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 5 of 14.
“When supply tightens, you don't just hope the market sorts itself out. We're getting ahead of the problem because we want to step in and make sure Australians aren't left stranded. Alongside that, we've released fuel from stockholdings to boost supply, adjusted standards to bring more fuel into the system and coordinated nationally across governments and industries. That is what managing a supply shock looks like. The grievance is what we're seeing from those opposite. Instead of contributing constructively, unlike the member for New England, they've defaulted to a familiar routine. They're like that kid from school that didn't do the work in the group assignment, was nowhere to be found when it actually mattered and then somehow rocked up at the end, hand out, ready to take all the credit.”
“I rise on the motion that grievances be noted, and I want to raise a grievance about fuel security and, more specifically, about the way in which those opposite have chosen to conduct themselves in this moment. Australians can see what's going on globally—instability in the Middle East, pressures on supply chains and increased demand. We, the Australian people, all feel it every time you pull into a servo. It's not abstract. It's not theoretical. It is a real supply challenge. And, in that environment, this government has acted. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, hasn't been sitting back and issuing commentary. He's been intervening directly to keep fuel moving. That includes forcing suppliers to get fuel into regional and independent servos that were running dry—not asking nicely, just making it happen.”
“The contrast is clear. They talked; we're acting. They weakened capacity; we are strengthening it. They outsourced resilience; we are rebuilding it. This motion suggests Australians should be worried that nothing is being done. That is simply not true. What is being done is significant, it is coordinated and it is focused on protecting Australians from the worst impacts of a volatile global environment. In moments like this, what matters is not who can raise the loudest concern; what matters is who is actually doing the work. This government is doing the work, and that is why I reject this motion.”
“Two of those closures occurred when the current opposition leader was the energy minister, and, at that time, he said those closures would not negatively impact Australia's fuel supply. That is not just wrong; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of fuel security, because, when you hollow out domestic refining capacity, you increase dependence on imports and you increase exposure to global shocks. That is exactly the vulnerability we are now working to manage. Then there is the decision to spend close to $100 million on storing fuel in the United States, 14,000 kilometres away. You do not strengthen Australia's fuel security by storing fuel on another continent. When those opposite come in here and claim concern, Australians are entitled to ask where that concern was when the decisions that weakened our system were being made.”
“That's why measures like halving the fuel excise matter, not as a media grab but as real relief right now. Before coming to this place, I worked as an electrician on commercial and industrial sites, and I can tell you this: systems don't run on rhetoric; they run on planning, coordination and reliable inputs, like fuel. That is what this government understands. Compare it to those opposite, because we've seen this before. When Australia faced a national crisis during COVID, we saw what happens when planning isn't there—supply chains under pressure, confusion and a government scrambling to catch up. When it comes to fuel security, their record speaks for itself. Four out of Australia's six refineries closed under the coalition.”
“We've reduced the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero to help take pressure off freight and supply chains, because fuel is not optional in this country. It underpins everything. It's how food moves from farms to supermarkets. It's how medicines are delivered. It's how tradies, manufacturers and transport operators keep working. In outer metropolitan electorates like mine in Moore, that reliance is front and centre. Across our growing suburbs and around Joondalup, people rely on their cars to get to work, run small businesses and keep things moving. Let's be clear, when fuel prices spike, it's not abstract in places like Moore. It's tradies cancelling jobs because the margins don't stack up. It's small businesses absorbing higher delivery costs. It's families thinking twice about every trip, from school drop-offs to weekend sport.”
“We've amended fuel standards to bring more supply into the market, and we've supported domestic refining capacity because sovereign capability matters, and we've put into place the coordination architecture needed to manage a challenge of this scale—a dedicated fuel supply taskforce; National Cabinet engagement; industry roundtables with transport, agriculture and fuel supplies; the National Coordination Mechanism activated; and the National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee convened. That is what a plan looks like. Critically, we are also providing immediate practical relief to Australians. The government has halved the fuel excise for three months, cutting around 26c per litre off the price of petrol and diesel. That's real cost-of-living relief at around $19 off a typical tank at a time when households are under pressure.”
