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 9 of 19.
“Gas only constitutes about six per cent of the overall energy mix in our national electricity market. But because of the way that the wholesale electricity market sets prices, high gas prices are still driving up electricity costs for households, and gas power generation remains vital back-up during periods of low renewable output and high demand. The east coast still has vast quantities of gas, but most of that gas is in Queensland and it's controlled by only three consortia. As production from the Bass Strait declines, the lion's share of production is going straight to export and the east coast still risks running out of gas. Around three million Australian households remain dependent on gas. In my home state of Victoria, that's 90 per cent of homes.”
“Qatar's decision to suspend LNG production, which accounts for about 20 per cent of the world's LNG, will significantly disrupt global energy supply. Much as it was in 2022, Australia's domestic gas market remains very exposed to global market shocks. Despite us being one of the world's largest exporters of liquefied natural gas, Australia's east coast gas market is tightly connected to international prices. When global prices rise, domestic prices too often rise as well. While the government has committed to implementing a domestic gas reservation scheme requiring LNG exporters to set aside 15 to 25 per cent of their gas for domestic use, that scheme will not come into action at this point until 2027. In the meantime, Australians, households and businesses remain vulnerable to high energy bills.”
“While these rebates did provide some important short-term relief during periods of high inflation and energy market volatility, their withdrawal means that now many households are fully exposed to the underlying cost of Australia's energy system. But domestic policy settings are only one part of the story. We're also experiencing a period of increasing global instability. The latest conflict in the Middle East is echoing the market shocks that we experienced in 2022. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, national household gas and electricity prices jumped by 27 per cent and 43 per cent respectively in the year to March 2023, forcing the government at that time to spend billions of dollars on subsidies. Today, we're seeing similar warning signs emerge in global energy markets.”
“On Tuesday, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures showing the biggest quarterly increase in housing prices in five years. But it's not just the price of owning or renting houses that is squeezing Australians; increasingly, it's just the cost of living in those homes. The rising costs of electricity, gas and other essential utilities are placing a heavy and growing burden on Australians across the country. Electricity costs rose by 32.2 per cent in the 12 months to January 2026, compared to a rise of 21.5 per cent in the year preceding. This represents an increase in the rate of growth of more than 10 percentage points in just one month. Part of the pressure on households come as state and federal energy rebates are wound back. That includes cessation of the Commonwealth Energy Bill Relief Fund.”
“My question is for the Treasurer. Treasurer, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Woodside doubled its profits. The PRRT fails to capture windfall profits from conflicts like those in Ukraine and Iran. In a cost-of-living crisis, will you impose a windfall tax on the excess profits of oil and gas companies so that Australians can feel confident that we will receive a fair return on our finite national resources?”
“There is no clearer example of this than the current federal legislation, which still permits active discrimination against women and against LGBTQIA+ people. That's federal legislation that was recommended for reform back in the 1990s. It is long past time that section 38 be repealed. I call on this government, with its supermajority, its dominance in the House and its stated commitment to this policy to action this repeal in this term of parliament.”
“That report, again, recommended that section 38 be repealed and that, instead, institutions should only be allowed to preference staff in line with their beliefs, so long as it was proportionate and reasonably necessary to maintaining a community of faith and so long as the expression of those preferences did not breach existing discrimination laws. Despite reportedly having a draft bill on hand to enact those changes, the Prime Minister has declined to make these simple changes unless there is bipartisan support—a situation which appears vanishingly unlikely. I hope that with International Women's Day—a day to be celebrated—passing us for yet another year, we are reminded that equality and the progress of women and of other vulnerable groups in our community can never be guaranteed or taken for granted.”
“He pledged then a commitment to reform antidiscrimination laws so that religious schools could no longer discriminate against their students and their staff. Once the Prime Minister was elected, his government commissioned the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct an inquiry into Australia's antidiscrimination protections for LGBTQIA+ students and staff in faith based schools. In 2024, the Australian Law Reform Commission released its final report into religious education institutions and antidiscrimination laws.”
“In some remote areas, faith based schools are the only educational institutions available to parents. Those institutions employ large numbers of people. In 2022, it was reported that non-government schools employed approximately 173,000 full-time equivalent teaching and non-teaching staff. Those numbers reflect the fact that faith based schools are a substantial part of our education system. They affect millions of Australians—students, staff, parents—every day. It's for those reasons that the Labor government and the Prime Minister himself have been on record for years recommending their support for the removal of section 38. In 2022, Labor moved an amendment to that end. As opposition leader, the now prime minister took this policy to the 2022 election.”
