Sam Birrell
Nicholls · National Party · Australia
“They will put it maybe in New South Wales, Western Australia or Queensland, but they won't even consider Victoria. The taxes, the government interference and now this proposed work-from-home legislation just mean that Victoria is not an option.”
“The Mitchell Shire Council has identified the Kilmore-Wallan Bypass as one of the highest advocacy priorities, but the project has been languishing for years. The bypass is essential to improve safety, reduce congestion and return the historic town centre to local residents and businesses.”
“As I've often said in this place, it's a great privilege to represent the electorate of Nicholls in northern Victoria, one of the great food-producing parts of Australia. Recently, I had the great honour to go to a place called Legacy Packing in Cobram for the official relaunch of their state-of-the-art packing facility.”
“As at the last election, the AEC boundary changes meant that the town of Kilmore came into the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Nicholls, and Kilmore is one of the oldest inland towns in Australia. It's a beautiful place. It has bluestone buildings, a historic jail and a monument to Hume and Hovell.”
“A major agribusiness operator in northern Victoria who operates very successfully has told me: 'We're doing no more investment in Australia. The government's making it too hard.”
“We've also got high-tech investment in the dairy industry and the apple and pear industry and we have some new investments in the processing facility SPC, which is an iconic brand in Australia that processes peaches, pears, apples and also tomatoes.”
The complete record
Every one of 590 lines we hold for Sam Birrell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“So I urge the government to look at these things that they've done, look at this legislation around irrigation water, energy policy, taxes and business confidence and make sure that, when people are considering where they're going to invest, particularly in agribusiness but in all sorts of manufacturing, that they're not crossing Australia off the list because of bad government policy.”
“They will put it maybe in New South Wales, Western Australia or Queensland, but they won't even consider Victoria. The taxes, the government interference and now this proposed work-from-home legislation just mean that Victoria is not an option. As a Victorian, as a person who loves the people I represent and wants to see them do well, it's really regrettable to me that a company would have that attitude. But, sadly, I think that's as a result of the way the Victorian government has conducted itself, and I worry that with the federal government conducting itself in such an anti-business way we're going to see global companies cross Australia off the list when they're looking at their investments. We talk a lot about workers and rights, as we should, but we've got to have private industry in this country if we're going to have the jobs.”
“A major agribusiness operator in northern Victoria who operates very successfully has told me: 'We're doing no more investment in Australia. The government's making it too hard. My investment from now on is going to be over in California.' It hurts me to hear that because that's a lot of jobs and investment that we won't even know we're missing out on. We won't be seeing it. In addition, just in relation to the state of Victoria, there's a national company that's looking to put its new facility somewhere in Australia. That facility is going to create a lot of jobs and a lot of economic activity wherever it goes. I'm not going to mention what that facility is or what that company is because it was told to me in confidence. They said that they took Victoria off the list straightaway.”
“We've also got high-tech investment in the dairy industry and the apple and pear industry and we have some new investments in the processing facility SPC, which is an iconic brand in Australia that processes peaches, pears, apples and also tomatoes. But I do worry about the future of these industries and the future of investment because of government policies around irrigation water to do with the additions to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which are incredibly regrettable and passed in the last parliament. These are changes which are making energy more expensive. The government not facilitating particularly the gas industry, which this fruit processing relies on, lack of business confidence and taxes are all threatening these future investments.”
“It's strengthening one of Australia's key export regions. Not only is fruit exported from this part of the world but so are dairy products. It gives the local growers the technology to meet the growing demand. There is demand for wonderful Australian produce. Much of the construction and installation was also carried out by local contractors and tradespeople, supporting jobs throughout the region. Legacy Packing will supply this fruit to supermarkets and wholesale markets across Australia and also to China, the USA, Singapore and the UAE. Investments like this help Australian citrus remain competitive in global markets, and regional communities share those successes.”