“I rise to oppose this motion because, while those opposite are very good at talking up concern, they are far less interested in acknowledging what is actually happening globally. Australians are not naive. They are watching global events unfold, particularly in the Middle East, and they understand that instability in energy markets has very real consequences here at home. They see it. They can feel it. What they expect from their government in moments like this is not panic; it is competence, coordination and a clear plan. That is exactly what this government is delivering. We've been actively managing this situation, not reacting late and not scrambling but planning, coordinating and acting. We've boosted supply by releasing up to 20 per cent of fuel reserves.”
“This legislation reflects a straightforward principle: the condition of our coastline is shaped by not only what we do within our borders but what occurs beyond them. For the people of Moore, this bill is a practical step in protecting the environment they rely on every day. It supports sustainable industry, sustains international cooperation and ensures Australia is contributing to the responsible management of the global ocean. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.”
“The high seas are governed through international cooperation, and, without ratification of the agreement, Australia would not participate in decisions that shape how those areas are managed. This bill ensures that Australia has a voice in those processes and can contribute to outcomes in our region. There is also a clear economic interest. Coastal economies depend on the long-term health of marine environments. In Moore, local businesses, tourism operators and community organisations rely on access to a clean and stable coastal environment. Protecting that environment is not only an environmental objective; it's an economic one. The bill ensures that activity is conducted responsibly, transparently and in accordance with agreed international standards.”
“It is a familiar regulatory approach, but its extension to the high seas represents a significant development in global environmental governance. For coastal communities like Moore, this is a practical safeguard. Environmental harm in international waters does not remain contained. It ultimately affects our shoreline. The bill also embeds a precautionary approach, ensuring that uncertainty is not used as a reason to delay action where there is a risk of environmental harm. In addition, it establishes a compliance and enforcement framework, including strengthened civil penalties to ensure the regime is effective in practice. There is also a strategic dimension to this legislation.”
“This contributes to the global objective of protecting 30 per cent of the ocean by 2030. Australia already has a strong domestic record in marine protection. This bill extends that approach beyond our jurisdiction. That matters in Moore. Marine ecosystems do not operate in isolation. The effectiveness of protections within Australian waters is influenced by what occurs beyond them. Without coordinated international management, those protections are undermined. Third, the bill establishes a regime requiring activities undertaken by Australian entities in areas beyond national jurisdiction to be assessed for their environmental impact. This ensures that risks are identified and addressed before activities proceed.”
“The bill introduces a notification regime requiring Australian entities to disclose their collection and use. This promotes transparency and ensures that access to these resources is managed responsibly within an international framework. There is a clear local connection. Western Australia is home to significant marine research capability, and that work is increasingly translating into practical outcomes. In Moore, projects such as Uluu, at the Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre, demonstrate how marine research can support sustainable industry, including alternatives to plastic. This legislation supports that work by providing a consistent framework for how marine resources are accessed and utilised. Second, the bill enables Australia to participate in the creation and management of protected areas on the high seas.”
“It establishes the domestic framework required for Australia to ratify the agreement and participate in its implementation. Around 60 per cent of global ocean lies beyond national jurisdictions, yet only a very small portion of this is currently protected. These areas are not separate from us. Ocean systems are interconnected, and what occurs beyond our borders ultimately affects our coastline. That reality is evident in Moore. Pressures such as pollution, changing marine conditions and impacts on fish stocks do not originate solely within Australian waters. This bill responds to that challenge by establishing a regulatory framework across three areas. The first is marine genetic resources, which are biological materials from the ocean with scientific and commercial value.”
“I rise to speak in support of the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026. This bill concerns areas beyond national jurisdiction, but its consequences are not distant. It goes directly to the health of the ocean systems that sustain Australia's environment, economy and coastal communities. For my electorate of Moore, that connection is immediate. From Trigg through to Iluka, our coastline is central to how people live, work and engage with their community. Clean beaches, healthy marine life and a stable coastline are not abstract environmental outcomes. They are the foundation of local recreation, small-business activity and community life. This bill gives effect to Australia's obligations under the high seas treaty, which was signed in 2023.”
“My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How is the Albanese government acting to protect consumers, maintain economic stability and ensure that businesses are operating responsibly in the face of heightened global volatility?”
“We have reduced student debt to support young Australians entering the workforce. We have cut the cost of medicines through the PBS. We have delivered the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history. We are reducing energy bills with the support for home batteries, and we are backing skills, supporting apprentices with a $10,000 incentive and introducing paid placements for students in critical industries and professions. These are practical measures that make a difference in communities like Moore. While we are focused on delivering cost-of-living relief, those opposite remain focused on themselves.”