“In the more than 50 years since, Australia has elected an unmarried female prime minister, it has legislated to legalise same-sex marriage and has become more open and more inclusive of the many diverse groups within our community, including the LGBTQIA+ community. Plainly, section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act no longer represents Australian values and beliefs about equality. It is an anachronism. Today, religious schools, colleges and universities hold a really significant place in Australian public life. In 2022, about 1.4 million primary and secondary students attended faith based schools in Australia. Approximately 30 per cent of Australia's schools are faith based, and I'm proud to say that I attended one and my children have attended one.”
“She proposed that the exemption be subjected to a two-year sunsetting provision, and that, in the meantime, an inquiry into the provision be conducted by the commission. Ultimately, however, that exemption was passed without any time limit being attached. Subsequent inquiries by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in 1992 and the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1994 both recommended repeal of section 38. It's hard to comprehend that we recognised back then what we seem unable to recognise now. The Australia that passed those carve-outs, that allowed that discrimination in 1984, is not the Australia that we live in today.”
“All of these instances are and remain lawful under section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act. A version of these exemptions dates back to 1984, when Australia's Sex Discrimination Act was first introduced. It's been said that the exemptions which emerged at that time were in response to strong representations from private schools seeking the right to refuse to employ teachers in de facto relationships or women who became unmarried mothers. At the time, Labor stalwart Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan—no relation—was Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. At that time, in 1984, she considered that the proposed exemption was not consistent with the objectives of the Sex Discrimination Act.”
“In effect, this provision enables faith based and religious education institutions to fire or refuse to hire staff, as well as to suspend, expel, refuse to enrol, or disadvantage students simply because they are gay, trans, pregnant, divorced or unmarried. Section 38 enables them to discriminate with impunity. In Australia's recent history, there are documented cases of teachers who've been dismissed, refused employment or pressured to resign for being gay, for marrying a divorcee, for becoming pregnant out of wedlock or even for becoming pregnant with the assistance of IVF. There are cases where students have been forced out of schools or denied leadership positions based on their sexuality. There are cases of children who have been denied enrolment because a parent is trans or because their parents are in a same-sex relationship.”
“International Women's Day was last Sunday, 8 March. It's a wonderful celebration of the contributions of women across Australia and the world. As much as it is a celebration, though, International Women's Day is also a reminder that equality is something we need to defend, protect and advance every day of the year. That means confronting the inequalities that still exist within our own laws. In 2026, our nation still lacks equality in our discrimination protections. A notable example of this is section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which provides carve-outs that allow religious education institutions to discriminate against staff and students on the basis of certain characteristics. These include somebody's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.”
“Under this bill, their temporary visas, which they have obtained validly, often at considerable personal cost, could be suspended overnight. These are people who have already spent years waiting for the chance to visit family or to reunite with their loved ones, yet this temporary visa subclass 449 followed by a temporary humanitarian concern visa subclass 786 approach has removed the dignity and integrity from our migration regime. Instead, today, thousands of people who are overseas face the prospect that their already granted visas may be rendered unusable overnight, sometimes in circumstances where they don't feel that they can safely return home. If the government is committed to integrity in our migration regime, it should commit to special migration arrangements to those who are affected by this bill.”
“There is no upper limit on the number of times a class of temporary visitors might have their visas suspended. That shows contempt to people who have legally obtained temporary visas to visit this country. It means that those offshore who already have a valid visa may be deprived of any possibility of ever entering this country. Just think about the individuals affected by that. And there's no sunset clause on this bill, which would be a very appropriate parliamentary safeguard for legislation which has been rushed through to this extent. We know what has prompted this legislation. Today there are more than 7,000 Iranians holding visitor visas. Many of them cannot safely return or remain home due to ongoing conflict and instability in their country—conflict and instability to which we are potentially contributing.”
“The amendments I have circulated in my name seek to strengthen the test for making these arrival control determinations to ensure that the minister will satisfy a higher and more proportionate threshold before exercising this extraordinary power. My amendments will ensure that determinations meet both limbs of the test under section 84B, ensuring that there is a reasonable probability that a controlled determination is actually necessary. There are still significant issues with the drafting of this legislation. I'm concerned that the government's arrival control determinations are not disallowable instruments; they should be. They will not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; they should be. I'm concerned that the minister can re-issue control determinations seemingly indefinitely. That is wrong.”
