport Fund. To meet existing eligibility requirements, active pathways must be on or immediately adjacent to road assets or corridors as defined by the National Land Transport Act. This is an unnecessarily narrow definition. It excludes some of the most valuable and well-used active transport infrastructure in our communities—pathways, for example, like the trail from Box Hill to Hawthorn, in Kooyong, which I've spoken about repeatedly in this place.”
“I, along with other members of the crossbench, wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in February of this year asking her for additional investment in this fund, so I'm really pleased that the government has responded to calls for that. The fund is an important investment into reducing transport emissions and promoting liveability and public health across our country. The department responsible for the Active Transport Fund has advised that program guidelines are currently being revised and will be published ahead of the next tranche opening for applications, which is expected shortly. It's not clear at this stage whether that revision of the guidelines will be open for public submission.”
“I thank the member for Swan for bringing this motion. In the 2026-27 budget, the Australian government has committed ongoing funding for the Active Transport Fund. It's $500 million over 10 years from 2026-27 to support construction of and upgrades to bicycle and walking paths across Australia. This commitment builds on the $100 million over four years delivered in the 2024-25 budget. Due to strong competition and high demand from communities across the country, that earlier tranche of funding was quickly exhausted, which was a clear sign that Australians want better cycling and walking infrastructure and that local governments and community organisations are very ready to deliver it.”
“Instead, the Albanese government continues to provide more than $10 billion every year to fuel tax credits which disproportionately benefit large fossil-fuel-intensive industries. If we are serious about incentivising the clean energy transition, we have to stop subsidising fossil fuel industries when we should be helping them decarbonise. I will always support genuine progress on electrification. But this parliament's job is not to applaud. It's not to navel-gaze. It is to scrutinise. On the FBT exemption, on charging infrastructure and on fuel tax settings, this government still has a lot of work to do. EVs can't stall, but progress can. I urge the minister to go even harder to drive EV uptake.”
“Regulations based on a single measure—power to weight—which don't consider other safety characteristics of cars have resulted in a perverse outcome, which governments need to consider, review and revise. We do need to continue to improve EV infrastructure, in Kooyong and across the country. Range anxiety remains real. It's particularly problematic for renters, for apartment dwellers and for those travelling through or living in rural and regional areas. The government has to do more to build public charging infrastructure. We need binding targets. We need investment in fast charging along all the major transport corridors. We need standards requiring charging capability in all new apartment buildings. We can do these things. We can invest in ongoing FBT exemptions and in EV-charging infrastructure.”
“Some versions of this model cost close to $90,000. If we limit the fringe benefits tax exemption to cars priced at less than $75,000, we risk discouraging uptake of some of the most popular EV brands in Australia. Globally, Australia remains an electric vehicle laggard. To grow our share of cleaner, cheaper vehicles, we have to remain an attractive market for manufacturers, and we have to foster a bigger second-hand market. If the FBT exemption is narrowed too quickly and too aggressively, before a critical mass of affordable models is really established, then that EV transition could stall. I'm also calling for the government to reconsider restrictions on P-platers driving EVs. Anomalous regulatory settings mean that new drivers can legally drive three-tonne RAM 1500 pick-ups but not Model Y Teslas.”
“But I'm concerned that the Albanese government plans to scale back the FBT exemption from 1 April next year. The FBT exemption has been one of the most effective levers driving EV uptake. Right now, the FBT exemption is available for all eligible vehicles below the luxury car tax threshold of $91,387, but, from 1 April 2027, only EVs costing less than $75,000 will be eligible for that full exemption, and, from 1 April 2029, EVs under $75,000 will receive only a 25 per cent discount on payable fringe benefits tax. I support targeted tax concessions and I support sustainable budget management, but not at the cost of withdrawing support at exactly the time that the EV market needs the confidence to grow. In the year to date the Tesla Model Y has been the most popular EV sold in Australia, with more than 10,000 units shipped.”
