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 7 of 14.
“Reduced volatility is not accidental; it reflects coordinated intervention and new supply entering the system. On the broader cost-of-living question, context matters. Inflation surged across advanced economies. Europe, North America and Asia have all faced the same pressures: supply chain disruption, labour shortages and energy shocks. The cost-of-living pressures Australians face are real, and no responsible government dismisses them. We have taken inflation seriously since day one. The responsible course in that environment is not to inflame demand or abandon fiscal discipline; it is to stabilise inflation, provide targeted relief, restore wage growth and maintain credibility. Inflation has moderated from its peak, real wages have returned to growth, and tax cuts have been delivered to every taxpayer.”
“Since forming government, we have taken practical steps. First, we've delivered targeted energy bill relief to households and small businesses. That has directly reduced pressure and contributed to moderating inflation. Second, we've accelerated transmission investment and supported new generation and firming capacity so that reliability is maintained as ageing coal exits the system. Reliability is sustained by engineering and investment, not by a press conference. Third, we strengthened market oversights and competition settings to ensure Australians are not paying more than they should. Importantly, wholesale electricity prices have come down from the extraordinary peaks seen during the global energy shock. That stabilisation matters. Wholesale markets drive retail outcomes.”
“Let us not forget another uncomfortable chapter, the great privatisation experiment. Across this country, Liberal governments have sold poles and wires, they've sold generation assets, and they promised efficiency, competition and lower prices. Australians got higher network costs, vertically integrated gentailers with significant market power and a regulatory maze that made genuine competition harder, not easier. You cannot sell the family silver, pocket the proceeds and then express shock when the new owners seek a commercial return. Once the assets are sold, governments lose direct leverage over pricing and planning. That is not ideology. This is corporate law. What Australians saw much of the last decade was drift. What investors saw was risk. What households experienced was volatility.”
“For nearly a decade, there was no settled national energy framework capable of attracting long-term capital from the so-called party of business. Announcements were made, schemes were floated, leaders were replaced, policies were rebadged and reannounced, and investors were left waiting. Energy systems are capital intensive and long dated. If you delay decisions for political convenience, you do not avoid costs. You compound them. Member for Page, I strongly suggest you visit regional Western Australia and see those remote communities and those mine sites you love so much adding renewables because of the savings—in the mining industry. Energy systems do not respond to slogans. They respond to steel in the ground and capital committed—capital, concrete, copper.”
“I rise to address the claim that Australians have been betrayed through higher energy prices and cost-of-living pressures. It's a serious allegation, but it should be tested against facts, history and responsibility. The rhetoric is loud, but the history is inconvenient. Let us start with energy. Wholesale electricity and gas prices did not suddenly become volatile because of a change of government. They were hit by a global energy shock following the war in Ukraine. They were strained by an ageing coal fleet reaching retirement. They were constrained by inadequate transmission. They were weakened by a decade of stalled reform and policy drift. Those structural reforms were not new; they were inherited—a bit like their wealth.”
“These bills do not pretend that challenges can be solved without cost, nor do they attempt to obscure expenditure behind vague authorisations or opaque mechanisms. They set out, clearly and transparently, the amounts required and the purpose for which they may be spent. That clarity strengthens trust in public institutions. It allows the House to do its job, and it allows Australians to judge whether the government is acting in their best interests. On that measure, these bills deserve support. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.”
“They recognise that good fiscal management is not about refusing to act but about ensuring that the parliament authorises that action openly, transparently and in line with national priorities. I acknowledge that the appropriation debates are rarely glamorous. They lack the rhetorical flourish of major policy announcements, but they are among the most important debate this House conducts. They are where theory meets practice and where parliament discharges its most basic constitutional responsibility. Finally, I want to address the broader context in which these bills are considered. Australians rightly expect governments to manage public money carefully. They also expect honesty about why spending is required and what it is intended to achieve.”