“In my electorate of Moore, families are feeling the pressure of the cost of living every single day, whether it's mortgages, groceries, energy bills or the cost of raising children. That is why the Albanese Labor government has acted. We have delivered cost-of-living tax cuts to 14 million Australians grounded in a simple principle: Australians should earn more and keep more of what they earn. We should also be clear about the alternative. Those opposite voted against tax cuts. They've also made it clear that, if elected, they would increase taxes for the same 14 million Australians. The contrast is stark. Our government is cutting taxes for working Australians this year and next. We are focused on easing the cost pressure now while building a stronger economy for the future. That approach extends beyond tax.”
“We support innovation, but we do not abandon workers. We invest in skills, not slogans, and we ensure the benefits of technological progress are realised here and shared by Australians. For those reasons, the assertions advanced in this motion cannot be supported.”
“Australia has a skilled workforce, a strong research base and access to clean energy. These are significant advantages in attracting investment in AI and digital infrastructure. The National AI Plan provides the policy certainty needed to support that investment and build domestic capability. The motion speaks of uncertainty, but, in reality, uncertainty arises when there is no plan. There is a plan. It is coordinated and practical and is being implemented in consultation with industry, unions and the community. Ultimately, this debate is not about whether artificial intelligence will change our economy; it will. The question is whether the change will be managed in a way that reflects Australian values: fairness, inclusion and opportunity. This government's approach is grounded in those values.”
“Artificial intelligence can increase productivity and improve safety, but it also raises legitimate concerns around surveillance, bias and the nature of work. These issues are being addressed through consultation, regulation and the existing workplace protections. Productivity gains should be shared, not concentrated. On regulation, the motion proceeds on an incomplete understanding. Australia already has robust, technology-neutral laws covering workplace safety, consumer protection and privacy. These frameworks continue to apply. At the same time, new risks emerge. That is why the government is establishing an AI safety institute to support regulators and ensure our legal settings remain fit for purpose. This is a measured and evidence based approach. The government is also putting in place the conditions for investment and growth.”
“Supporting workers through technological change requires sustained investment in training and education. Through the National Skills Agreement, expanded vocational education and fee-free TAFE, we are increasing access to the skills Australians need to adapt and succeed. We're also investing in advanced capability in artificial intelligence and emerging technology. The motion suggests that workers will be left behind. That ignores both the current policy settings and the role of our industrial relations system. Workers and their representatives must have a voice in how AI is introduced into workplaces. That is why the government is engaging with unions, industry and stakeholders to ensure deployment is transparent, safe and fair.”
“The government's position is clear: we do not accept that the answer is to step aside and hope the market resolves these issues. Technological change must be shaped so that its benefits are broadly shared and its risks are properly managed. That is why the government has developed the National AI Plan. It is a coordinated framework to ensure AI contributes to a stronger and fairer economy. It is anchored in three objectives: capturing the opportunity, spreading the benefits and keeping Australians safe. Estimates indicate that AI could contribute up to $200 billion annually to Australia's economy and support around 150,000 jobs by the end of the decade. The task is not to resist AI but to ensure Australians benefit from it. That begins with skills.”
“I rise to respond to the motion moved by the member for Casey. At the outset, it is necessary to address the premise of the motion. It presents itself as a defence of Australian workers in the face of technological change. That is a curious position from those who have consistently opposed stronger workplace laws, argued against lifting wages and previously supported the exit of industries from this country. The House has been asked to accept that those who say the government should get out of the way are now the principal advocates for workers affected by artificial intelligence. That is not a serious policy position. It is a contradiction. Artificial intelligence is shaping the global economy. It is changing how Australians work, learn and connect. The issue before the House is how that change is managed and in whose interests.”
“This bill ensures they do not have to make that choice. It is a measured reform, it is a necessary reform and it is a reform that reflects both the realities of modern medicine and the expectations of a fair society. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.”
“In closing, this bill is about trust—trust that Australians can engage with modern medicine without fear of financial penalty, trust that their most personal information will be treated with care and respect, and trust that our systems, both health and financial, are working in their best interests. By passing this bill, we reinforce that trust. We send a clear signal that fairness matters, that privacy matters and that the wellbeing of Australians, both physical and financial, matters. This bill is, at its core, about removing a false choice. Australians should not have to choose between their health and their financial security. They should not have to choose between knowledge and protection. They should not have to choose between participating in modern medicine and participating in the financial system.”