“The explanatory memorandum claims that this bill is designed to maintain the integrity of our migration system. Integrity requires proper consultation, transparency and debate, none of which have occurred on this bill. If the government is serious about integrity, it should start by upholding the integrity of this parliament and of our legislative processes. This bill seeks to introduce significant changes to Australia's migration regime. It empowers the minister to suspend classes of temporary visas held by people offshore through so-called arrival control determinations. This is a sweeping power, one which could affect thousands of people who have already followed our migration rules in good faith and who have already obtained temporary visas in good faith.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or". (2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would". (3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would". The crossbench received this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, five minutes before the government briefed us yesterday morning—five minutes! The government introduced this legislation to the House one hour later. Members of the crossbench sought the call during the second reading to raise our significant concerns about it, but the government denied us the opportunity to speak. This bill was drafted for introduction only 10 days after the war began in Iran.”
“Older Australians deserve better than this. They deserve dignity, care and genuine needs based support. The government has an opportunity now to review, assess and iteratively improve Support at Home so it can be the program it was intended to be. It should do that as a matter of urgency.”
“Not only are there more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for these 'robo' assessments but there are over 130,000 people who have already been assessed and who are still waiting for Support at Home. And, once they do receive support, older Australians are getting less value for money. Many who were previously able to have their needs met through home care are now reporting reduced hours of support because of the rising costs of services. This is completely at odds with the government's promised no-worse-off principle. It's now four months since these reforms took effect. The system is unfit for purpose. It's relegating millions of Australians to a future of poorer health outcomes, lower quality of life and increased cost of living. This government promised a new era for aged care. Instead it has delivered an unfolding crisis.”
“When I asked the minister during question time recently about 'robo' aged care, I was prompted by constituents who saw that the sector's new opaque algorithm was stripping aged-care assessments of clinical judgement. I'm hearing stories of people seeking reassessment, only to be told that they're no longer eligible for aged care. I'm told that the algorithm is systemically underestimating older Australians' needs. I'm hearing from experienced clinicians who are forbidden to override the algorithm to recommend more appropriate levels of support. And I'm hearing from clinicians who have left the sector in distress over their inability to adequately support the aged.”
“When the government's new Aged Care Act came into force in November of last year, the minister declared a 'new era for aged care in Australia'. He promised 'once-in-a-generation changes' that would 'enshrine the rights of older Australians'. The minister was right. The reforms have ushered in a new era for older Australians. But it's one in which the futures of those who built this country are deeply uncertain, one in which frail Australians are being crushed by the cost of basic services and one in which far too many Australians, almost 5,000 last year, run out of time while stuck in a waiting queue. They die without the care and the support that they deserve.”
“These communities deserve adequate remediation of the dust, noise and pollution associated with those road projects now and into the future. The Allan state government promised it; they are not planning to deliver it. At a time when Victoria's Big Build is under intense scrutiny, with multiple public reports outlining serious misconduct and widespread corruption linked to the CFMEU, it is no wonder that residents have lost trust in this project. I call on the Victorian government to honour its commitments, to provide transparency to residents and to ensure that their health and amenities are not sacrificed for cost saving and convenience.”
“Last week I met with Kooyong residents whose homes backed directly onto the Eastern Freeway. While I was standing with them, a work crew arrived unannounced to cut down trees next to their homes. For more than a year, residents in Kew, East Kew and North Balwyn have raised concerns repeatedly about poor communication and lack of transparency from the Victorian government on the North East Link project and the Eastern Freeway expansion. Communities promised modern, effective noise walls have instead been left with decades-old plywood barriers, which will leave those residents exposed to higher noise and pollution levels, impacting their physical and potentially their mental health. This is a multibillion dollar project.”
“Nearly one in five Australian children defers dental care due to cost. In 2023-24 we saw 88,600 preventable hospitalisations for dental conditions in Australia. That is a stark illustration of how failing to invest in prevention costs us far more in the long term. Expanding preventive dental care, starting with children and older Australians would reduce chronic health risks later in life. It would reduce the incidence of chronic disease, diabetes and stroke in older Australians. Improving productivity in our economy doesn't have to be about asking people to work harder. It should be about building a system that works smarter, that invests in healthcare research, supports its workforce, reduces chronic illness and sees health not as a cost but as the foundation of prosperity.”
