Tom French
Moore · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“I rise to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. At its centre, this bill is about whether a kid growing up outside capital cities can look at university, TAFE or any form of tertiary education and see a real path rather than a distant idea.”
“That is not always an exciting word, but it is a necessary one. For too long, parts of the higher education policy have been pulled towards short term politics, institutional competition and funding settings that do not always meet national needs.”
“It can go to academic support. It can go to scholarships and grants. It can help meet the higher cost of operating campuses outside the major cities. In this bill, the base equity amount is $1,535 and the base regional amount is $1,398.”
“That is why I'm less interested in reciting every number in the legislation and more interested in what those numbers mean when they land in a family living room in a regional town. They mean a student in Merriwa does not have to see university as something for other people.”
“I know the value of a trade, and I know that university is not the only path to a good life, and it should never be treated as the only respectable path. A good tertiary system is not university versus TAFE. It is not degree versus trade.”
“In plain English, that means we're moving to a system where growth in university places is planned and funded more sensibly. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission will have a formal role in allocating Commonwealth supported places.”
The complete record
Every one of 690 lines we hold for Tom French, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 14.
“A good enterprise agreement is not just about wages, although wages do count. It can deal with classifications, rosters, allowances, dispute resolution, redundancy, training, travel, accommodation and safety. It gives workers a structured voice and it gives employers certainty about the rules of the workplace. This bill allows government purchasing power to promote fairer wages and more secure jobs through enterprise agreements where it is appropriate to do so. It does not impose an obligation on the Commonwealth to do this in every case. Commonwealth entities will still need to comply with procurement rules, grant guidelines, value-for-money requirements and delivery obligations. I want to acknowledge the current bargaining being undertaken by the Electrical Trades Union with BHP in the Pilbara, and I wish them well.”
“The next major part of this bill concerns enterprise agreements and Commonwealth procurement. The government has committed to developing a secure Australian jobs code to ensure Commonwealth spending supports secure jobs and fair pay and conditions. Public money should not drive a race to the bottom. It should support decent employment practices, lawful conduct and fair standards. I'm in this place today because of what those opposite did when they had total control of the industrial relations system, and I would like to remind everyone that they would implement Work Choices again if given the chance. Enterprise agreements that are genuinely agreed and negotiated in good faith are a transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions to workers. They can also deliver flexibility and productivity for employers.”
“That was an important change following consultation. Efficiency is being improved without removing procedural fairness. Not every dispute requires an oral hearing. Some disputes can be fairly determined on documents or agreed facts. If the parties consent and the commission is satisfied the dispute can properly determine that way, the system should allow it. The bill also improves supported bargaining. Supported bargaining is particularly important in sectors where workers are lower paid, workforces are fragmented or traditional single-enterprise bargaining is difficult. If the commission has already authorised bargaining for substantially the same group of employees and employers, the law should not force everyone to repeat unnecessary procedural steps.”
“It is an administrative step that allows the dispute to progress. The bill also gives the commission stronger powers to deal with claims that are frivolous, vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success. Access to justice counts, but access to justice does not mean allowing the commission's processes to be misused. The commission must be available to genuine applicants, but it also has to protect respondents and its own resources from claims that are plainly hopeless or brought for an improper purpose. The bill also expands the circumstances in which the commission can decide a dispute on the papers without holding a hearing or conducting a conference. Importantly, the final bill requires the consent of the parties before the commission can determine certain contested disputes on the papers.”
“Firefighters do difficult and dangerous work. They are relied upon by the community in the worst moments of people's lives. Their bargaining campaign is a reminder that industrial relations is about whether the people who protect us are properly valued, properly staffed and properly supported. This bill also allows the president of the Fair Work Commission to delegate the power to certify that a general protections dispute is unlikely to be resolved by conciliation. Those certificates allow parties to take the next step, including consent arbitration or court proceedings. Where a trained commission staff member has handled the conciliation and dealt directly with the parties, it is practical for that person to issue the certificate. That is not a final determination of rights.”