“These documents form part of the interpretive framework of the legislation and are essential tools for parliamentary scrutiny. It is also important to note that these bills replenish the advances to the finance minister and the presiding officers, ensuring that the government retains the capacity to respond to urgent and unforeseen circumstances. This mechanism is not a blank cheque; it is tightly constrained by law and subject to reporting requirements. It is a necessary feature of responsible fiscal management in a complex and dynamic environment. For the people of Moore, the measures supported by these bills have real impacts. These bills reflect their government responding to changing circumstances with discipline rather than delay, with transparency rather than improvisation.”
“It provides additional funding to the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services to support the operations of this parliament for the remainder of the financial year. This funding underpins the practical work that allows members to represent their constituents, committees to conduct inquiries and the parliament to function securely and effectively. In an era where democratic institutions face increasing global pressure, properly resourcing the parliament is not an indulgence; it is a safeguard. Across all three bills, there is consistent emphasis on accountability. The appropriations are supported by the portfolio budget statements and portfolio additional estimates statements, which provide detailed information on how funds are allocated and the outcomes they are intended to support.”
“Support for affordable and social housing through Housing Australia is a practical intervention that complements state and local efforts. It recognises that market forces alone will not meet the full range of housing needs—particularly for vulnerable Australians and essential workers. Environmental investments include water recovery and reflect the long-term responsibility governments bear to manage shared natural resources. These decisions require patience, consistency and funding certainty across multiple financial years. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) ensures that the commitments already made in these areas are properly resourced rather than left to be exposed to delay or dilution. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-26, while modest in dollar terms, is equally essential.”
“Housing affordability pressures are felt acutely by young families, key workers and older Australians seeking to downsize. Federal support for social and affordable housing, when combined with state and local action, helps ensure that growth does not come at the expense of fairness or opportunity. For communities like Moore, access to stable housing supports workforce participation by enabling people to live closer to their jobs, care networks and essential services. That local experience underscores why infrastructure, housing and environmental investments funded through these bills demonstrate the interconnected nature of modern policy challenges. Housing supply, environmental sustainability and economic participation cannot be addressed in isolation from one another.”
“These bills strike the appropriate balance. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-26 complements this by authorising approximately $3.5 billion for services that are not classified as ordinary annual services of government. Constitutional requirements demand that these expenditures be dealt with separately, but their purpose is no less important. This bill includes further funding for defence capability delivery, for environmental water purchases under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and for housing initiatives initiated through Housing Australia. In particular, the provision of loans to support social and affordable housing projects recognises that housing supply constraints are a national challenge that demand coordinated, sustained action. For communities like my electorate of Moore, these investments are not theoretical.”
“Whether responding to emergency threats, maintaining border integrity or supporting social cohesion, government must retain the capacity to act decisively and lawfully. Recent events, including the tragic attack at Bondi and the terrorist incident in Perth, are stark reminders that security threats can emerge suddenly and can have devastating impacts. They reinforce why agencies must have the resources and flexibility to respond swiftly, professionally and within the rule of law. Importantly, none of these measures exist in isolation from oversight. Expenditure is subject to audit, scrutiny through estimates and ongoing parliamentary review. Appropriations authorise spending; they do not remove accountability for how that spending is carried out. This parliament must always guard the balance between responsiveness and restraint carefully.”
“3) 2025-2026 also supports funding for the Department of Home Affairs, including resources to respond to security threats and maintain Australia's cohesive and multicultural society. This is about protecting Australians while upholding the values that define us as an open, democratic nation governed by the rule of law. The defence investments supported by these bills align with the government's stated strategic priorities and with the need to ensure that capability acquisition and sustainment can proceed as planned. Delays in funding often translate directly into delays in delivery—with long-term consequences for workforce planning, industry confidence and national readiness. Likewise, funding for Home Affairs reflects the reality that security challenges do not operate on a fixed calendar.”