“Australia spends less than two per cent of its total health budget on preventive care, despite evidence that every dollar spent on prevention returns $14 in downstream savings from fewer chronic conditions, fewer hospitalisations and fewer years lost to disease. Chronic diseases are one of the country's largest drivers of lost productivity. In 2023-24 alone, Australia's health expenditure reached $270 billion. That was driven, in part, by avoidable chronic conditions that could be reduced through better prevention. People with chronic conditions are 60 per cent less likely to participate in the labour force and less likely to work full time. Early detection, healthier environments and community-wide preventive programs all reduce rates of chronic illness and resulting absenteeism. Nowhere is that clearer than in dental and oral health.”
“We need clearer scope-of-practice frameworks and a national planning agency with real authority to enable better workforce distribution. Another major productivity bottleneck lies in training. Students in many health disciplines have to complete hundreds of hours of unpaid placements. All should be included in the Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme. When students defer or abandon their degrees because they can't afford placements, we are losing a workforce that we've already invested in training. That is a false economy. Finally, we can't talk about healthcare productivity without talking about prevention.”
“The MRFF represents billions of dollars in lost opportunity for discovery, for translation and for commercialisation. We could address this immediately by increasing MRFF disbursements to $1 billion annually, which was the original intention of the fund when it was created. The government could also engage with Horizon Europe, and it could also engage with fully funding the National Health and Medical Research Strategy. Secondly, we have to address workforce planning and regulation. It's extraordinary that there's currently no single body responsible for workforce planning for the national medical workforce. Workforce shortages are amongst the most significant constraints on productivity across the care sectors. If we want a productive system, we need modern workforce regulation.”
“Instead, the problem lies in the structures around them: outdated regulation, fragmented data systems, poor workforce planning, underinvestment in research and missed opportunities for disease prevention. Firstly, Australia's health and medical research sector is world class, but it is underfunded and underleveraged. Medical research is a critical enabler of productivity. It drives new treatments, new industries and new jobs while reducing pressure on hospitals and primary care services. But our expenditure on R&D has fallen to only 1.7 per cent of GDP. That's the lowest in 20 years. The Medical Research Future Fund sits now at almost $25 billion. It remains underdistributed, and that money is just sitting fallow in the government's bank account.”
“Ahead of the forthcoming budget, I'd like to speak to how we can improve productivity through investment in health care. Health care is not merely a cost on the national balance sheet. It is an investment in the wellbeing of our people, which underpins workforce participation and drives economic growth. Investment in health is a productivity goldmine for Australia's economy. Every dollar invested in health and medical research yields close to $4 returned to the Australian economy. There are few sectors in which the economic dividends are so clear and so direct. Our healthcare system is not operating at its productivity potential. That's not because of the people who deliver care.”
“It collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the petroleum resource rent tax. The government collects more from taxing beer and from taxing cigarettes than it does from taxing our gas exports—that is confounding. It is robbing Australians of their futures while it is rewarding multinationals by giving away our finite natural resources. We have to do a whole lot more to urgently address intergenerational inequity. These superannuation changes go some small way towards that, so I support them, but they're very small steps on a very long road. There's a whole lot more that we need to do to reshape our economy for the next generation. In the meanwhile, I commend the bill to the House.”
“The government has foreshadowed possible changes to the capital gains tax discount in the May budget. Winding back capital gains tax exemptions and capping negative gearing would go some small way towards addressing intergenerational inequity in our tax system, but these changes have to be part of a more ambitious tax agenda. We need to reform the personal tax system to decrease tax reliance on wages and salaries. We should improve taxation of businesses to promote investment. We should talk about the GST and how it is distributed, and we should charge those responsible for climate change instead of subsidising polluting industries with fuel rebates and failing to adequately tax our oil and gas exports. This government spends five times more subsidising the diesel fuel tax credit than it gets from taxing gas exports.”
“In recent decades, productivity has flatlined and the improvement in living standards that we've come to expect each successive generation to enjoy has stalled. While older Australians have benefited from more generous tax settings on property and superannuation, those who are dependent on income have faced an increasing tax burden exacerbated by the bracket creep that confiscates a higher amount of their largely static incomes. Young Australians are finding it almost impossible to get into the housing market unless they benefit from intergenerational wealth transfer—effectively, help from the bank of mum and dad—and those who are paying tax on work rather than on wealth are bearing too much of the burden for federal spending on programs like AUKUS, the NDIS and other parts of the care economy that will soon reach 27 per cent of GDP.”