“But when a dispute becomes locked in a preliminary jurisdictional contest, the process can slow down, costs can increase and the focus can shift away from resolving the workplace issue. This bill addresses the unintended consequences of Milford by allowing the Fair Work Commission to move to conciliation or mediation without having to first determine the jurisdictional issues as a preliminary step. That does not remove the jurisdictional argument. It does not stop a party from maintaining its position. It does not prevent the issue being determined later if required. It simply allows the commission to get the parties into a dispute resolution process and test whether the dispute can be resolved. I just want to wish WA's professional firefighters well in their ongoing pay and conditions dispute with the state government.”
“At present, where a jurisdictional objection is raised about whether a dismissal or termination actually occurred, the commission may have to determine that issue before it can proceed to conciliation or mediation. I've seen what that kind of procedural fight can do. When I worked as an industrial lawyer for the firefighters union, jurisdictional issues arose in proceedings in the state industrial system. That's not the federal system affected by this bill, but the practical effect is similar. The parties can spend time and money arguing about whether the umpire can deal with the dispute before anyone gets near the substance of the dispute itself. Sometimes a jurisdictional objection is properly taken. Parties are entitled to run legitimate arguments about jurisdiction. Those arguments can be important, and they should remain available.”
“Its workload has increased substantially, including through the growth of paid agents, the rise of artificial intelligence in the preparation and filing of materials, and the consequences of the Milford decision, which affected how some general protections and unlawful termination disputes are processed. The commission needs to be fair, but it also needs to be able to move. A system that is too slow is not fair. A system too easily clogged by procedural arguments is not fair. A system that allows hopeless claims to consume time that should be spent on genuine disputes is not fair. One of the key reforms in this bill concerns jurisdictional objections in general protections dismissal disputes and unlawful termination disputes.”
“I was a qualified electrician before I became an industrial lawyer. I represented electricians for the Electrical Trades Union and firefighters for the United Professional Firefighters Union. I've been covered by industrial agreements. I've relied on them, I've enforced them and I've helped negotiate them. That experience gives me a clear view of what is important. Workplace rights must be strong, but they must also be usable. A right buried behind a delay, cost or procedural obstruction is not much comfort to the person who needs it. The Fair Work Commission is central to this system.”
“I rise in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill makes practical improvements to the workplace relations framework. It supports the Fair Work Commission to manage its workload, improves supported bargaining, allows Commonwealth procurement to promote secure jobs and fair conditions, and provides better support for truckies and road transport businesses. Some of these reforms are technical, but they are not minor. In workplace relations, procedure counts. It determines whether a worker can access a remedy, whether an employer can get certainty, whether a union can progress bargaining and whether the independent umpire can deal with disputes efficiently. I come to this debate with a practical view of industrial relations.”
“As a former electrician, I know this much: the wires do not connect themselves. You need skilled workers, proper standards and a plan that goes beyond a headline. Those opposite say they support choice, but they would abolish the new vehicle efficiency standard. They would abolish the electric vehicle tax cut. They would abolish the support for home batteries. In other words, they support choice right up until Australians start choosing something they do not like. They cannot say they want lower fuel bills while opposing the policies that give Australians access to more efficient cars. They cannot say they back households while trying to keep Australians at the back of the global vehicle queue. That is what this government is doing, and it's why I support the motion.”
“There is more choice and there is more competition, and more of those choices are becoming realistic for working households. The electric car discount has also helped. It has made electric vehicles more accessible, including through novated leases and workplace arrangements. Early support helps build a market, but it also needs to be fair and sustainable. That is why the government is refocusing the discount over time towards more affordable vehicles. This should not be seen to be about subsidising luxury cars; it is about bringing cheaper-to-run vehicles within reach of more Australians. We're also investing in the infrastructure needed to make this work. Chargers matter. Regional black spots matter. Kerbside charging matters. Dealerships, repairers and servicing capability matter.”
“In places like Joondalup, Edgewater, Currambine and Iluka, and across all of Perth's northern suburbs, people drive long distances for work, school, sport and family commitments. Fuel costs are a real weekly household expense. People who drive further should have more options to save on fuel, not fewer. This is why the new vehicle efficiency standard matters. It is not about forcing anyone into a particular car; it is about making sure manufacturers bring their best, most efficient and most affordable vehicles to Australia. For too long, Australia was at the back of the queue. Other countries got the cleaner, cheaper-to-run models first, while Australia was expected to take whatever was left. That is not good enough. The standard is helping change that. More electric, hybrid and efficient vehicles are coming into the Australian market.”
