Alison Penfold
Lyne · National Party · Australia
“I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I acknowledge the member for Moore and his time he spent in the wonderful community of Dungog. It is a terrific place and I know that the teachers and educators in that town do a wonderful job. Well done.”
“They can often live with their families while they study. For a young person growing up in Dungog, Taree, Wingham, Gloucester, Harrington, Tea Gardens, Bulahdelah, Forster, Tuncurry or the Manning Valley or the many other small towns and hamlets in my electorate—”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it true that the Albanese Labor government's 70c-a-day tax cut has already been eaten up by inflation, unlike the coalition's tax-back guarantee, which is protected from inflation and would provide a typical Australian worker a far bigger, $400 tax cut this year?”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer was asked about his plan to force thousands of widows and divorcees to pay more tax by removing their access to grandfathering for capital gains tax and negative gearing.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. A new report shows the Prime Minister saved around $200,000 on the sale of three investment properties under existing capital gains tax rules. In last month's budget, the Prime Minister broke his promise and changed those rules.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. A new report shows the Prime Minister saved around $200,000 on the sale of three investment properties under existing capital gains tax rules. In last month's budget, the Prime Minister broke his promise and changed those rules.”
The complete record
Every one of 616 lines we hold for Alison Penfold, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“ABARES reports that only around 0.05 per cent of Australia's native forests are harvested in any given year. Australia will continue to need timber. The question is whether that timber will be produced here under world-leading environmental standards or imported from overseas under standards we cannot control. Closing down our sustainable forest industry does not eliminate demand. It simply exports production, jobs and economic opportunity. None of this is to suggest that koalas are unimportant—quite the opposite. Koalas are one of Australia's most iconic species and deserve serious conservation efforts grounded in science and evidence. But science must drive policy, not politics. The major threats to koalas are urbanisation, vehicle strikes, dog attacks, disease and catastrophic bushfires.”
“These are families, apprentices, truck drivers, machine operators, harvest crews, meal workers and small-business operators. Yet, despite the proposed carbon methodology remaining under assessment and despite the government admitting the park is contingent upon that methodology, Labor has already acted. An immediate harvesting moratorium was imposed in September last year across approximately 176,000 hectares of state forest earmarked for the park. Labor has already begun shutting down the industry before the park is funded. Workers have already lost jobs, and mills are already on their knees. The people who work in forestry understand forests better than most. They understand regeneration, biodiversity, habitat protection and fuel management.”
“Supporters of the park should not have their aspirations tied to a methodology that leading experts say contains fundamental flaws. Likewise, forestry workers and their families should not have their livelihoods placed in limbo while the Labor government in New South Wales waits to see whether a speculative carbon revenue stream materialises. The Minns Labor government has created uncertainty for everybody—conservationists, forestry workers and regional communities. That is not good environmental or economic policy, and it's certainly not good government. Forestry remains one of the most important industries across the North Coast and in my electorate of Lyne. The industry directly employs more than 5,500 people and contributes approximately $2.9 billion annually, with a further $1 billion in value-added activity.”
“Either the government promised something before it knew how it would pay for it, or it is seeking carbon credits for an outcome that was already intended to occur. Neither proposition should give confidence to those responsible for protecting the integrity of the ACCU scheme. If governments can simply change land use policy and claim carbon credits as a reward, we risk turning the ACCU scheme into a funding mechanism for political decisions rather than genuine carbon outcomes. There are many people across the North Coast who genuinely support the creation of the Great Koala National Park, but supporters of the park should also be asking some serious questions of the Minns Labor government. If the environmental case is compelling, why was the funding not secured before the commitment was made?”
“Where is the additional carbon abatement that would not otherwise have occurred? Why should taxpayers and carbon market participants effectively fund a decision that had already been made? The Minns government appears to recognise this problem. That is why it now says the park is contingent upon approval of the carbon project, but that creates a contradiction: if the park is genuinely contingent upon approval of the carbon methodology, then Labor announced one of the largest conservation projects in New South Wales history before securing a credible funding model. If the park was always going to proceed regardless, then the additionality argument becomes extraordinarily difficult to sustain. Either way, serious questions arise.”