“As I've often said in this place, it's a great privilege to represent the electorate of Nicholls in northern Victoria, one of the great food-producing parts of Australia. Recently, I had the great honour to go to a place called Legacy Packing in Cobram for the official relaunch of their state-of-the-art packing facility. The business has invested $30 million in new AI grading technology, delivered in partnership with the company Tomra. It's the largest investment of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region and it will increase the packing facility fivefold. It's a major vote of confidence in Cobram, which is where the facility is, in the Goulburn Valley more generally and also in the citrus industry. This area grows a lot of oranges and lemons. Now these will be packed here and sent both around Australia and for export.”
“Kilmore cannot continue to grow with yesterday's road network. The community needs a coordinated package of infrastructure investment that includes important link roads and the Kilmore Bypass. Honestly, it has been ignored by too many governments for too long. State and federal governments need to focus on Kilmore, focus on the population growth, look at the infrastructure that needs to be developed and built, and get on with the job.”
“The Mitchell Shire Council has identified the Kilmore-Wallan Bypass as one of the highest advocacy priorities, but the project has been languishing for years. The bypass is essential to improve safety, reduce congestion and return the historic town centre to local residents and businesses. The bypass would remove significant volumes of heavy traffic from Sydney Street and the town centre. The historic buildings, part of Kilmore's enduring charm, were built for horse and cart not the heavy transport now rumbling through the town. Better roads support local businesses by improving access to shops, services and industrial areas. The improved freight routes strengthen regional supply chains and help local producers get goods to markets efficiently, and safer roads mean fewer accidents and a better quality of life for local residents.”
“Local roads are carrying not only local traffic but also growing commuter and freight movements, and congestion reduces productivity, worsens amenity and undermines the liveability of the town, and the Kilmore Structure Plan identifies Highgate Road as a key strategic road project needed to support the town's continued growth, and, without appropriate link roads, traffic from new estates is forced to add to the congestion to get to the commercial precinct, and the Mitchell Shire Council has already allocated funding for planning and design works for a future road connection between Kings Lane and John Street, and the link roads are a critical first step for Kilmore, but it needs government attention.”
“As at the last election, the AEC boundary changes meant that the town of Kilmore came into the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Nicholls, and Kilmore is one of the oldest inland towns in Australia. It's a beautiful place. It has bluestone buildings, a historic jail and a monument to Hume and Hovell. It's also one of the fastest growing regional communities in Victoria, and population growth across the Mitchell Shire is placing enormous pressure on roads that were never designed to carry today's traffic volumes. Residents, businesses, freight operators and visitors are all experiencing increased congestion, delays and safety concerns. Heavy vehicles are continuing to travel through the centre of Kilmore, creating safety risks for pedestrians, shoppers and local businesses.”
“As it turns out—and this should have been understood by the government—these arrangements have been used by widows and divorcees to ensure they have security and dignity into their later years, but a law was passed that threatens that security. The government say, 'We'll fix it in a new tranche of legislation.' But wouldn't it have been better to have understood what you were doing in the first place and prevented the fear and confusion that have been the result of this mess? All of this confusion leads to a stall in investment, including housing investment, and that leads to fewer houses. At the World Cup in North America at the moment there are a few own goals being scored, but the Albanese government has just scored a few own goals as a result of this budget, and the Australian people are the ones who are losing.”
“There was a time when governments actually did the hard work. They consulted widely. They carefully considered the impacts of policy, and they understood and dealt with potential unintended consequences. But we are in a new era now. Under the Albanese government, we get a cluster of thought bubbles delivered as a budget and presented in half-baked legislation that requires more backflips than a trampoline competition. The Treasurer has been unable to explain changes to trust arrangements, and the frontbench are all over the place to the point where they don't seem to have understood the policy change or the rationale for it. Then, in a deal with the Greens, out of nowhere comes this attack on self-managed super funds and their ability to borrow for housing.”