“It reduces workforce participation. It shifts costs from prevention into crisis management. By contrast, a system that supports early detection is more efficient. It keeps people healthier for longer, it reduces long-term costs and it supports productivity. This bill is consistent with that approach. One of the most important features of this bill is the certainty that it provides. The existing industry moratorium has not delivered that certainty. It has been limited in scope. It has been poorly understood and has left too much discretion in the hands of insurers. This bill replaces that with a clear legislated framework. It gives Australians confidence that the rules are fixed, enforceable and fair.”
“It is grounded in early detection, better management and advances in treatment. It reflects a broader shift in health care from managing failure to preventing it. Genetic testing has a role to play in that future. It allows for earlier identification risk, it enables earlier intervention and ultimately it can reduce the number of Australians who progress to end-stage kidney disease. This bill supports that objective. It aligns financial settings with health outcomes. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding advocacy of Dr Jane Tiller, from Monash University, who has helped bring this issue out of the margins and into the national spotlight. There is also an economic dimension to this reform. A system that discourages detection is, in the long run, more costly. It increases pressure on the healthcare system.”
“We're also at the point in medical history where genetic knowledge is increasingly actionable. In the case of kidney disease, there are now emerging treatments and new medications that can significantly slow disease progression and, in some cases, prevent kidney failure. That changes the equation entirely. A genetic predisposition is no longer a fixed destiny. It is information that can guide intervention. It is information that can improve outcomes. It allows clinicians to act earlier and with greater precision. But, again, that only matters if people are willing to access that information. This bill supports that shift from reactive health care to preventive health care. I want to acknowledge the work of Kidney Health Australia and its ambition to end dialysis by 2050. That is an ambitious goal, but it is not unrealistic.”
“When I was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, it did not just affect me; it affected my family. It raised questions about genetic predisposition. It raised questions about what it might mean for my boys. That is where this bill becomes even more important, because the question is not just whether we should be protected; it's whether our kids should be protected—it's whether, in the future, they should be penalised if, out of an abundance of caution, on medical advice or to participate in research, they choose to undergo genetic testing. The answer, in my view, is unequivocally no. They should not face higher premiums. They should not be denied cover. They should not be put in a position where understanding their own health becomes a financial liability. This bill ensures that they will not be.”
“There is also a broader public health dimension to this reform. Genetic testing is not just about individual outcomes; it is about collective benefit. When more Australians undertake genetic testing, we improve early detection, enable more targeted treatment, strengthen our understanding of disease and accelerate medical research. But that only happens if people feel safe to participate. If people are opting out, if they are declining tests or if they are withdrawing from studies because of insurance concerns, then we are all worse off. This bill removes that disincentive. It supports greater participation in genetic testing and research. It aligns our regulatory settings with our healthcare ambitions. I want to return briefly to my own circumstances.”
“Unlike many forms of information, it is not something a person chooses; it is something they are born with. That is why it demands a higher level of protection. This bill recognises that. It acknowledges that, while insurers have legitimate interests in assessing risk, there must be limits on how that risk is assessed. There are certain types of information, particularly genetic information, that should not be used to determine access to essential financial products, and that balance is carefully struck. The public health implications of this reform are significant. Genetic testing is an increasingly important part of preventive health care. It allows individuals to identify risks early. It enables clinicians to tailor interventions. It supports participation in research that benefits the broader community.”
“It relies on industry compliance rather than statutory obligation, and it has been the subject of confusion among consumers and health professionals alike. For many Australians, the question has remained unclear: if I get tested, will this affect my ability to obtain life insurance? Where that question cannot be answered with certainty, the rational response is caution, and in this context, caution means delay or avoidance of testing. That is precisely the outcome this bill seeks to correct. This reform is not occurring in isolation. It reflects a broader shift in how we think about data, privacy and fairness in the 21st century. Genetic information is deeply personal. It is not just about an individual; it can have implications for families, future generations and communities.”