“Without additionality, the scheme ceases to encourage genuine new abatement and instead becomes a funding mechanism for decisions already made. This is where the proposed methodology encounters a serious problem. The Great Koala National Park was a political commitment long before this methodology emerged. It was an election commitment, one the communities are counting on. The policy decision came first; the carbon methodology came later. That sequence matters because, if the government had already decided to create the Great Koala National Park and cease timber harvesting in these forests, then a very obvious question arises: what exactly is the ACCU scheme paying for? If the outcome was always going to occur regardless of the carbon project, where is the additionality?”
“Their concerns go directly to the integrity of the ACCU scheme because, at its core, the methodology proposal is built on simply ceasing an existing activity within one land tenure category and seeking to generate carbon credits from that cessation. That was never the purpose of the ACCU scheme. There is an even more fundamental concern. It is known as additionality. Additionality is one of the central principles underpinning the ACCU scheme. Carbon credits should only be awarded where the carbon benefit would not otherwise have occurred. The ACCU scheme is not intended to pay governments, businesses or individuals for doing something that they had already decided to do. The carbon benefit must be additional.”
“The Carbon Market Institute's taskforce reviewed the draft methodology and concluded that, as drafted, the method could present material risks to the integrity of the ACCU scheme, be too narrow in scope to achieve geographically broad impact and miss important opportunities to deliver broader forest health and community benefit outcomes. We believe the method requires substantial revision to address fundamental gaps in its approach. Likewise, the Australian Forest Products Association has urged the federal government to withdraw support for the proposal. These are organisations with direct expertise in forestry, carbon accounting and environmental markets.”
“That confidence is now being tested. I'm bringing this bill forward because the Labor Minns government has proposed an improved native forest management method, or INFM method, for selected multiple-use public native forests. The proposal is currently being considered by ERAC. This methodology is intended to provide a funding mechanism for the Minns Labor government's proposed Great Koala National Park. The final creation of Labor's flagship environmental commitment is dependent on the successful registration of this methodology. There are serious concerns as to whether this proposal satisfies the principles upon which the ACCU scheme was established.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 underpins the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, which allows land managers to earn credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or storing carbon. I rise today because I seek to protect the integrity of that scheme. The Act provides a framework for the methodology approvals, project eligibility and issuance of ACCUs. The Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, or ERAC, assesses proposed methods against the requirements of the Act. Under the ACCU scheme, farmers, landholders, businesses and Indigenous communities undertake projects that reduce emissions or remove and store carbon from the atmosphere. The scheme works only if Australians have confidence that ACCUs represent genuine and additional carbon abatement.”
“Regional Australia needs local journalists, and, if we fail to protect local journalism, we will lose more than news bulletins; we will lose local voices.”
“In my own region, concerns have been raised by the Forster Fortnightly regarding broadsheet printing following the closure of printing operations in Tamworth. The true test of the NBN acquisition will not be whether a bulletin runs for 30 minutes or 60 minutes. The true test will be whether, five years from now, there are more or fewer journalists and camera crews serving communities like Taree, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Coffs Harbour and Newcastle. That is why my message to WIN tonight is simple: honour your commitments, maintain your journalists, maintain your Canberra crews and maintain your local production capability, because local journalism is not an overhead to be managed; it is a public good that deserves to be protected. Regional Australia does not simply need local content.”
“This should also prompt us to examine whether our regulatory framework is fit for purpose. The ACCC may assess whether a merger substantially lessens competition, but regional Australians are asking a different question: does it lessen local journalism? Time and again, media consolidation has been approved, while local newsrooms have shrunk and local journalists have disappeared. Perhaps it's time to consider whether acquisitions involving regional broadcasters should face a stronger public-interest test—one that explicitly considers local journalism capacity, local production and newsroom employment. Whilst my focus tonight is regional television news, similar pressures are affecting print media.”