“I'm talking about the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill. I will talk about the coalition's proud record of aviation during the pandemic and the way it acted honestly and decently during that terrible time, which is in absolute contradiction to what we just saw, which was an act of betrayal—trying to ram through bills that you hadn't taken to an election. The public will wake up to that, and you will feel the pain of that, I'm sure, at the ballot box because the tradition of parties taking legislation, saying what they're going to do if they're being elected when they're significant changes and then doing the exact opposite does not go down well with the Australian people.”
“But don't use those reforms as a cover for industrial relations changes that risk distorting procurement, reducing competition and increasing costs for taxpayers. The coalition will move amendments to remove those procurement bargaining provisions to allow the parliament to deal with the Fair Work Commission reforms on their merits, and then we can debate as to whether the Commonwealth should be saying: 'Well, you've got a certain type of EBA with the unions; you can have this Commonwealth project. But whilst you treat your workers absolutely fairly and pay them well and work with them, you don't have that type of EBA, so we're not going to give you any chance to participate in a Commonwealth contract.' That's not the way Australia should work.”
“It's not a niche concern; it's a broad concern. The coalition believes that this parliament can do two things at once. We should be able to support the sensible Fair Work Commission reforms. Many of them are contained in this legislation. But we should be able to reject the flawed procurement amendments. The Fair Work Commission reforms and Commonwealth procurement for certain types of industrial relations don't have anything to do with each other, and they shouldn't be in the same bill. So the government should separate these measures and bring forward the Fair Work Commission reforms as a standalone package. We can support them and we can get those important reforms. I congratulate the government on coming up with those reforms. We could get those through.”
“Many businesses in regional Australia that have different industrial relations agreements are fantastic at delivering because they know the projects and they know the communities they're dealing with in many cases. It shouldn't just be businesses that simply satisfy an industrial relations preference. What is industry saying about this? It's not just the coalition raising concerns. Industry stakeholders from across the economy have expressed strong reservations. Business groups have warned that public contracts should be awarded on merit, not on industrial affiliation. Builders have warned about impacts on small business. Industry associations have warned about reduced competition, and we know what reduced competition leads to. Others have warned that these changes undermine the principle of freedom of association.”
“They work really hard to earn that money and pay those taxes, and we should treat that money with the respect that it deserves. There are also risks of corruption, and that should concern every member of this parliament. The Commonwealth should not be creating incentives that move us further in that direction. We could learn from Queensland, and I say that as a proud Victorian. The former best practice industry conditions policy sought to embed industrial relations outcomes into government procurement. The Queensland government ultimately abandoned that policy. Why? It did because of concerns about cost pressures, project delivery and market distortions. The lesson is straightforward. Governments should focus on outcomes. Projects should be awarded to businesses that can deliver.”
“The Watson report has exposed deeply troubling allegations regarding corruption and misconduct within the Victorian CFMEU construction branch. There is an estimate that that has cost the taxpayer an extra $15 billion. I note that the Victorian Premier has disputed that, but when pressed last week on 7.30 with, 'What do you think the number is?', she absolutely refused to answer. If she's saying it's not $15 billion, then how much is it? The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently wrong. The lesson is that whenever market access becomes dependent on obtaining a preferred industrial relations agreement serious risks emerge. There are risks of coercion, risks of exclusion, risks of inflated costs—inflated costs for the taxpayer, and that's who we all should be working for.”
“A subcontractor may face pressure because the head contractor seeks to satisfy procurement requirements, and that pressure can cascade through the multiple layers of commercial relationships. Today it might be a preference. Tomorrow it might become an expectation. Eventually, it risks becoming a de facto requirement. That's why businesses are concerned and why industry groups are concerned, and it's why we are concerned. The unions have a lot of influence in this country. Some unions—and I do say 'some unions'—have been shown to be less than worthy of that influence that they have in this country. I'm a Victorian, and recent events in Victoria have demonstrated why parliament should proceed cautiously whenever access to work becomes linked to obtaining the 'right'—the correct—industrial relations arrangements.”