“It is not just about technology; it is about households taking control of their energy costs. Electric vehicles are part of that same change. More homes have solar. More homes are installing batteries. More families are thinking about how they can use power generated here rather than petrol bought at the bowser and priced through international markets. And there is a pretty simple advantage in that. The sun over Joondalup does not get delayed in the Strait of Hormuz. The wind off Sorrento Beach does not check the oil price before it turns up to work. That is the practical benefit of using more Australian energy generated here to run more of our homes and our vehicles. This matters in the outer suburbs and the regions.”
“Australian families should not be left with fewer choices, older technology and higher fuel bills because our market was allowed to fall behind. When we talk about electric vehicles, batteries, charging and the grid, I do not just hear a policy debate. As a qualified electrician, I see switchboards, metres, cabling, apprentices, tradespeople, workshops and service vehicles. This is a real transition in the way households and businesses use energy. Australians already understand that because they live with rooftop solar. Families have looked at power bills, looked at their roofs and made a practical decision. They did not wait for permission from Canberra. They have done it because it stacks up. Today, rooftop solar is providing more than 10 per cent of Australia's electricity, and that is a remarkable achievement.”
“I rise in support of this motion. This debate is often made far more complicated than it needs to be. It is not about telling Australians what they must drive; it is about giving Australians more choice, more competition and cheaper options to run. If someone wants to drive a petrol car, they can. If someone needs a diesel ute for work, they can get one. If someone wants an electric vehicle, they should be able to buy one at a competitive price, with proper charging infrastructure and without Australia being treated as an afterthought by the global car market. That is what the Albanese Labor government is doing. We've cut taxes on electric vehicles, we've introduced the new vehicle efficiency standard and we are investing in charging infrastructure. We are bringing Australia into line with the rest of the developed world.”
“Manufacturing policy requires discipline. It requires a government that understands that skills, procurement, energy, trade, research and industrial relations are all connected. Those opposite had a decade and they delivered drift, denial and decline—and now they oppose the National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation and the very tools required to rebuild capability. So, yes, let's talk about Australian manufacturing. But let's be honest: manufacturing will not be built by those who only discover it in opposition. It will be built by investment, procurement, skills, energy certainty and national purpose. Labor is not standing on the sidelines, hoping manufacturing comes back; we are getting on with the job of rebuilding it. (Time expired)”
“It gets there because it receives real work, real contracts, real apprentices, real investment and real continuity. The motion also talks about energy costs. Fair enough—manufacturers need affordable and reliable energy. But those opposite want this country to forget the system they left behind: ageing assets, weak investment and uncertainty. Labor is doing the hard work—Rewiring the Nation, the Capacity Investment Scheme, firmed renewables, grid modernisation and a practical gas policy for manufacturers that still need gas as a feedstock or transitional fuel. The motion also raises imports and dumping. Again, the government is acting. We are strengthening Australia's trade remedy system, making it more accessible, delivering faster decisions and better protecting Australian businesses from unfair practices.”
“We understand the trades, we understand resources, and we understand fabrication, heavy industry and the value of a skilled workforce. That is why I'm proud that we are building trains in the west. Now, some will say that, if only part of the construction is local, it's not good enough. I understand that argument—I want more local content, more WA workers, more apprentices, more fabrication and more supply chain work done here—but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You do not build manufacturing by refusing to start. You rebuild it by placing orders, training workers, building facilities, improving capability and lifting local content over time. A workshop does not become world class because someone moves a motion in this place.”
“Wars, supply shocks, trade disruption and strategic competition have reminded us that a country that cannot make things leaves itself exposed. That does not mean Australia must make everything. It means we must make more of the things that matter: critical minerals, metals, clean energy, defence capability, advanced manufacturing, AI, quantum, research, innovation. At the centre of that work is the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which is actually putting real capital behind Australian industry. And that is the difference between this side of the House and those opposite. They give speeches about manufacturing; we invest in it. In Western Australia, we understand the importance of building capability.”