“These bills provide the legal authority and funding frameworks that support continuity in essential services. They help reduce the risk of services that Australians rely on being left vulnerable to administrative gaps or funding shortfalls simply because demand has increased since the budget. That is what responsible government looks like, including in such areas as defence and national security. In defence, additional funding supports the implementation of the 2024 National d efence s trategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program. In an increasingly uncertain strategic environment, maintaining credible defence capability is not optional. It is a core responsibility of government and is one that requires sustained, disciplined investment. Appropriation Bill (No.”
“In my electorate of Moore, these pressures are not abstract. My office serves families navigating the NDIS, older Australians managing chronic conditions and health professionals working under sustained strain. That includes constituents relying upon the Joondalup Health Campus for complex and acute care as well as follow-up treatment and ongoing medication in the community, underscoring the importance of stable funding arrangements across the health system. For them, the difference between timely funding and delayed funding is the difference between certainty and anxiety, between continuity of care and disruption. In suburbs across Moore, from Joondalup to Gwelup, these pressures are felt not in isolation but across households, workplaces and care networks.”
“This includes substantial funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, ensuring participants continue to receive reasonable and necessary support. It also supports reforms to strengthen Medicare, protect access to medicines and improve the coordination and delivery of health services across Australia. As a kidney transplant recipient, I am acutely aware of the importance of a strong, accessible health system, including reliable access to essential medicines. Supporting the NDIS through additional estimates is not a failure of planning; it is an acknowledgement of reality. As the participant numbers grow and supports evolve, funding must keep pace. Anything less would undermine the confidence of participants and their families, and erode the trust that underpins the scheme itself.”
“Continued investment in programs such as cheaper home batteries and emissions reduction measures is not abstract climate policy; it is about lowering household energy costs, strengthening grid resilience and supporting Australia's transition to a cleaner and more secure energy system. In my electorate of Moore, that transition is already underway. As of 8 February 2026, 1,792 household batteries have been installed across the electorate. Families investing in storage to manage their power bills increases resilience during peak demand and contributes to a more reliable grid. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026 also provides $1.5 billion to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.”
“3) 2025-2026 seeks approval for approximately $9.2 billion in additional funding for the ordinary annual services of government. This funding reflects updated costs and demand pressures across a range of portfolios. A significant portion of this funding is directed to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. As a member of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, and as a former electrician, I have seen firsthand the importance of ensuring that funding in this portfolio is targeted, accountable and responsive to real-world pressures.”
“Neglect is failing to act when costs rise, needs change or circumstances deteriorate, and then pretending that inaction is a virtue. The measures contained in these bills reflect careful consideration by government as to where additional resources are required and why. They are accompanied by detailed portfolio statements that allow this House and the public to assess whether those resources are aligned with stated outcomes and priorities. For that reason, appropriation debates are not merely technical exercises; they are an opportunity for the parliament to test whether expenditure decisions are coherent, justified and consistent with the values we claim to uphold—fairness, security, opportunity and responsibility. These bills meet the test. Appropriation Bill (No.”
“What they do provide is the legal authority for expenditure that supports Australians in real and tangible ways through health care, disability services, defence capability, climate resilience, housing supply and the proper functioning of our democratic institutions. That constitutional role is particularly important in the context of additional estimates. Additional estimates exist because budgets are forecasts, not crystal balls. They respond to changes in economic conditions, updated demand for essential services and decisions taken after the budget that nevertheless require parliamentary authority to proceed. Importantly, these bills demonstrate the distinction between fiscal discipline and fiscal neglect. Discipline means making responsible decisions, clearly explaining them and funding them transparently.”
“At their core, these bills perform a fundamental constitutional role. Under our system of responsible government, no money may be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the authority of the parliament. Appropriation bills are the means by which the parliament exercises that authority. They are not vehicles for policy intervention. They are instruments of democratic accountability, ensuring that decisions already taken by government are properly scrutinised and transparently funded. That distinction matters. These bills do not create new rights or obligations. They do not, of themselves, establish programs or impose duties.”