“That is why people from the Hunter to the border are sceptical when they hear assurances from WIN that local coverage and staff will be maintained. The concern is not what is promised today. The concern is what remains in five years time. Importantly, these concerns are not solely mine. MPs from both sides of politics, local government leaders, business groups and community organisations have all expressed concern about the future of NBN news and local journalism in my neck of the woods. That bipartisan concern should tell us something. This is not about politics; it's about protecting one of regional Australia's most important democratic institutions. Regional Australians have watched media companies extract value from regional assets while reducing the local journalism that made those assets valuable in the first place.”
“Over many years, WIN has acquired valuable regional television assets, promised ongoing local coverage and then progressively reduced local news services, local production and local staffing. In 2019, WIN cut local television news services and jobs in Orange, Wagga, Albury and Hervey Bay. In South Australia, nightly WIN local news services in Mount Gambier and the Riverland were abolished. In other regional markets, dedicated local bulletins have been replaced with broader regional or statewide services produced further away from the communities they serve. The consequence has been fewer journalists, fewer camera crews, fewer local stories and less accountability. Regional communities have paid the price.”
“But the future of local storytelling through regional television news is at risk. The latest example is the sale of NBN television to the WIN network. NBN is not simply another television station. For more than 60 years it has been one of Australia's most respected regional broadcasters, serving Newcastle, the Hunter, the Mid-North Coast and the Northern Rivers. When the news broke that WIN would acquire NBN television, I publicly called on WIN to make no cuts to programming and no cuts to local journalists, production staff or camera crews following the acquisition. I stand by that call today. If WIN genuinely believes this acquisition will strengthen local news coverage, it should guarantee that local jobs, journalists and crews will be maintained. I made that call because regional Australians have seen this story before.”
“I rise to speak about the future of regional television news and what it means for people in my electorate. For generations, regional television news has been more than a nightly bulletin. It has reported on floods, bushfires and droughts. It has celebrated local achievements, told local stories and held governments, councils and public institutions to account. Most importantly, it has connected regional communities through a shared understanding of local events. Regional television news has also been a training ground for civic leadership. Indeed, members on both sides of politics have come through regional television journalism. The member for Paterson spent many years with NBN News in Newcastle. In the New South Wales parliament, the member for Tamworth, Kevin Anderson, built his career with Prime Television.”
“A government that claims to support small business is making it harder for small businesses to invest. A government that claims to support farming families is creating uncertainty around the structures many farming families rely upon to pass their businesses to the next generation. The coalition takes a different view. We believe small business should be rewarded for taking risks. We believe families should be able to build wealth and pass opportunities to the next generation, because a stronger Australia is not built on taxing aspiration; it's built on backing aspiration and cutting Labor's toxic taxes.”
“Historically, governments use revenue windfalls to repair the budget. This government has treated them as an invitation to spend more. These taxes are not being driven by economic necessity; they are being driven by a government that has become addicted to spending and now needs higher taxes to sustain it. While the Treasurer talks about fairness, ordinary Australians are asking fair questions. Leigh from Tinonee asks: 'What have I done to justify being penalised by this treasurer and this government? All I have done is save and work.' This budget was sold as a budget about fairness. It is increasingly being revealed as a budget of broken promises. A government that promised not to change negative gearing or capital gains tax is changing both.”
“If the government cannot explain the detail of a tax policy, how can Australians have confidence that the policy has been properly thought through? This looks increasingly like a government making tax policy on the run, a government announcing taxes first and working out the consequences later. History tells us that, when governments do that, small businesses and farmers usually end up paying the price. The most extraordinary thing about these taxes is that they are not being introduced because the government lacks revenue. Australians are already paying more tax than ever before. Bracket creep is delivering billions. Inflation is delivering billions. According to the budget papers, Australians will pay around $77 billion more in tax. Yet debt continues to rise, spending continues to rise and deficits remain.”