“It omits the fact that, when Australian manufacturing needed a government to stand up for it, those opposite told the industry to fend for itself. We will not be lectured by the very people who helped close the car industry and then turned up years later in hi-vis vests pretending to be shop stewards for Australian industry. Manufacturing does not survive on nostalgia. It does not survive on slogans. It survives on investment, skills, procurement, energy policy, supply chains and confidence. That is why the Albanese Labor government is delivering a future made in Australia. This is serious industry policy. It is about making Australia stronger, more resilient and more secure. It is about backing workers, backing businesses and making sure more things are made here. The world has changed.”
“I rise to speak on this motion because Australian manufacturing matters. It matters to our economy, our regions, our national security and the dignity of skilled work in this country. The motion correctly notes that manufacturing is our sixth-largest industry, producing billions of value added output and employing 930,000 Australians. It also correctly notes that Australian manufacturers can design, produce and scale high-tech, high-value goods. On that much, there is no dispute. But what this motion omits is just as important as what it includes. It omits the record of those opposite. It omits the closure of the car industry. It omits the years of drift, delay and ideological hostility to active industry policy.”
“My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What updates are there on the detection of H5 bird flu in Western Australia? How has the Albanese Labor government been preparing and working with states and territories, industry and the community to respond to this disease?”
“Audrey has also raised with me a serious issue for the performing arts in our community: the lack of accessible rehearsal and performance space in Joondalup and the surrounding suburbs. Without reliable venues, local actors, writers, crew and volunteers are forced to move between inconsistent locations, uncertain times and limited resources. That makes it harder to build confidence, harder to attract volunteers and harder to grow a local creative community. For a city the size and importance of Joondalup, that is a challenge worth taking seriously. Across Moore, I meet people like Carmel and Audrey, people from different generations, different fields and different parts of our community but with a common commitment to making our suburbs better.”
“It has entertained local audiences, given performers a place to develop their craft and played an important role in community theatre in the northern suburbs. Audrey is a 24-year-old performer, writer and theatre maker, with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Notre Dame, where she majored in theatre and film studied. She became president of JETS in October 2024, with a clear aim: to bring the society back to life and re-engage Joondalup's creative community. I recently attended the JETS production of Secret Life of Humans at the St Stephen's theatre in Duncraig. It was a reminder of the talent, creativity and commitment that exists in our local arts community.”
“Carmel has also been a central figure in Duncraig Lions club for 15 years, serving as president, secretary, youth of the year coordinator and in a range of other roles that usually mean being the person who makes things happen. She has also contributed to the Marmion, Sorrento, Duncraig Progress and Ratepayers Association and is a founding member of the Friends of Duncraig Library Bushland. It is a serious record of service. Most people would consider one of those roles a major commitment. Carmel appears to have taken on several just to be thorough. I also want to acknowledge Audrey Poor, the president of the Joondalup Encore Theatre Society, known as JETS. JETS was formed in 1999 and has been putting stories and people on stage for 26 years.”
“Over recent months, I've had the privilege of meeting with people across Moore who represent the best of our community. I want to acknowledge two of them today. The first is Carmel Ward, a long-term Duncraig resident who was recently inducted as a Freeman of the City of Joondalup. It is the highest honour the city can bestow, and, in Carmel's case, it is very well earned. For more than two decades, Carmel has given her time and care to our community. For nearly 13 years, she has mentored students at Greenwood College through EdConnect Australia and, more recently, through the Lions club. She has worked with young people who have needed patience, encouragement and stability. It's the sort of contribution that does not always make headlines but can make a profound difference in a young person's life.”
“When awards rise, they lift the legal floor. They help narrow the gap between minimum rates, agreement rates and the commercial rates that are actually paid in industry. As a former electrician and industrial lawyer, I've seen what that gap means in practice. It is not theoretical. It affects what workers take home when the job ends. This is in stark contrast to the Liberals' record. Work Choices was designed to weaken awards and reduce protections working people relied upon. And that is why those opposite do not support wage increases and award increases. Labor believes awards matter, minimum wages matter and redundancy entitlements matter. This decision strengthens the floor under working Australians, and I welcome it.”