“I don't even know where to start after that. I must thank the member for Goldstein. I feel he walked into the wrong meeting. That meeting's down the docks on a Wednesday night, my friend. He's forgotten what we were actually here to speak about. I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. Taken together, these bills give effect to the government's additional estimates for the 2025-26 financial year. They authorise the expenditure required to meet the costs that have emerged since the budget, reflect updated demand driven programs and ensure that the parliament, the Public Service and the essential national systems continue to function effectively and responsibly.”
“It keeps Australians safe while keeping Australia itself open, free and lawful. From the cyberlabs of ECU to the workshops of Heathridge and the homes of Iluka, Mullaloo and Duncraig, these reforms matter. They matter because they reduce risk without reducing rights. They matter because they make the exceptional possible and keep it exceptional. They matter because they ensure the law keeps pace with reality. That is the essence of responsible legislation. I support this bill because it serves my constituents in Moore by safeguarding what they build and rely upon. I support this bill because it serves Australia's security without eroding Australia's liberties. I support the bill because it replaces uncertainty with clarity, and pairs it with accountability. These are the hallmarks of good law in a serious parliament.”
“The community expects trust in matters of national security. The business community across Perth's northern corridor depends on secure and predictable supply chains. Students and staff in Joondalup expect strong protections for research security. Families in Kingsley, Padbury and Craigie look for confidence in the protection of democratic institutions. This bill delivers that confidence through stronger powers, clearer safeguards and firm oversight. Australians want their government to be calm, competent and careful in this domain. That is what this bill represents. It is a careful adjustment, not a sweeping departure. It is grounded in two decades of practice and review. It puts in statute the standards the public rightly expects. It delivers continuity for agencies and accountability for parliament.”
“The best way to avoid overreach tomorrow is to legislate carefully today. This bill reflects that philosophy. It moves the framework from ad hoc renewal to stable authority under constant scrutiny. It recognises more kinds of modern harm and matches them with proportionate process. It upholds a line between intelligence and prosecution. It respects the role of courts and the rights of individuals. It keeps the parliament firmly in the loop through mandated review. That is how a mature democracy protects itself. I would like to thank the officials and the oversight bodies who have contributed to the process. I also acknowledge the constructive input received through the prior PJCIS review process. The result before the House is a balanced bill that reflects experience and evidence.”
“Scheduled review encourages continuous improvement. I want to speak to my younger constituents, studying at ECU and working in local tech firms. Many of you will serve your country by strengthening systems not by wearing a uniform. These laws support that service by ensuring agencies can act quickly and lawfully when you are targeted. These also ensure that your rights are respected and your trust is earned. To local businesses in Joondalup, Edgewater and Woodvale, certainty matters. Permanent powers with clear checks provide certainty. You should not be left wondering whether necessary authority exists when a threat hits your network. You should also not worry that power is used without restraint. This bill addresses both concerns. National security is not a static portfolio. It is a discipline that adapts as adversaries adapt.”
“The amended eligibility and termination provisions reduce any risk of perceived bias. Tenure settings create clarity about service and departure. Removal grounds are spelled out not improvised. These changes keep the safeguard independent and seen to be independent. On reporting, the Attorney-General must be informed of relevant warrant conduct. That creates a clearer picture on how powers are exercised and why. It supports ministerial accountability to this parliament. It also assists the PJCIS in its future review. Together these measures embed transparency throughout the life cycle of a warrant. They are practical tools for oversight not paperwork for its own sake. Some may ask whether these reforms restrict operational agility. The opposite is true. Clear rules speed decisions and improve confidence in outcomes.”
“If the matter moves to a charge, any further questioning occurs before a retired judge. Parliament would later examine the framework's operation through the PJCIS review. That change shows how power and accountability work together. Another Western Australian example involves a small Defence supplier helping to secure our systems. If a foreign agent attempts to subvert access credentials, time is critical. The questioning framework can surface who is involved and how the intrusion was orchestrated. The inspector-general can audit the use and the records. The parliament stays informed through mandated reported and scheduled review. That is practical, not theoretical, protection. For prescribed authorities, independence is not rhetoric. It is defined by law and enforced by rules.”