“It recognises that genetic predisposition is not the same as a diagnosed condition, and it ensures that individuals are not treated as if they are already unwell simply because of what their genes might suggest. In legal terms, this reflects a careful balancing of competing interests. It preserves the principle of risk assessment while removing the category of information that is inherently uncertain, highly sensitive and not determinative of actual health outcomes. It is also necessary to acknowledge why legislative intervention is required. The current system relies heavily on an industry moratorium. That moratorium was a step forward, but it has not resolved the underlying problem. It applies only within certain policy limits.”
“It means that individuals no longer need to rely on policy settings that can be altered, withdrawn or interpreted inconsistently. It means that rights are clearly defined, enforceable and capable of being relied on in practice, not merely in theory. It is important to be precise about what this bill does and what it does not do. It does not dismantle risk based insurance. Insurers will still be able to assess risk based on clinically diagnosed conditions, medical history and other relevant factors. What this bill does is draw a clear boundary. It says that predictive genetic information—information about what might happen in the future—cannot be used to deny Australians access to life insurance. That is a rational distinction.”
“Schedule 1 amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to prohibit life insurers from using what is defined as 'protected genetic information' in underwriting decisions. That includes whether a person has undergone genetic testing, whether they have been advised to do so and the results of any such testing. The effect is clear: an insurer cannot refuse cover, vary terms or increase premiums based on predictive genetic information. The bill also introduces enforcement mechanisms. It creates both a strict liability offence and a significant civil penalty for breaches, with regulatory oversight vested in ASIC. This is not guidance. This is not a voluntary code. It is enforceable law. And that shift from industry led restraint to legislative certainty is critical.”
“For too long, Australians have faced a quiet but very real disincentive to engage in genetic testing, not because they don't want to know, not because they don't value their own health, but because they fear what that knowledge might mean for their ability to obtain life insurance. The evidence before this parliament is clear. Australians have delayed or declined potential life-saving genetic tests because of concerns that adverse results could be used against them in insurance underwriting. That is not a hypothetical concern. It is a documented behavioural response. It is, in effect, a system that penalises prevention, and that is a system that cannot stand in a modern healthcare environment. This bill responds to that problem in a targeted and proportionate way.”
“That led to further investigations, and ultimately I was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. I did not feel sick. I did not have symptoms that had prompted me to go see a doctor, and, without that test, I would not have known. If I had not known, I would not have been able to manage it, I would not have been able to slow its progression and I would not have been able to make decisions that have allowed me to live a full life, build a career, start a family and stand here today. That is the power of early detection. That is the power of information, and that is exactly what this bill is about—ensuring Australians are not discouraged from accessing that information. The issue this bill addresses is straightforward.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is a bill about fairness, about modern medicine and about ensuring that Australians are not punished for taking responsibility for their own health. Before I turn to the detail of this legislation, I just want to begin with something personal. When I was 25, I went for what I thought was a routine pre-employment medical. I was about to start my electrical apprenticeship, and I felt fine. I was working hard in building a career, and, like most young people, I was not thinking much about my health beyond getting through the week. That medical changed my life. A urine test picked up something that did not look right.”
“If we are serious about that vision, we must also invest in the cultural infrastructure that brings a city to life. As I said in my inaugural speech, culture is infrastructure too because, in times like these, the arts do more than entertain. They bring people together, they strengthen communities and they help remind us that, even in uncertain times, creativity and culture help carry us forward.”
“The Joondalup Festival itself has become one of the cultural highlights of Perth's northern suburbs. Importantly, it includes a wide range of free community events and outdoor performances, ensuring families can come together to experience the arts without having to worry about costs. Recently, I also had the opportunity to host Susan Templeman, the Special Envoy for the Arts, in Joondalup, bringing together a cross-section of our local arts community. What stood out was the extraordinary talent, passion and commitment that exists in our community but also the very real challenges that the sector is facing. There was also a strong and clear message about the importance of fit-for-purpose cultural infrastructure as our region continues to grow. Joondalup is increasingly recognised as Western Australia's second CBD.”
“While the National Library continues its vital role in preserving Australia's written history, it now also provides vast digital collections, photographs, oral history, archives and research materials for all Australians. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library, I see firsthand how important modern information services are in ensuring Australians can access knowledge in new and evolving ways. The arts are not only found in libraries. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the Joondalup Festival at the Joondalup Contemporary Art Gallery. The opening exhibition featured rare photographs of David Bowie by Christine de Grancy and was a powerful reminder of the way art captures moments in time and tells stories that resonate across generations.”