“Trusts provide flexibility to manage risk and transition a business from parents to children. Yet Labor sees those structures and sees only a source of revenue. The National Farmers' Federation and many farming groups have warned about the impact these changes could have on family farm succession and investment decisions. Small business groups have similarly warned about the uncertainty these measures create at a time when business confidence is already fragile. What is perhaps most extraordinary is that this week the government has struggled to answer basic questions about its own trust changes. Ministers have been unable to clearly explain how the policy will operate in practice or how it will affect testamentary trusts, donor trusts and family enterprises. Labor wants you to pay but can't explain the way.”
“That is not politics; that is economics. Yet this government wants Australians to believe we can become more prosperous by taxing investment, enterprise and aspiration more heavily. Well, the people who will feel the impact most are not multinational corporations. They are family farms, they are small businesses, they are family enterprises that have spent decades building something for the next generation. Across regional Australia, trusts are not an exotic tax arrangement. They are the legal structures used by farming families, tradies, retailers, transport operators and professional businesses to manage risk, plan succession and keep businesses in family hands. Farmers understand something that this government does not: a farm is not a tax structure; it's a family enterprise built over generations.”
“The Albanese government taxes aspiration. This side backs aspiration. The Albanese government told Australians one thing before the election and is doing something completely different afterwards. The Prime Minister promised there would be no changes to negative gearing, and he promised there would be no changes to capital gains tax. Australians were assured that these policies were safe—'for the 50th time'. Now those promises have been abandoned. This is a Labor budget of broken promises and toxic taxes. All the spit and polish in the world cannot make it shine. The Treasurer says Labor's tax reform is good for the economy. The problem is that the people who actually create wealth in this country say otherwise. When you tax investment you get less investment, and when you tax risk-taking you get less risk-taking.”
“The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General now have their feet firmly stuck on the sticky paper. Either the law is ambiguous and needs to be fixed, or the law is not ambiguous and the government believes that trans women are women for the purposes of Australian law, even when rights based on biological sex are affected; there is no longer any middle ground. So my question to the Attorney-General is this: does the government believe the Sex Discrimination Act is ambiguous and in need of reform, or does the government believe the law is already clear and that trans women are women for the purpose— (Time expired)”
“It retains protections for transgender Australians. It does not remove gender identity as a protected attribute. What it does do is recognise a reality that most Australians understand instinctively: biological sex matters in some circumstances—women's sport, women's toilets and change rooms, women's prisons, female-only spaces and services. Most Australians understand why those spaces exist. That is why the Nationals have launched a national petition today, calling on parliament to support my bill and restore protections for women and girls in law. Australians deserve to have their voices heard. The Federal Court has spoken. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner has spoken. Women are speaking, yet the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General continue to avoid taking a position.”
“The court did not create the problem; this parliament created it. Specifically, the ambiguity was created when the Gillard government amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013 and failed to include a clear balancing test for competing sex and gender rights. The Albanese government inherited that problem, but it owns it. Women are increasingly being told they cannot object to biological males entering spaces established specifically for women. Many women feel they have lost the right to say no. Whether members agree with that view or not, it is a genuine concern held by millions of Australians. Dismissing these concerns as a culture war is a cynical attempt to silence debate rather than answer the question. My bill, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-based Rights) Bill, seeks to provide clarity.”
“If a senior official responsible for administering the Sex Discrimination Act can advance an interpretation that many Australians struggle to reconcile with common sense, then Australians are entitled to ask whether the law is still clear. If the law is clear, it should be capable of being explained in plain English. The Sex Discrimination Act was introduced by the Hawke government in 1984 to protect women from discrimination and advance opportunities for women and girls. Today, many women are asking a different question. Does the law still protect us? The Federal Court's decision in Giggle v Tickle exposed a problem politicians have spent years trying to avoid. When rights based on biological sex come into conflict with claims based on gender identity, whose rights come first? The court interpreted the law that this parliament wrote.”