“Some of these smaller businesses have wonderful relations with their employees, their workers. They all live in the same town, so they all want these businesses to work. They all want to see the infrastructure that is being funded. Now they can't compete for that work, because of the types of industrial relations enterprise bargaining agreements that they have. It really is a kick in the guts for smaller regional companies, and the Commonwealth should not be picking winners and losers based on industrial relations preferences. The government argues that these powers merely create an option, but the legislation goes further than creating an option. The provisions extend beyond the primary contractor. They can flow down supply chains.”
“It shouldn't be based on whether a business has negotiated a union-covered enterprise agreement or not. That shouldn't be a deciding factor in the ability to compete for government work. This is particularly relevant for regional businesses and regional projects, because of what this will mean for really good regional projects. An example is the Shepparton to Melbourne rail line, stage 3 of which was 80 per cent funded, to the tune of $320 million, by the previous coalition government. I'm still waiting for it to finish, but maybe the Allan government can answer as to why it hasn't been finished yet. That's Commonwealth funding. If regional businesses that don't have certain types of enterprise bargaining agreements with unions can't compete for that work, then we've really lost something in this country.”
“Currently, the Fair Work Act protects against discrimination based on whether a business has particular workplace instruments or enterprise agreements. The government now proposes an exemption to that. That exemption would permit Commonwealth agencies to preference businesses with particular kinds of enterprise agreements in relation to procurement. Now, let's call this what it is: a deliberate legislative pathway for industrial relations arrangements to become a factor in Commonwealth procurement. Procurement should be about value for money, and value for money for the taxpayer should be based on these principles: value for money, capability, performance, delivery and compliance with the law. That's what taxpayers expect and what businesses expect, and it's what governments should deliver.”
“There is another element in the bill dealing with road transport contractors and the proposed high-income threshold, and the coalition has an open mind about the challenges facing owner-drivers and the transport contractors. But, with this section of it, we do believe that further scrutiny is required. Stakeholders themselves have expressed mixed views. That is why the provisions warrant closer examination through Senate committee processes. These issues are all worthy of consideration. Most of them are very sensible reforms. But the next bit is where it descends into abject nonsense. The most controversial part of this bill is not those Fair Work Commission reforms that I spoke about. It's the other provisions, and they represent a fundamental change.”
“That's practical, and I support it. The bill also allows certain procedural powers to be delegated to senior commission staff, which is again intended to streamline administrative functions and reduce unnecessary delays. If appropriate safeguards remain in place, then they are reasonable reforms. The coalition supports measures dealing with vexatious and frivolous claims. Likewise, allowing certain matters to be determined on the papers without the consent of parties is simply common sense. Not every matter is going to require a hearing. Not every matter requires people to travel, engage representatives and wait months for listing dates. If disputes can be fairly determined through written submissions, then the law should permit it, and that's a practical reform.”
“Applications have surged, processing times are increasing, resources are under pressure, and the commission has called for modest legislative changes to help manage the caseload. One example involves jurisdictional objections. Following the Milford decision, the commission has increasingly been required to determine threshold legal questions before moving to conciliation and dispute resolution, and that means more hearings, more lawyers, more delays and more cost. The original purpose of these processes was to resolve the disputes quickly and informally, and this amendment restores that practical approach. It allows the commission to commence conciliation where an applicant alleges dismissal or unlawful termination, rather than requiring lengthy arguments about jurisdiction even before the sensible discussions can take place.”
“The government says this bill is about helping the Fair Work Commission manage its workload. If that's the objective, let us pass that part of the bill and those reforms immediately. But, instead, the government has trickily attached a second industrial relations agenda that has significant consequences for Commonwealth contracting, procurement and processes and supply chains across Australia. The fact that these provisions have been bundled together raises an obvious question: if procurement measures are so sensible, why not put them before the parliament as a standalone bill? Why hide them amongst otherwise uncontroversial Fair Work Commission reforms? The Fair Work Commission has been very public about the challenges it's facing. Its president has warned about unprecedented workloads.”