“During that time the threat has evolved rapidly, and reform did not keep pace. This government is providing the clarity that the agencies and public deserve. Our approach is straightforward—capability and transparency. Capability without transparency is risky, and transparency without capability is hollow. We are delivering both. That is the Labor balance. I'd like to return to Moore for a practical example. Suppose a hostile actor targets a research partner connected to ECU's cyber-labs. Traditional powers may not be sufficient to identify the facilitator and method quickly. A questioning warrant approved by the Attorney-General and overseen by a prescribed authority may close that gap. The session is recorded and reviewable, and the outcome is reported to the Attorney-General.”
“These safeguards are not decorative; they are enforceable and enforced. That is how liberal democracies wield exceptional powers responsibly. Now I have a word on cost and consultation. The explanatory memorandum states that the amendments have no financial impact. Agencies will operate within existing resources. The reforms were refined through consultation across government with the PJCIS process. Stakeholder feedback sharpened definitions and improved reporting triggers. The framework has been examined repeatedly over two decades and is now being modernised methodically. That's reform done properly not on the run. I turn to the opposition. The coalition will likely support this bill, and I welcome that, but they've had years in which these reforms could have been made.”
“Sabotage can be disabling of a critical control system from offshore. Promotion of communal violence can be foreign backed agitation designed to fracture social cohesion. Attacks on our defence system can be interference with command, control or supply. Threats to territorial or border integrity include hostile activities short of armed conflict. Each remains subject to the same warrant thresholds and the same oversight. The expansion recognises contemporary risk; it does not loosen standards. We also hear questions about rights. Rights are protected by process, and this bill strengthens that process. Questioning is time bound, recorded and supervised. Legal representation is available. Protections against self-incrimination apply as provided by law. Complaints and reviews are possible through established oversight bodies.”
“ECU's work with government and industry shows national security runs through suburbs like ours, not just Canberra. ECU'S cyber researchers safeguard the critical systems our community depends on every day. This bill does the same, protecting our institutions and our people. It strengthens capability and accountability together, not one at the expense of the other. Some will ask whether making the framework permanent opens the door to overreach. The answer lies in the checks: Attorney-General approval; prescribed authority supervision; IGIS review; and a mandated PJCIS review after three years. That combination provides discipline, transparency and renewal. Others will ask whether the expanded matters are too broad. The matters reflect real-world harms that Australians face today.”
“The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security can review every stage and inspect records. The post-charge safeguard ensures questioning of a charged person occurs only before a retired judge. That recognises the interface with the criminal justice process and protects fairness. The strengthened eligibility and termination settings for prescribed authorities reinforce independence. The new reporting requirements to the Attorney-General enhance ministerial oversight in real time. The framework remains targeted, warranted and proportionate. Courts remain the arbiters of guilt and innocence. This bill respects that line and keeps it bright. Let me bring this home to Moore. In Joondalup, Edith Cowan University's cybercapability is world class.”
“Espionage is now digital extraction, not trench coats under bridges. Foreign interference can be covert influence campaigns disguised as community debate. Sabotage can target satellite links, water treatment plants or defence supply chains. Radicalisation can happen in a private chat channel faster than any pamphlet could spread. A legal framework frozen in 2003 cannot keep Australia safe in 2025. This bill recognises that reality and updates the reach of the power with tighter guardrails. Australians expect strong powers and strong safeguards, not one at the expense of the other. That is what this bill delivers. The Attorney-General must personally approve each questioning warrant. Questioning occurs before an independent prescribed authority who oversees conduct throughout.”