“It does not explain what the law means, it does not explain how competing rights should be balanced and it does not address the genuine concerns of millions of Australian women. What troubles me most is that the Prime Minister's comments suggest that women who raise concerns about privacy, safety, fairness and dignity should somehow be dismissed because their concerns are politically inconvenient. Australian women are not participants in a culture war. They are asking legitimate questions about laws that were originally enacted to protect them. Last week, Australians watched Senate estimates and heard the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, suggest that protections relating to pregnancy and potential pregnancy could apply based on how someone is perceived, rather than whether they can become pregnant.”
“I rise during consideration in detail of the Attorney-General's portfolio because there is a simple question at the heart of Australian law that this government can no longer avoid. It's a simple question that should not be controversial. What is a woman? Australians know the answer. A woman is an adult human female. In fact, that is exactly how the Prime Minister himself answered the question just a few years ago. Yet today Australians are increasingly being told that asking that question is somehow part of a culture war. The Prime Minister says concerns raised by women about their rights, their own rights, under the Sex Discrimination Act are a culture war. With respect, that response is not leadership; it's avoidance. Calling something a culture war is not an answer.”
“Importantly, the program recognises that many young people face challenges beyond simply finding a job and provides the support they need to get back on track, even if it is just with getting a drivers licence. Yet, despite its success, funding for the program is due to run out in August. At a time when governments speak about youth wellbeing, workforce participation and early intervention, it makes little sense to put at risk a program that is already delivering results for vulnerable young people in our community. I urge the government to work with Homebase Youth Services to provide certainty for the future of Strive for Success, because, when we invest in young people, we invest in the future of our region.”
“We spoke about the need for a local youth activity centre, the challenges of gaining employment, youth safety and mental health care access. What struck me most was that, though it's tough sometimes to do so, these young people were looking for opportunities to grow and contribute to their community. That is exactly what the Strive for Success program provides. The program works with young people aged 15 to 24, helping them overcome barriers to employment, build confidence, develop workplace skills and connect with jobs, apprenticeships, traineeships and further education. It provides practical support and mentoring not only to help young people find work but to keep work.”
“I attended the beautiful funeral mass at St Agnes' Catholic Church on Monday with many hundreds of people from near and far who came to show their respect, support and friendship for James and the positive impact he had on so many lives. My thoughts are with James's wife, Pauline; his children, Georgia and James; his parents, Catherine and Jim; the extended Cassegrain family; and the entire Expressway Spares team. James leaves behind an extraordinary legacy, and he will be greatly missed. I also want to draw attention to the outstanding work of Homebase Youth Services and its Strive for Success program. Recently, I met with local young people and Homebase Youth Services Tuncurry staff for a roundtable discussion to hear directly about the issues that concern them most.”
“Today I rise to recognise the life and contribution of a remarkable local businessman, community leader and family man, Mr James Dunn, managing director of Expressway Spares, who, tragically, passed away suddenly last month. Born in Taree and raised on the Mid North Coast, James was part of a family whose name is synonymous with business success and community contribution across our region. As the grandson of Gerard Cassegrain, who founded Expressway Spares in 1964, James proudly carried that legacy forward, leading one of our region's most successful family businesses. But James was far more than a successful businessman; he was a devoted husband to Pauline, a loving father to Georgia and James, a loyal son and friend and someone deeply committed to his staff, his family and his community.”
“My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Australia's not-for-profits' donors trusts, including non-government schools and churches, will now be impacted by Labor's minimum 30 per cent tax on trusts. How much do not-for-profits stand to lose from the effects of Labor's toxic taxes?”
“In one budget, Labor has pushed the dream of homeownership further out of reach for a young Australian who did exactly what we tell people to do: work hard, save and plan for the future. Jordan told me she now struggles to see the point of working to save if she is effectively locked out of the same investment opportunities previous generations enjoyed. That is the problem with these toxic taxes. They do not create opportunity; they take hope away. Treasurer, if your idea of intergenerational fairness is making it harder for young Australians to buy a home, then perhaps the problem is not the tax system. Perhaps it is your government's understanding of aspiration.”