“Like a lot of the bills that have come into this place since I've been here, this bill should be two bills. It contains two completely separate policy agendas. One part of it deals with Fair Work Commission efficiency and case management, and I'll talk a bit about that. There are some reasonable reforms in that part of the legislation that I think are fair enough. But the other part creates a legal framework for allowing Commonwealth procurement processes to preference businesses that have particular forms of enterprise agreements. We know what that means, don't we? These issues are not connected. They solve different problems. One of them creates huge amounts of problems. They affect different stakeholders, and they deserve separate parliamentary scrutiny.”
“I, too, rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. Like so many pieces of legislation, the name defies what's actually in the bill. We support sensible reforms that help the Fair Work Commission to do its job more effectively. We support measures that reduce unnecessary delays, measures that help workers and employers resolve disputes faster and practical changes that respond to the very real workload pressures that currently face the Fair Work Commission. What we don't support is the government using those sensible reforms as a vehicle for unrelated and highly controversial changes to Commonwealth procurement policy. That's why the coalition will be moving amendments. If those amendments are not accepted, the coalition will oppose the bill.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. To ram through Labor's toxic taxes, the Prime Minister has changed his position again and done a dangerous deal with the Greens. Will the Prime Minister rule out agreeing to the Greens' demand to abolish the diesel fuel rebate?”
“Tegan and Scott have both told me: whatever age you are, know the symptoms, and, if you notice a change in your bowel, see your doctor. They also pointed to a significant increase in young people—those under 40—being diagnosed with bowel cancer. There has been a significant spike in the number of people being diagnosed at that age since the early 2000s. We need to understand what is causing that and we need to focus our research efforts. Those of us who are over 50 get the test automatically, but we need more access for people who are younger than that.”
“Today, I was delighted and honoured to meet with bowel cancer survivors Tegan and Scott, who are here with us in the Federation Chamber. I know Tegan very well because she's from my electorate; she's in Kilmore. She is one of the bravest and most optimistic people I've ever met in my life. Tegan was diagnosed at age 39 and is a mother of three young children. Scott was just 35 years old when he was diagnosed. Thankfully, both are well after treatment. June is Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. Bowel cancer is Australia's fourth most diagnosed cancer and the second deadliest. Early detection, as the member for Hunter said earlier, matters a great deal; 99 per cent of cases can be treated successfully when they're detected in their earliest stage.”
“CEDA has said in a letter that they've written, which has been co-signed by 26 other industry associations, that the impact of Labor's CGT proposal has not been properly considered. Higher taxes on investment in business means fewer opportunities to expand, less innovation and ultimately fewer jobs and slower wage growth. This has been backed up by the Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black. He said that the test for economic reform was whether it increased investment, grew the economic pie and boosted living standards and 'it is clear that the reforms fail that test'. Therefore, these taxes in many ways are toxic.”
“You would have heard us talk a lot about Labor's toxic taxes. The key part of the toxicity of these taxes is the impact that they're having on investment. This should have been known by Labor, because, on page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1, there is this comment of the Treasury forecasts: Lower house price growth will have a modest impact on housing supply, with the increase in supply over the next decade expected to be only around 35,000 dwellings fewer compared to no tax policy change … That means fewer houses. How can you contort yourself to say that if there are fewer houses there's going to be more opportunity for people to get into housing or that people's rents aren't going to skyrocket? I don't know how you can make that argument. We're not the only ones saying that this will have a negative impact on housing.”
“Thirdly, Minister, your government continues to talk about a national food security strategy, but where in this budget is the funding to actually deliver, implement and strengthen Australia's food security?”
“That's what they're doing with their higher taxes. There have been some comments from the VFF and NSW Famers that show significant concern about the changes to the tax arrangements. I have three questions for the minister. Minister, can you point to a single new budget measure that will directly improve the profitability of Australian farmers, or was agriculture once again overlooked in Labor's budget? Secondly, Minister, with the growing concerns about the return of El Nino conditions and worsening seasonal outlooks, why did your government cut funding from the Future Drought Fund instead of strengthening support for drought preparedness and resilience?”