“In those cases, questioning, and any production of documents, must occur only before a prescribed authority who is a former judge of a superior court. Finally, schedule 1 part 1 also amends the Intelligence Services Act. This enables the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to undertake a further review of division 3 three years after this act commences. That is the legislative skeleton. Now I'll move to the 'why'. Since 2003, ASIO has had compulsory questioning powers under division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act. They have been used judiciously to obtain high-value intelligence in circumstances where ASIO's other powers may not be appropriate. That restraint tells Australians that the power is exceptional and applied only when necessary. But the threat environment has changed profoundly in two decades.”
“They may also relate to sabotage, the promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity. Schedule 1, parts 3 and 4 strengthen the independence of prescribed authorities. They do this by widening the categories of people who cannot be appointed and by clarifying when appointments may and must be terminated. Schedule 1, part 5 strengthens ministerial oversight. It requires the Director-General to report to the Attorney-General on any relevant non-compliance or contraventions connected with a questioning warrant. This includes breaches of guidelines, procedures, warrant conditions or prescribed authority directions. Schedule 1 part 6 adds a specific safeguard to post-charge questioning and closely related circumstances.”
“In 2026, security is not just borders and bases; it's networks, data and trust. That is the world this bill addresses. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 modernises ASIO's questioning framework. It keeps what works, fixes what is outdated and strengthens safeguards end to end. Schedule 1, part 1 repeals section 34JF of the ASIO Act. This removes the 7 September 2025 sunset and makes division 3 permanent while keeping the existing safeguards and oversight in place. Schedule 1, part 2 expands the definition of an of an adult questioning matter. Adult questioning warrants may now apply beyond espionage, politically motivated violence and foreign interference.”
“Unions are lawful institutions representing millions of Australians. They are regulated. They are accountable. When individuals breach the law, they face consequences like anyone else. The opposition is entitled to prosecute political arguments but is not entitled to rewrite its own record.”
“That is not turning a blind eye; that is correcting imbalance. The opposition's pattern is familiar: amplify allegations in the Labor movement while remaining comparatively subdued about misconduct in the boardrooms. Integrity should not operate on a partisan bias. If corruption is the concern, then all corruption should be pursued without favour, without political narrative and without selective outrage. This government supports independent regulators doing their job. We do not interfere in their investigations. We do not issue instructions about targets. That is precisely what integrity requires. The Australian people expect fairness and consistency. They expect that laws apply equally. We do not accept the proposition that equates supporting the union movement with excusing illegality. That is a false dichotomy.”
“That was not a neutral integrity measure; it was targeted regulation. This government does not defend unlawful conduct. We defend consistent application of the law. The same job, same pay legislation is to me one of the greatest pieces of legislation this government has passed. When I was on the tools, I was building on a construction site up in the hills in Perth. We were building a crushing plant and there were four rates of pay for different sparkies. Because of that people just quit. And they wonder why productivity was low under the previous regime. We've criminalised deliberate wage theft, because honest small businesses were being undercut by competitors who avoided paying lawful entitlements. We strengthened the enforcement so that those who do the right thing are not commercially disadvantaged.”
“Breaches attract significant penalties. In many instances, penalties imposed on unions for industrial contraventions exceed those imposed on corporations for comparable regulatory breaches. That is not an argument for impunity; it is an argument about proportionality. The question is not whether misconduct should be sanctioned. It should. The question is whether one class of lawful organisation should be subject to extraordinary penalty settings while corporate misconduct that distorts markets and harms workers is treated as a compliance matter. During the previous government, industrial relations policy was framed not as economic management but as a cultural contest. Legislation such as the so-called ensuring integrity bill sought to make deregistration of unions easier than the removal of corporate directors for serious misconduct.”