“In his budget speech, the Treasurer said he was making the tax system 'fairer and stronger for workers, businesses, first home buyers and future generations'. He said that his government was embracing its intergenerational responsibilities. But the reality is very different. These are not reforms that expand opportunity. They are taxes that punish aspiration. The Treasurer says he is helping young Australians into housing, yet many young people tell me these changes do exactly the opposite. Take Jordan, a 27-year-old in my electorate. Before the budget, Jordan had mortgage preapproval and was working towards buying her first home. After the government announced its changes to negative gearing, her mortgage broker informed her that her borrowing capacity had fallen by $200,000.”
“The government frequently speaks about a future Defence Force, yet the difference between two per cent of GDP and 3 per cent of GDP is not simply an accounting exercise; it represents additional investment in capabilities that strengthen deterrence now, not just decades into the future. So my question to the minister is this: if the government genuinely accepts the finding of the Defence Strategic Review that Australia faces its most dangerous strategic environment in decades, why does this budget ask the Australian Defence Force to wait years for much of the capability it needs, and how can the government assure defence personnel and the Australian people that the defence of our nation is being strengthened now, rather than simply promised for the future?”
“The challenge for government is not simply to fund AUKUS; the challenge is ensuring that AUKUS does not come at the expense of other critical capabilities that strengthen deterrence before the first submarine enters service. That includes guided-weapons production. It includes autonomous systems. It includes cyber capability. It includes logistics, sustainment and force readiness. And it includes ensuring that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have access to the equipment and resources necessary to meet their extraordinarily high standards of service.”
“The development of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine capability is one of the most significant defence investments in our nation's history. But the Albanese government must do better than force Defence to choose between AUKUS and capability, because we need both. We will need nuclear-powered submarines in the decades ahead, but we also need a defence force today that is fully equipped, properly resourced and ready to respond to the strategic risks identified by the Defence Strategic Review. Yet concerns continue to be raised that projects critical to Australia's immediate capability have been delayed, reduced or reprioritised while funding is increasingly concentrated on the AUKUS pathway.”
“The question is not how large a headline figure can be constructed. The question is whether the Australian Defence Force is becoming more capable. The question is whether our defence personnel are getting the equipment, resources and support they need. The question is whether Australia's deterrent capability is strengthening at the pace demanded by our strategic circumstances. I want to be clear: I support AUKUS, and the coalition supports AUKUS. The coalition has committed to lifting defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP. We believe Australia's strategic circumstances demand it. We support AUKUS, but we also recognise that submarines alone are not a defence strategy. Australia needs stronger capability across the board. We must have military precision in our defence procurement.”
“Despite the warnings of the Defence Strategic Review, defence spending remains around two per cent of GDP under the government's current funding profile. At a time when the strategic environment is deteriorating, Australians are entitled to ask whether that is enough. Recent reports have suggested that the government's headline defence spending figures include items such as military superannuation, veterans' income support payments and funding for agencies outside core defence capability expenditure. Australians strongly support our veterans and those who have served our nation. They should. But Australians are entitled to know whether the government is inflating defence spending figures while the capabilities needed to defend Australia today continue to face delays and deferrals.”
“I rise during the consideration in detail of the defence portfolio appropriations to address what is arguably the first responsibility of any federal government: the defence of our nation. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment since the end of the Second World War. The Defence Strategic Review made that clear. It warned that the assumptions which have underpinned our security for decades can no longer be taken for granted. It warned that the prospect of major conflict in our region can no longer be dismissed. It warned that Australia faces a far more uncertain and dangerous future. Against that backdrop, Australians expect honesty from government. That is why serious questions must be asked about this budget and the government's claims about defence spending.”
“It's about the kind of country we want to be—a country that backs the people who grow our food, build our homes, care for our sick and educate our children; a country that rewards effort, supports resilience and honours the regions as the wealth creation centre of this nation. This year's budget debate showed Australians that there is now a very clear choice about the direction of the economy and about what kind of country we want Australia to become.”