“I rise to welcome the Fair Work Commission's decision to raise the national minimum wage and award wages. Awards are not an abstract part of our industrial system. They are the legal baseline. They set the minimum standards below which workers cannot fall. But in many industries workers are paid above the award through enterprise agreements. That is a good thing. It reflects the real value of their work. The problem arises when those higher rates apply during employment, but redundancy entitlements are calculated by reference to a lower baseline rate in the enterprise agreement. A worker may be paid one rate every week on the job, but, when redundancy comes, that calculation can be based on a much lower rate, sometimes close to half of what they were actually earning. That is why the award increase matters.”
“The young families in Moore, looking at house prices and wondering whether the system still has a place for them, have waited long enough. This bill will not solve every problem in the housing market or the tax system. No single bill could. But it makes a clear and necessary choice. It backs workers. It backs first home buyers. It backs new housing supply. It backs productive investment. It backs a fairer and simpler tax system. That is a fair choice, that is a Labor choice, and I commend the bill to the House.”
“This bill cuts taxes for workers; it simplifies tax time; it protects existing investment decisions; it directs negative gearing toward new housing supply; it taxes real capital gains, not inflation; it maintains existing small-business capital gains concessions; and it provides a framework for further consultation on complex issues. That is responsible reform. There is always a reason to avoid tax reform. There is always a reason to wait. There is always another report, another scare campaign, another vested interest and another person insisting that the system is broken but their particular part of it must never be touched. But the workers carrying the tax burden have waited long enough. The first home buyers competing against tax preferred investment have waited long enough.”
“I'm not pretending every person in my electorate agrees with this bill. They do not. I'm not pretending that every concern is unreasonable. It is not. But I am saying the government's position is defensible, necessary and directed at a very real problem. We cannot keep telling young Australians that homeownership is central to the Australian dream, while refusing to examine tax settings that make it harder for them to compete; we cannot keep saying we value work, while allowing the tax system to increasingly favour asset income over labour income; and we cannot keep saying we support housing supply, while providing the same tax advantage to the purchase of existing homes as to the construction of new ones.”
“And it says that we should not keep leaving the hard problems for someone else to fix later. Some constituents have raised another issue with me. They've said that these reforms were not all put to the electorate in this form. That concern should not be dismissed. Trust matters in public life. When people feel blindsided, we should listen. But government also has a responsibility to govern. Housing affordability has become one of the defining economic challenges of our time. Tax settings that may have seemed sustainable in one era can become unfair and distortionary in another. The responsible course is not to pretend the problem is smaller than it is. The responsible course of action is to act, explain, consult and be accountable for the decision. That is what I'm doing as the member for Moore.”
“Major reforms are often legislated in stages. That allows the core policy settings to be established, while the more technical issues are worked through properly. That is not a flaw; that is responsible lawmaking. I also want to address the misinformation directly. This bill is not a tax on inheritance. It is not a tax on the family home. It is not the end of aspiration. It does not mean every Australian will pay more capital gains tax. It does not abolish investment. It does not punish work, enterprise or small business. It is a reform that says that the tax system should work in the interests of more Australians. It says that workers should keep more of what they earn. It says that first home buyers should have a fairer chance. It says that investment should be directed toward real economic value, including new housing supply.”
“Eligible small businesses can continue to access concessions that may reduce or eliminate capital gains tax when a business is sold. The local family business, the contractor who has built something from scratch, the small employer with staff to pay, the tradie who has spent decades building goodwill, the business owner who has put their house on the line to keep people employed—those people deserve certainty and respect. They should not be casually dragged into a scare campaign that pretends every small business will be hit the same way. That is not accurate. There will be, also, further consultation on more complex cases, including firms with low or zero cost bases, start-ups and small businesses. I welcome that. Tax law is complex. Anyone who says otherwise has either never read it or has been unusually brave in public.”