“The discounting of the capital gains tax in 1999 marked the beginning of the time when house prices really began to soar in relation to income in Australia. That tax discount is now projected to cost the budget $247 billion in foregone revenue over the coming 10 years. The top one per cent of taxpayers will receive nearly 60 per cent of this benefit this financial year. While the horse might have bolted in terms of slowing the increase in house prices, the capital gains tax discount has been demonstrably too generous. It has driven inequity, distorted our housing system and demonstrated poor value for money in terms of growing housing supply. That's why I'm actively consulting with my community in Kooyong on these broader tax issues.”
“Young Australians are still facing unprecedented economic barriers, from housing affordability to insecure work, to slow wage growth and to the rising costs of education and health care. Our tax system continues to entrench these inequities. It delivers disproportionate concessions to already wealthy Australians, while younger Australians are struggling to build financial security. The reality is that intergenerational inequity remains baked into our tax system. Reforming superannuation tax settings is an important step, but it's only a first step. A broader review of tax concessions across the system, including negative gearing, capital gains and the distributional impacts of various offsets and deductions, remains essential to ensuring a genuinely fair and modern tax system.”
“Together, these changes will increase government payments for about 1.3 million people on the lowest wages. It's estimated that 35-year-olds on lower wages earning $44,000 will be about $51,000 better off in retirement because of these policy changes, and, for those individuals, these changes will be life-changing. Together, these bills improve the overall fairness and sustainability of Australia's superannuation tax settings. They make our system more equitable, more targeted and more aligned with the legislated purpose of our superannuation system. But it would be a mistake to pretend that our work on intergenerational tax inequity is complete with this bill.”
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 will expand LISTO eligibility to the upper threshold of the second-lowest tax bracket, meaning that Australians earning up to $45,000 will receive genuine tax concessions on their super. This change is predicted to improve outcomes for approximately 770,000 people who were previously not eligible for the payment. That's actually one in 20 Australian workers. The bill makes sensible changes to the maximum LISTO payment as well. Currently capped at $500, many eligible recipients of the LISTO reach that maximum refund. The maximum LISTO will now be linked to the super guarantee so that tax paid on concessional contributions is offset for eligible low-income earners.”
“The LISTO is a government payment that offsets the 15 per cent tax on concessional contributions to super for eligible low-income earners. It ensures that those in the lowest income tax brackets still receive a genuine tax concession on super. The LISTO is effectively about fairness. It's particularly fair for those people earning less than $18,200, who are not liable to pay tax on their wages but who would otherwise be required to pay 15 per cent tax on contributions to super. Currently, to be eligible for the LISTO, individuals must have a taxable income of $37,000 or less.”
“It will still remain a tax-efficient vehicle for retirement. By the government's projections, these bills will impact fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts in the 2026-27 financial year. The rates on balances above $10 million will affect less than 0.1 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts. Together, it's projected that, for the moment, these changes will affect only about 90,000 Australians. For that small proportion of Australians who are impacted by these new settings, the financial impact is limited. A person with a $3.2 million balance, with $125,000 in realised investment income, will only pay an additional $1,171 in tax. This increase does seem fair and appropriate. The second change brought about by this legislation also promotes greater fairness in superannuation.”
“So I'm really glad to see the government heed calls from the crossbench and from many in our communities to ensure that reforms to our superannuation system are generally fair and generally targeted. These bills will reduce tax concessions for individuals with total superannuation balances above $3 million. From the 2026-27 income tax year onwards, the concessional tax rates will be an additional 15 per cent on the proportion of realised earnings accrued between $3 million and $10 million and an additional 25 per cent for the proportion of realised earnings accrued above $10 million. Those are still—let's face it—concessional tax rates. Our super tax concessions still go well beyond what is required for a dignified retirement. These bills will result in only modest decreases in the concessionality of superannuation.”