“Underpayment was exposed repeatedly. Large corporations admitted to short-changing workers by millions of dollars, yet the penalty framework remained weak. Enforcement was under-resourced and criminalisation was resisted. That was the blind eye not to allegations but to structural exploitation. They resisted the federal Anti-Corruption Commission for years. They argued against it, they delayed it and then they diluted it. This government established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We did so because integrity cannot be factional; it must be institutional. The opposition's argument today implies that unions operate without oversight. That is demonstrably incorrect. Registered organisations are subject to strict financial reporting obligations, officer duties, audits and disclosure requirements under federal law.”
“I rise to address this proposition directly. This government does not turn a blind eye to corruption—in unions, in corporations or anywhere else. The rule of law in this country does not depend on ministerial preference; it depends on independent regulators, independent prosecutors and independent courts. Where there is unlawful conduct, it should be investigated and prosecuted. That is the position of this government. It is clear. It is consistent. It is not selective. I did not realise when I came into this place as a sparky turned lawyer that I would have to become an amateur historian to remind those opposite of their collective amnesia and that history actually matters. For nearly a decade, those opposite presided over systematic wage theft across multiple industries: hospitality, retail, construction and franchising.”
“While Australia is focused on governing, those opposite are focused on themselves, on internal divisions, on leadership games, on settling scores and protecting their own positions rather than delivering outcomes for the community. They had a decade to act and left Australians with stagnant wages, rising costs and neglected services. Now, instead of taking responsibility, they offer blame, slogans and distractions. To the member for Hastie—”
“Australians expect their government to be focused on them, on the cost of living, on secure work and on the services people rely on every day. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. We are governing with purpose. We are delivering cost-of-living relief through cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and tax cuts for every taxpayer, not just those at the top. We are strengthening Medicare, investing in public schools and rebuilding TAFE so people can train for real jobs in a changing economy. We are focused on wages, on job security and on building homes Australia needs, because you cannot fix a housing crisis without building more homes and you cannot build them without skilled workers. That is the difference.”
“They position Australia as a jurisdiction that is open to new ideas, but isn't naive about the risk. The question before the House is not whether digital assets will continue to grow. They will. The question is whether we allow that growth to occur in a regulatory vacuum or whether we put in place a framework that protects consumers, supports responsible innovation and safeguards the integrity of our financial system. This bill chooses the latter. It modernises our law without discarding what works, it adapts existing financial services principles to new technology, and it strikes a careful balance between flexibility and accountability. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.”
“They want to know that if they engage with digital assets—whether directly, through investment products or via emerging local businesses—the rules are clear and the protections are real. This bill gives them that confidence. Looking ahead, the growing scale and interconnectedness of digital asset markets means that risks which are currently contained could, if left unmanaged, become systemic. Large custodial failures, operational outages or cyber incidents have the potential to spill over into the broader financial system. This bill lays the groundwork for managing those risks before they crystallise rather than reacting after the damage is done. It also supports Australian innovation. Clear rules attract investment. They support job creation in fintech, cybersecurity, compliance, software development and advanced manufacturing.”
“This includes local cybersecurity firms, such as Simformatica, which is led by Peter Stagg, who is a local business owner with whom I have met to discuss the opportunities and challenges facing the sector. I had the pleasure of attending the Joondalup Business Association's breakfast in August last year, alongside the Minister for Small Business the Hon. Dr Anne Aly, where I heard from local business leaders about the strengths and ambitions of our region's innovators. Those ambitions depend on certainty, integrity and clear rules, and from a constituency perspective this matters deeply. In communities like mine, people are curious about new technologies, but they are also cautious.”
“Edith Cowan University, based in my electorate of Moore, is the second largest cybersecurity training facility in the Southern Hemisphere and was the first Australian institution admitted to the International Cyber Security Center of Excellence following its establishment in 2019. ECU alone produces more than 20 per cent of Australia's cybersecurity graduates, contributing to the more than 66,000 cyberworkers now employed nationally. It's a workforce that continues to grow rapidly. In my electorate of Moore, this growth is not abstract. Local businesses, startups and skilled workers are contributing to this ecosystem by developing secure platforms, compliance technologies and digital services that rely on strong regulatory foundations.”