“And this government has decided that it's a really good idea, given the threats that farmers and farming communities face from drought, to cut all that funding in the budget. It's incredibly short sighted, and I will ask the minister some questions about that. In relation to taxes, family farming businesses rely on long-term investment decisions when they're succession planning and when they're making their arrangements. Often they've got a high level of assets but a low level of income. The government's tax changes have generated concern across the agricultural sector, because many farming businesses operate through trust structures. They're also concerned about the capital gains tax implications. What they've told me is that they don't need a government which is spending too much to treat them like a cash register.”
“We had that foisted upon us, not by seasonal conditions necessarily but by the fact that the amount of consumptive water there was to use previously for crowing our crops has been taken away by the government. That is incredibly frustrating. Given the fact that drought has such a powerful fact on regional communities, I want to ask the question of why the government has made the decision to cut funding from the Future Drought Fund, one of the key drought preparedness and resilience programs, brought in in 2019. There's been some drought decision-making in South Australian programs, some mixed farming strategies for drier times, some water-smart dams in WA and simplifying agtech and using that innovation to work through drought issues. All of that was funded by the Future Drought Fund.”
“That was initiated by the previous coalition government using the NAIF, despite the fact that some members opposite might like to take credit for it. It will come online, but, at the moment, we have got some serious concerns about fertiliser availability for the coming cropping season. Forecasts are increasingly pointing to the return of El Nino conditions, bringing a heightened risk of drier weather and other agricultural regions. Having lived my whole life in regional communities, I've been through drought. It is awful. It is horrible for the farmers; it is horrible for the community. Given the fact that I'm from the Murray-Darling Basin, we have another thing called a man made drought, where the government takes away the irrigation water that's used to grow the crops.”
“This is a key concern of the agricultural industry, and the government has made significant efforts to go around the world looking for fuel and making sure it gets to Australia so we've got the diesel we need. What about a long-term strategy—what if what's happening in the Strait of Hormuz were to happen closer to home? Have we got a long-term strategy on using our natural resources to create our own fuel security instead of just flying to Asian refineries and saying: 'Hey, we've got some gas, can you please give us some fuel? We've run out.' The other issue is in relation to fertiliser. I haven't seen a targeted effort in fertiliser in the same way that there's been on fuel. There is some relief coming in fertiliser in relation to the Perdaman facility in north-west Australia.”
“This budget and its approach to agriculture reflects a general lack of interest in agriculture from Labor. That's not to take away from some of the members who are interested in it and who do understand it, but, from the top, I've noticed since I've come to this place there's a general lack of interest in agriculture. Farmers continue to face rising input costs, labour shortages, biosecurity threats, market uncertainty, natural disasters and increasing regulatory burdens. In that environment, the budget should have delivered measures that improve productivity, competitiveness and profitability. I do want to start by acknowledging the government's efforts on fuel security.”
“These tax changes are proving pretty unpopular out there in voter land, and the reason for that is multifaceted. Basically, it's the premise on which they were introduced, the personal impact that they're having on people, the inability of some ministers to explain how it's going to affect people and the fact that it's just a massive tax grab of $77 billion over the next 10 years. I'll talk a bit more about that later. I'm hearing all these impassioned defences of these tax changes—capital gains tax and negative gearing; why we have to have it—and I'm just thinking, member for Dawson: I didn't hear any of this before the election.”
“If we are serious about fairness and if we are serious about opportunity not just for the young people in this country but for the country's economic future itself and if we are serious about productivity then we cannot afford to underinvest in education.”
“While this budget includes measures to support skills recognition and workforce participation, it stops short of making the level of investment needed to drive long-term economic growth. The sector itself has made this clear. If we want a more productive economy we should invest more, not less, in the institutions that build it, and those institutions need to be better. We need quality, not just free quantity. What ties this together is a simple point. At a time when classrooms are under pressure, teachers are leaving the profession, universities are struggling with funding certainty and regional students face persistent barriers, the government chose to manage the system rather than fix it. Education should be at the centre of any serious plan for Australia's future. It should be focused on long-term outcomes, not short-term savings.”