“We'll link migration to housing supply and infrastructure, and we will invest in regional Australia. Communities like mine are feeling the strain on roads, health, aged care, water, telecommunications and housing. For too long, governments have failed to plan for population growth and failed to deliver the infrastructure and services that make growth sustainable. And abolishing the Mobile Black Spot Program and reducing funding for the Regional Tech Hub is proof positive that Labor couldn't care less about regional needs. Families in Lyne are at breaking point, with rising energy and fuel bills, soaring insurance, expensive groceries and mounting pressure on household budgets. Small businesses and farms need certainty, not the constant threat of new taxes or spending blowouts. This year's budget debate is about more than numbers.”
“Governments make promises when the TV cameras are rolling, but when the spotlight fades the support disappears, and we are left fighting tooth and nail for every scrap of assistance. Right now, Australians are seeing a clear choice. Labor's vision is to tax more, spend more and hope the numbers add up. They talk of intergenerational fairness, but the reality is uncertainty, higher taxes and less incentive to invest or innovate. Business leaders warn these policies will stifle ambition and investment, especially among the young. Contrast this with the coalition's approach: growth, lower taxes, rewarding work and aspiration. We will tackle bracket creep, index tax brackets to inflation and repeal Labor's changes to negative gearing, capital gains and trusts.”
“This week I heard that, potentially, the recently announced package is not going to be fully fulfilled. I was with people only this weekend who were in the communities of Croki and Bohnock, people who lost everything. I was with them in the mud. I was with them in their homes when they were trying to find those family heirlooms, those photos that were their connection to the life they once had. Then they hear the words from the Prime Minister but don't see the follow through. Can you imagine what it feels like to be those people? These are the things that we need the government to remember when they make grandiose commitments to the people of Australia—that there are real people that listen and expect delivery when they need it most.”
“We've heard a lot from government about resilience. It's popular among agency officials and bureaucracies, but locals just roll their eyes when the word 'resilience' is used, as they are sick of being told that resilience is the government's objective. In June last year, the PM said: Whether it's helping families get back into safe housing, or supporting local businesses and farmers to clean up and keep going, we're standing with communities every step of the way. Well, here's the news: no, you aren't. Where is the funding for house raising and buybacks? Where is the funding for community infrastructure, like Wingham pool? Where is the revitalisation for our Taree and Wingham CBDs, smashed by the floods; for road repairs; and for just simply being there and helping people?”
“We are so frustrated by the constant attacks on small businesses and young entrepreneurs. The budget was the last straw for many people and the defining factor that has led to this decision. We sit here and ponder how, we the people, can revolt against this evil government and cause an early election to rid ourselves of such a corrupt regime! This is not just a fiscal issue; it's a question of values. Do we want a country that rewards hard work and aspiration or one that penalises it? And, while we're talking about hardship, let me remind this House that it's been a year since the devastating floods on the Mid North Coast, especially in the Manning Valley. The scars are still visible. Recovery is far from over. Roads, homes and businesses are still being rebuilt. People are still carrying the emotional and financial toll.”
“I've heard from local business owners, constituents, who have contacted me about the impacts on their business of high taxing governments who break promises. One is in autoelectrics and air conditioning. He is closing his business after 21 years because Labor's taxes have made it too difficult to operate. He's closing shop to take his skills and resources to Canada. Owen and Lyn in my electorate emailed me to share this: The Labour Party continues to target and destroy small businesses ... Our son, who now runs our joinery company, after our retirement is disillusioned and considering moving his business and family to a place where they can thrive and are appreciated. Our business has been operating for some 49 years and contributing to our community with quality products and services and this would be a great 1oss.”
“I'm going to have to say that this broken promise has done immense damage to the trust that Australians have in our democratic institutions and their processes, at a time when they need to be able to trust government more than ever before. I say that most sincerely. Labor, you have done immense damage to the trust that Australians have in our democratic institutions and processes at a time when the Australian people need to be able to trust government more than ever before. This budget is a warning: when the government run out of money, they come after yours. They're chasing you down the street for the last $2 in your back pocket. Regional Australians deserve better. You cannot keep treating working people, small-business owners and farmers as cash cows for Canberra.”