“I thank the member for the Illawarra for moving this motion. The share of new vehicles sold that are electric or plug-in hybrid has grown from less than two per cent in April 2022 to almost 30 per cent today, and that exponential growth in clean transport sales now sees 515 Australians buy an EV every single day, compared to only 29 four years ago. I support this progress towards cleaner, cheaper transport, and I support policies which put zero emission vehicles within reach of all Australians. So I commend the government on retaining the fringe benefits tax exemption on electric vehicles in the May budget. That's something that I have advocated for, to the economic roundtable last year and prior to this budget. I'm glad to see that that advocacy has succeeded.”
“The last-minute extension of the current arrangements, which came at the end of last week, was after sustained pressure from the RACGP, the AMA and other expert groups. In response to that advocacy, I'm glad to see the government extend verbal assignment of benefits until July 2027. Without that change, our bulk-billing system would have been under immediate administrative threat. Bulk-billing increases are real in some parts of this country, and they're certainly welcome. But Medicare's long-term health depends on rebates keeping pace with the actual cost and complexity of care, and on the administrative architecture supporting access, not undermining it. I ask the government to turn its attention to both of those things.”
“Finally, I want to acknowledge the changes to assignment-of-benefit requirements announced by the government late last week. Prior to that change, bulk-billing in many practices, community health centres and aged-care facilities was under immediate threat. For patients who can't easily engage with a digital consent workflow—children, people in mental health crises, people with intellectual disability, elderly patients who don't have a smartphone, people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, aged-care residents—a failed consent capture means that either their bulk-billed service goes unpaid or it's converted to a private bill. I wrote to the minister several times, raising urgent concerns about this proposal.”
“Almost half of all respondents, 49.8 per cent, said that they had missed health care that they needed in the last year, and the leading reason for that was cost. Two in three, 67 per cent, of those who skipped dental care said that they just couldn't afford it. More than half, 54 per cent, of those who failed to fill a prescription said the same. Only one in three Australians felt confident that they could afford medical care if they became seriously ill. When even the most transparent, most accessible part of our healthcare system is generating that level of cost anxiety, it tells us something about the pressure that the whole system is under—cost pressures on patients who need care and cost pressures on practices to maintain bulk-billing.”
“That's not a sustainable model when we have an ageing population with increasing rates of chronic illness. The government continues to fail to overhaul how Medicare rebates are designed, and the rebates are not keeping up. The Medicare rebate was indexed by 2.6 per cent this year. That's against general inflation and wage growth much higher than that. Every year that the rebate is indexed below the annual cost of running a practice—lower than wages, rent, compliance and insurance—that's a year in which the gap between what it costs to deliver a bulk-billed service and what Medicare pays for it widens further. A recent Consumers Health Forum survey gives us a really clear idea of the current patient experience in Australia.”
“According to Cleanbill, 147 electorates out of the 150 in this country have experienced an increase in out-of-pocket costs on average to see a GP in the last year. The Medicare Benefits Schedule was built around short, episodic consultations, but that model no longer reflects the reality of general practice. More than half of all Australians have at least one chronic condition, and a growing number have two or more. Managing complex multimorbidities takes time, but GPs who do that are financially penalised for doing so. Recently, the Grattan Institute found that GPs are paid as much as $15.41 per minute for a two-minute bulk-billed consultation, as opposed to $3.30 a minute for consultations for more complex issues that take as long as 20 minutes.”
“I thank the member for Reid for moving this motion. I'm happy to acknowledge that bulk-billing rates increased in every state and territory in the last quarter. The Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program is having a measurable effect, and the government deserves credit for that. However, for the GPs and the patients of Kooyong, the experience of Medicare in 2026 is much more complicated than the headline figures suggest. In south-eastern Melbourne, the bulk-billing rate is essentially static—it's just over 74 per cent—and for those patients who attend practices that aren't able to bulk-bill, the average out-of-pocket costs increased by 9.4 per cent in the last 12 months. It is now $93.44.”