“Ancestry.com allows residents to explore their family history and discover the stories that shaped the generations before them. At a time when subscription services seem to multiply every year and monthly bills quickly add up, these resources offer genuine value for families. Importantly, the library ensures that everyone can access them. If the technology feels daunting, residents can simply book an appointment with the library's friendly team, who will sit them down and show them how to download an ebook, stream a film or start exploring their family history online. Libraries across Australia are evolving this way. In fact, earlier today, I was fortunate enough to visit the National Library of Australia, just a short walk from this chamber. The visit was a powerful reminder of just how much libraries have evolved.”
“I can report that, this morning, I signed up for the City of Joondalup's library services online. It only took a few minutes, and I immediately unlocked access to a remarkable range of digital resources. Libraries today are not what people imagine them to be. The old stereotype of quiet buildings full of dusty shelves has long since passed. Modern libraries are dynamic, digital and deeply connected to the communities they serve. Through the City of Joondalup's library system, residents can access an extraordinary range of online resources entirely free of charge. Platforms like Libby allow people to borrow ebooks and audiobooks from home. Kanopy provides access to thousands of films and documentaries. Hoopla offers movies, music, comics and television shows.”
“In times of uncertainty, when households are feeling the pressure of rising costs and when the pace of events around the world can sometimes feel unsettling, it is often the arts that quietly help carry us through. They give us stories that help us make sense of the world, they create moments of joy and connection and, importantly, they provide opportunities for people to learn, create and experience culture without needing deep pockets. In my electorate of Moore, we are fortunate to have a vibrant cultural community supported by outstanding local institutions. One of the most important of these is our local library network. Across Moore, we have four fantastic libraries: Duncraig, Joondalup, Whitford and Woodvale. Every day, they provide something incredibly valuable: free access to knowledge, culture and creativity.”
“Household batteries store solar energy generated during the day and make it available when demand increases. This not only helps households manage their bills but also strengthens the electricity system itself.”
“Across many suburbs in metropolitan Perth, including communities throughout Moore, solar panels are now a common feature of rooftops. Households have adopted these technologies because they make economic sense. They reduce electricity consumption from the grid and lower long-term costs. The next stage of this development is the expansion of household battery storage. The government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program is designed to support this transition. The program is expected to expand to around $7.2 billion over four years, helping households, small businesses and community organisations reduce their electricity bills. It is expected to support the installation of more than two million batteries by 2030, delivering approximately 40 gigawatt hours of storage capacity.”
“They sit alongside policies designed to reduce everyday expenses. For example, medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are now capped at $25 or less. That is the largest reduction in medicines in the history of the PBS and will save Australians hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Investments in Medicare, including expanded bulk-billing and urgent care clinics, also reduce the financial burden on families. Within that broader cost-of-living framework, household energy measures play a specific role. Unlike temporary payments, energy efficiency upgrades and rooftop solar can reduce electricity bills permanently. Australia now has one of the highest rates of rooftop solar adoption in the world. Millions of households have installed solar panels as a way of managing their power bills.”
“Real disposable income per person has increased by around two per cent over the past year, reversing the decline that occurred earlier. Wage growth has contributed to that improvement. Minimum and award wages have increased significantly in recent years. Employment growth has been strong. Since this government came to office, more than 1.2 million jobs have been created. Unemployment remains low, and workforce participation is close to record levels. In practical terms, the recovery in household living standards is being driven by people working and earning. Alongside rising wages, the government has delivered tax relief. Every Australian taxpayer has received a tax cut, with further reductions to commence in the coming financial year. These measures increase take-home pay and help households manage cost pressures.”
“Since then, the focus has been on stabilising the economy while delivering responsible cost-of-living relief. The most recent national accounts show the Australian economy growing at 2.6 per cent through the year. That is the strongest pace of growth in almost three years and is faster than every major advanced economy. Importantly, that growth is being driven by the private sector, not public spending. That matters because cost-of-living relief must be delivered without adding to inflation. Australia is facing global uncertainty, but the economic data shows the country is approaching those challenges from a position of strength. Strong economic management creates the capacity to deliver practical relief to households. One of the most important improvements in the economy has been the recovery in household incomes.”