“I warned then of the potentially chilling effect of those changes, about which I'd heard from a number of constituents, on small businesses, on farmers and on venture capital funds. Australians need and deserve certainty in their financial decision making. They invest in superannuation in good faith, believing that it is the best investment vehicle for their long-term savings. That certainty would have been threatened by the legislation that we saw in 2023. I was also concerned then that the initial legislation didn't provide for indexation of the $3 million threshold at which balances would be subject to the 15 per cent tax. It was my belief that this policy would have unfairly impacted young Australians when their balances eventually exceed $3 million, which seems like a fantastic sum to many now, but it won't in 20 or 30 years time.”
“The second will ensure that people in the lowest income tax brackets receive a genuine tax concession on their super contributions. When these measures were first brought to the House in 2023, they provided for the taxation of unrealised superannuation earnings for balances exceeding $3 million. It was my belief that that legislation in 2023, had it passed, would have represented a policy failure. In 2024, I supported an amendment to that legislation to prevent the taxation of unrealised capital gains, and I noted then that the government's changes would have been a departure from the traditional capital gains treatment in this and other OECD nations in which taxation applies only on realisation.”
“In 2024, we legislated to enshrine those values. We affirmed in this place that the objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. In 2026. I'm pleased to see the Albanese government listening to the crossbench calls over several years now to ensure that these super reforms maintain that focus on equity and sustainability. The bills before the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026, will make two significant changes to the tax treatment of superannuation. The first will adjust tax thresholds on realised superannuation earnings.”
“Australians are proud of our superannuation system. As a nation, we have one of the most sophisticated and modernised retirement income safeguards in the world, a system designed to guarantee dignity for older Australians. Generations of Australians will finish their working lives knowing that they are financially secure because of their superannuation. Our system is not only strong; it is also robust and sustainable. Despite projections that the number of Australians aged 65 and over will double in the 2060s, the value and size of our superannuation pool means that the percentage of Australians receiving the age pension will continue to decline. When the Keating Labor government legislated our system of compulsory superannuation in 1992, it did so in the country's best interests, with a focus on fairness, sustainability and equity.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Parliament House is the people's house. The public should have a say in what goes on within its walls. Every day that parliament sits, hundreds of lobbyists roam this place. Today it's reported that you've written to the Presiding Officers requesting yet another review into lobbying—a review which is closed to the public, according to reporting. Will you open this inquiry up to the people, and will you commit to enforcing a more transparent and robust lobbying code of conduct?”
“At times like these, strong consumer protections aren't just desirable; they're essential. All Australians deserve fairness, transparency and accountability at the supermarket, at the bank and at the airport. And all Australians need their government to ensure adequate consumer protection and fair trading practices.”
“They feel that the big four, in particular, prioritise profits over customer outcomes. They cite excessive fees, unfair charges, poor service and unethical lending practices. Nearly three-quarters of Australians have lost trust in banks, with younger consumers aged between 18 and 54 and those under financial pressure being the most sceptical about their actions. ASIC has also highlighted poor practices for customers experiencing financial hardship, and the Commonwealth and the NAB have both recently been involved in fraudulent home-loan activities involving AI forgeries, an issue which is likely to cause further loss of trust in our banking processes. Australians know that rising living costs are squeezing household budgets and increasing hardship in our communities.”
“Airlines would be much less likely to cancel or delay flights or engage in slot hoarding if they had to pay up to $100,000 in compensation per flight. The Albanese government has failed to put in place the one measure which could have transformed how airlines deal with delays at domestic airports and to provide Australian consumers with the protections that they deserve. Progress has also been slow on banking protections. The Hayne royal commission exposed the massive harms that unregulated banking activity and other poor banking practices have caused for ordinary Australians, but it has taken years to achieve adequate protection against scams, and banks are still often placing the burden of fraud on customers. Australian consumers are still struggling to trust our banks.”
“It's no wonder that some people are saying that Easter has been cancelled. In recent years, we've also seen the damage done by Qantas, another flagship Australian business, selling tickets on cancelled flights, accumulating enormous profits while receiving COVID related taxpayer subsidies and slot hoarding to block its competitors. Qantas has been on the nose, and Australians have demanded better. They've wanted to know why this government has not legislated mandatory compensation for delayed and cancelled flights and why it has failed to address the airline duopoly. When a flight is significantly delayed in Canada, every passenger receives $400. In the US, it's $100. In the EU, it's a full refund and 250 Euros. Those payments are made within days of a delayed or cancelled flight. In Australia, we're lucky to get a $20 meal voucher.”