“It looks more closely at the real economic position. The capital gains changes apply across asset classes, because the government is not trying to create new distortion while fixing an old one. If we change the rules for one asset but not the other, capital would simply move towards the next tax advantage. That would not be reform; that would be administrative whack-a-mole. And the tax system already has enough moving parts. The objective is to make investment decisions more neutral. Investment should flow to where it earns the best real return, not to where the tax preference is the greatest. I also want to address the concerns raised by small-business owners in Moore. The existing small-business capital gains tax concessions remain. That matters.”
“The current 50 per cent discount is blunt. It does not accurately measure inflation, and it can overcompensate some investors and undercompensate others. It also creates distortions in investment decisions. Cost base indexation is more coherent. It recognises that not every increase in the value of an asset is a real increase in wealth. If part of the gain is simply inflation, the tax system should recognise that. Under this reform, investors are taxed on real gains, not merely inflationary gains. That is not an attack on investment; it is a better way to tax investment. Some people will pay more under the new arrangements; some may pay less. It will depend on the asset, the holding period, inflation and return. That is how proper tax design works. It does not treat every nominal gain as though it is the same.”
“But we should direct that support to homes that add to supply, not to investors competing with the first home buyers for those existing houses. That is the principle. Existing investment decisions are protected. If someone already owns an investment property, or made an investment decision under the existing rules, they can continue under those rules. Nobody is having the rug pulled from under them. What changes is the direction of the incentive. Future support through negative gearing will be directed to new builds. That is fairer and a more productive use of the tax system. If the Commonwealth is going to support housing investment through tax settings, then that support should help create new homes. On the capital gains tax, the government is returning to a fairer principle: tax real gains, not inflation.”
“That is sensible reform. It saves time, it lowers compliance costs, and it puts money back into workers pockets. One of the most contested parts of this bill is the housing tax reform, and I want to deal with it directly. Supply remains essential. We need more homes, we need more affordable homes, and we need more diverse housing near transport, schools, shops, services and jobs. In Moore, we need housing options for young families, key workers, older Australians looking to downsize and people who want to stay connected to the community they know. But supply cannot be the only answer, when the tax system continues to help investors to compete against first home buyers for homes that already exist. Negative gearing will continue to support investment in new homes, because supply matters.”
“Anyone who has ever lodged a tax return after buying tools, uniforms, safety gear, stationery, training materials or other work related items knows how quickly tax time becomes more complicated than it needs to be. For many workers, the question is not whether they have work related expenses; they do. The question is whether the paperwork, receipts and recordkeeping are worth the return. This measure makes the system simpler. Workers with more than $1,000 in genuine work related expenses can still claim more. Charitable donations, union and professional association fees and other deductions can still be claimed on top. This is not taking anything away from workers with higher genuine deductions. It is saying that millions of Australians should not need to maintain a small forensic archive in the glove box just to lodge a tax return.”
“It comes from shifts, rosters, apprenticeships, small businesses, classrooms, hospitals, workshops, building sites and offices. In Moore, it comes from nurses at the Joondalup health campuses, the teachers in our local schools, the tradies on site before sunrise, the retail and hospitality workers, the police officers, the aged-care workers, the small-business employees and the parents working hard to keep their household moving. This measure recognises that work should be rewarded. It is permanent tax relief for working Australians. It helps people keep more of what they earn. And it builds on the tax cuts this government has already delivered. This bill also introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. That is a practical reform.”
“Second, it delivers a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. Third, it reforms capital gains tax by returning to cost based indexation, with minimum tax on capital gains accruing after 1 July 2027. Fourth, it limits negative gearing for future residential property investment into new builds. These measures fit together. They cut taxes for workers. They make tax returns easier. They support homeownership. They direct investment toward new housing supply. And they begin to make the tax system more even handed between income earned from work and income earned from assets. The working Australians tax offset is a tax cut for Australians who earn income from work. That matters for most Australians, for whom income does not come from complex structures or passive capital gains.”