“I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name: That all words after "notes that" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "(a) the public health harms of smoking are significant, including that around 24,000 Australians die every year from smoking; (b) Australia's illicit tobacco trade had an estimated total economic cost of $4 billion in 2023-24, contributing to serious organised crime and community violence; and (c) the influence of tobacco industry lobbying on public health policymaking is significant, including that: (i) there is a revolving door between government and tobacco lobbyists, with around half of tobacco company lobbyists, including third-party actors, having held positions in the Australian government before or after working for the tobacco industry; (ii) representatives of a major tobacco company, Philip Morris, reportedly appeared before the Senate inquiry into the illegal tobacco crisis in Australia in closed sessions not listed on publicly available hearing programs; and (iii) the industry's push for a 50 per cent cut to tobacco importer customs duty is estimated to deliver annual tax windfalls of approximately $2.3 billion to multinational tobacco companies; (2) calls on the Government to heed expert calls to legislate to prohibit political donations sourced from tobacco industry interests, including the tobacco retail sector, under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; and (3) further notes that the above measures, along with restrictions, enforcement and penalty provisions contained in this bill, are necessary to address the public health and community safety harms posed by tobacco to Australians".”
“But I also urge this government to have the honesty and courage to confront the failure of its vaping prohibitions and to confront the enforcement resourcing gaps at the state level, as well as the question of whether further excise increases are actually reducing smoking or enriching organised crime and the question of the tobacco industry's ongoing and well resourced lobbying campaign to shape this parliament's answers and its actions.”
“The amendment that I'm moving calls on the government to prevent an industry, whose products kill 24,000 Australians every year—66 Australians every day—from purchasing political influence at the federal level. This parliament has previously failed to legislate such a ban, despite many calls from health groups, despite existing state-level obligations and despite our treaty obligations. We have an opportunity today with the bill, which is already appropriately focused on the harm that the tobacco trade does to this country. I thank the government. With this bill, they are holding fast against the tobacco industry's, its lobbyists' and the voices for hire's efforts to reduce the tobacco excise.”
“The tobacco industry is the only commercial sector that is the subject of an international treaty specifically designed to insulate government policy from its influence, and that treaty exists because the industry's long history of manipulating public debate and purchasing political access has been extensively documented. We saw that just last month. A major tobacco company was granted a secret hearing into one of our Senate inquiries, while public health organisations waited their turn. The tobacco industry's current push for a 50 per cent cut in the tobacco customs duty is an influence campaign which is worth potentially $2.1 billion to the three major multinationals. When commercial actors of that scale can make political donations, the extent of policy capture is obvious.”
“At a federal level, most major parties voluntarily refuse tobacco industry donations, but the National Party continues to accept them—in 2024-25 alone, $137,500 from Philip Morris and $88,000 from British American Tobacco—and One Nation has also accepted tobacco industry donations in the past. In relation to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the guidelines adopted by treaty parties in 2008 called for article 3.5 to be implemented across all branches of government, including legislators. Our legal obligations are clear, but we're not yet acting on them. This parliament should legislate immediately to prohibit political donations sourced from tobacco industry interests, including the tobacco retail sector, under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.”
“The tobacco industry can't be made to compete on price with organised crime. Any proposal to cut its taxes to address criminal supply chains is unsupportable. Having said that, there is little point to further tax increases unless they're going to actually increase revenue and decrease smoking, and, given the scale of the current illicit market, there's no good case for an increase in those excises. I'm moving an amendment to this bill which highlights the issue of the tobacco industry's influence in this debate and which calls on the government to prohibit political donations from the tobacco industry under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Political donations from the tobacco industry are already prohibited in states like New South Wales.”
“We have the most expensive legal cigarettes in the world, but the illegal tobacco trade flourishes in countries in which cigarettes are much cheaper than they are in Australia. To compete with the black market, the price of legal cigarettes would have to fall dramatically. Such a reduction in price would be regressive and it would harm public health. Canada's experience in the 1990s, when it halved its excise to combat cigarette smuggling, is quite instructive. Smoking rates rose, particularly among young people, quitting rates fell and the illicit trade persisted. It's also worth noting that there is no legal mechanism in Australian law to guarantee that these multinational cigarette importers would actually pass any tax cut down the retail supply chain to customers.”