“Instead what we got was continuity, and the sector is telling us that funding and policy settings are simply not keeping pace with expectations or economic need. Universities are being asked to do more with tighter margins under growing regulatory pressure. At the same time we're seeing increasing oversight, more powers for regulators, new levies to fund oversight bodies and growing compliance requirements on institution. There are more rules and more scrutiny, but there's not enough support. I ask this question, and the member for Berowra mentioned it in his contribution: are our universities going forward or backward? In skills, productivity and economy, the government tells us that productivity is a defining challenge for the Australian economy, and they are right. But productivity starts with skills, and it starts with education.”
“The federal government might have a better government to deal with earlier next year. On early childhood, the government continues its push towards a more universal system, with additional inclusion, funding and workforce measures, and that direction is important. We support access and participation, but we also support parental choice, and again this budget lacks a defining reform. It continues some of the trends that are underway, but rather than delivering a clear step change in affordability, workforce and sustainability it delivers more of the same, and in too many areas in regional Australia there is still no child care available. But it's in higher education where the government's lack of ambition is most evident. Stakeholders across the sector expected real reform, in particular, following the universities accord.”
“There are some targeted investments—in STEM programs, student wellbeing and support for disadvantaged students in particular—but alongside that we see a strong emphasis on compliance and integrity measures that ensure funding is monitored and enforced more tightly. Accountability matters, and every dollar should be spent well, but schools across regional Australia are telling us something different. They don't need more bureaucracy; they need more support. Principals and teachers are already under enormous pressure, and this budget risks adding to that burden without addressing the core issues of workforce shortages, classroom disruption and declining student outcomes. Also, where is the finalised agreement between the federal government and the Victorian government that delivers full funding? What's the roadblock?”
“I rise to speak on the government's 2026-27 budget and what it means for education, which is the foundation of productivity, opportunity and long-term prosperity in this country. For all the slogans about fairness and opportunity, what this budget delivers is not real reform but restraint on aspiration. That's clear in many aspects of the budget, but it's clear in education as well. The government has framed this budget as one that builds a better, fairer and more equitable education system. But when you look beyond the rhetoric you see a patchwork of modest initiatives, increased regulation and missed opportunities for real reform. It's not transformational; it's a holding pattern. Let me start with schools.”
“I quote again from Matt's letter: Veterans should not be placed in a position where financial limits determine access to clinically necessary care, particularly when that care relates directly to injuries sustained through service. A policy intended to manage expenditure must also consider the long-term health, wellbeing, and dignity of those who have served. I urge that this policy be reconsidered, or at the very least reviewed in close consultation with veterans and treating clinicians, to ensure it does not unintentionally harm those it is meant to support.”
“I want to put on the record my real concern and that of the President of the Seymour RSL, Matt McLaughlin, over the recently announced $5,000 cap on allied health care for veterans. Matt wrote to me this week, and he said: Many veterans rely heavily on ongoing allied health services—such as physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy, and exercise physiology—to manage service-related injuries and long-term health conditions. For a significant number, these needs are complex and chronic. A capped annual limit is unlikely to reflect the real cost of maintaining their health, function, and quality of life. This concern has been widely expressed within the veteran community and in this place by the member for Herbert, a veteran and strong advocate for the men and women who have served their nation.”
“This is the kind of young Australian we should be backing, but right now there's a risk that Emma's chance to represent Australia will come down to whether her family can meet the cost. Paddle Australia has informed Emma's family that, due to current fuel prices, it's going to cost $10,000 per athlete to compete in Argentina, and most of that cost is going towards shipping the boat over there. Emma has earned the right to wear the green and gold, and she shouldn't be left to carry the cost alone. I call on the government to provide more support for Emma and for regional athletes like her that are selected to represent Australia internationally. Emma's family and supporters have set up an Australian Sports Foundation fundraiser, and I encourage those who can to donate. I wish Emma all the best.”