“I've heard from small-business owners concerned about capital gains tax, trusts, succession planning and the sale of businesses they have spent decades building. I've heard from retirees who are anxious because some of the claims being circulated online have been designed to frighten rather than inform. Those concerns deserve to be heard properly. But hearing concerns does not mean defending every part of the status quo, because the status quo is not neutral. It is a set of policy choices. It is a set of tax rules. And, over time, those rules have increasingly rewarded passive asset ownership over work and investment in existing housing over investment in new supply. That is the problem that this bill begins to address. This legislation contains four central measures. First, it introduces the working Australians tax offset.”
“I later worked as an industrial lawyer representing firefighters and electricians who were not asking for favours; they were asking for decent wages, secure jobs and a system that didn't quietly shift more and more of the burden onto people who work for a living. I also come from a small business family. My parents ran pubs and run a small painting contractor business. So when small-businesses owners in Moore write to me about tax reform, I do not see a line in a spreadsheet; I see payroll, risk, family pressure, debt, long hours and the kind of unpaid work that rarely makes it into the economic commentary. Since the budget, my office has heard from many constituents. I've heard from young people trying to save for a deposit. I've heard from parents worried their children will never be able to buy near the community where they grew up.”
“A young couple in Moore, both working full time, can look at the suburb they grew up in and realise they are not simply being asked to climb the property ladder. They are being asked to reach for a first rung that keeps moving. That is not a failure of effort. It is a system out of balance. Before entering this place, I was a qualified electrician, and I worked on building sites across Perth and in the resources sector in the Pilbara and the Goldfields. I know what it means to buy tools, keep receipts, claim deductions and hope there is still something left after the bills are paid.”
“Moore is one of the best places in Australia to raise a family. From Ocean Reef to Iluka, down through Mullaloo, Kallaroo, Hillarys, Sorrento and Duncraig and across to Joondalup, Woodvale, Padbury, Heathridge, Kingsley and Currambine, people work hard to build decent lives. They do not go looking for special treatment. They are looking for a fair go. They want to work, save, invest, raise their children, start businesses, retire with dignity and leave something behind for the people they love. That is aspiration, but aspiration needs a fair starting point. For too many people in my electorate, particularly younger working people and families trying to buy their first home, that starting point has moved further and further away.”
“Budgets are ultimately about choices. They are choices about what we value, what we reward and what kind of economy we want to leave behind. This bill makes a clear choice. It backs workers. It backs first home buyers. It backs productive investment. It backs a tax system that is fairer, simpler and better aligned with the country Australia needs to be. I rise to support Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the related bill. This is a significant tax reform, but its purpose is practical. It cuts taxes for working Australians. It makes tax time simpler. It supports more Australians into homeownership. It begins to remove distortions in the tax system that have, over time, worked against fairness and productivity. I speak in this debate as the member for Moore.”
“On capital gains tax, the government is returning to a fairer principle: tax real gains, not inflation. Indexation means investors are taxed on above-inflation profit, not paper gains. Existing investment decisions are protected. So let us be clear: this is not a tax on inheritance. It is not a tax on the family home. And it is not the end of aspiration. It is a reform that says aspiration should belong to the workers and first home buyers too, not just those already holding the assets. That is a fair choice, and I support the budget.”
“Budgets are ultimately about choices. This budget makes a clear choice: it chooses workers, first home buyers and a tax system that rewards work, not just asset ownership. For too long, young Australians have been told to work hard, save hard and wait their turn. But, in communities like Moore, that turn has been pushed further and further away. A young couple in Kingsley working full time can now look at the suburb they grew up in and realise that the front door of homeownership is quietly closing in front of them. That is not aspiration; that is a system out of balance. This bill cuts taxes for working Australians and delivers a $1,000 instant deduction for work related expenses. It also starts to fix the housing tax settings. Negative gearing will continue to support investment in new homes because supply matters.”
“We still need local policing. We still need public health work. We still need action on illegal vapes. We still need to keep the pressure on financial networks to allow illicit profits to move around the economy. But this bill is a necessary step. It increases the penalties, improves investigative powers, strengthens the proceeds-of-crime laws, supports a more joined-up Commonwealth response and sends a clear message that the Commonwealth is not only concerned with packets being sold at the counter but is also concerned with the networks, the money and the structures behind the illicit trade, and that is the right approach. People in Moore are entitled to expect better, and I commend the bill to the House.”