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 4 of 13.
“The law must be capable of distinguishing between sex and gender when those distinctions carry practical consequences. Australians are practical people, and they do not like being told the law says something that goes against plain common sense: that a man can become a woman for all legal purposes; that biological differences are irrelevant; that sex itself is fluid; and, as Sall Grover has so eloquently put it, 'That women should ignore their own boundaries, their own discomfort and their own safety in order to avoid offending men.' These words alone should trouble every member of this parliament. Australians know instinctively that men and women are equal in dignity and worth—but they also know that biological sex still matters in some circumstances. And recognising that reality should not be controversial.”
“It starts from a very simple proposition: the law must recognise and favour biological reality, because laws only function properly when they are grounded in objective facts that can be consistently understood and applied. Biological sex is not a social construct created by parliament. It is not a matter of personal opinion. The role of the law is not to deny reality. It is to responsibly govern within it. Biological sex matters—particularly in sport, health, privacy, safety and women's services. If the law loses the ability to distinguish biological sex where it is relevant, then sex based protections become impossible to apply consistently and fairly. That does not mean transgender Australians should be treated without dignity or respect. It does not mean they should face harassment or blanket discrimination.”
“Yet they persisted because they believed women and girls should not be forced to stay silent. I acknowledge the parliamentarians who previously attempted to confront these issues, including Senator Chandler, Senator Hanson, Senator Antic and Senator Canavan. I also acknowledge Michelle Pearse from the Australian Christian Lobby and John Steenhof from the Human Rights Law Alliance for working with me over the past couple of months to develop this legislation. For years Australians from different political traditions have warned that the law was becoming detached from biological reality and increasingly incapable of balancing competing sex and gender identity rights created by the parliament. The ruling in Giggle v Tickle has proved them right. My bill seeks to restore clarity, certainty and common sense to the law.”
“And for years this parliament hoped the problem would somehow disappear, that institutions such as sporting codes would quietly 'manage' the issue, that women would simply adapt and accept—accept that they can no longer say no to men invading their space—that Australians would stop noticing. Well, we didn't. Before speaking to the specifics of this bill, I want to acknowledge the Australians who refused to stay silent while this parliament looked away, women whose lives were turned upside down because they spoke publicly about women's sex based rights, women of immense courage such as Sall Grover, Dr Jessica Spencer, Louise Elliott, Jasmine Sussex and my own constituent Kirralie Smith. These women did not seek fame. Many paid a significant personal and professional price for speaking out.”
“The Federal Court ruling in Giggle v Tickle that sex is changeable exposed what many Australians already knew was a serious and growing problem in our law—women's sex based protections are no longer clearly guaranteed. When the law cannot clearly preserve women-only spaces, women lose confidence that their rights to privacy, dignity, safety and choice remain secure. That is not a criticism of the court. The court interpreted the law that this parliament wrote. The fault lies here. The parliament created ambiguity in 2013 when it amended the Sex Discrimination Act to insert gender identity protections without properly defining what should happen when they come into conflict with sex based rights.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In my first speech to this parliament, I said that I was just an ordinary woman with an extraordinary privilege of doing an extraordinary job. Those words mean even more to me today, because I still stand here as an ordinary woman—but today I stand carrying the voices of millions of Australian women who no longer believe the law of this country protects them, women who increasingly feel that when they raise concerns about privacy, safety, dignity or fairness, the message from too many in politics, in the media and in public institutions is simple: 'Suck it up princess, we don't care.' Well I do care. And millions of Australian women and men care too.”
“The commission will report to parliament so that basin communities can see the findings and recommendations in full. The Murray-Darling Basin is a shared resource of national importance. Scrutiny is not a cost to government. It is a safeguard for the businesses and families whose futures depend on fair and transparent water management. I commend the bill to the House.”
“This parliament should not need to fight the executive for accountability on an issue that affects the livelihood of communities. I recognise there is review fatigue across basin communities. Several reviews are already underway. But this bill is different. It is targeted specifically at the CEWH, and at the lack of trust that communities in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have in how that body operates. The commission must be credible to the communities it serves. That means commissioners with the right mix of legal and investigative expertise, alongside real knowledge of basin communities and river operations. It means terms of reference that reflect the questions people are actually asking, and a process that gives stakeholders across all four states confidence that they will be heard.”
“The Murray-Darling Basin's own Basin Plan discussion paper flags the risk of critical assessment failure, including at Lake Victoria in New South Wales and the Dartmouth Dam in Victoria. The coalition also supports reforming the CEWH to return surplus water, water not needed to meet priority environmental outcomes, to the temporary consumptive pool. Water that is sitting unused should be supporting basin communities, not sitting idle. This is not about selling off environmental water. It is about managing a major public asset with the same discipline and accountability expected of any other public institution. If the Labor government is confident that the Commonwealth environmental water is being managed well, it should welcome this inquiry.”
“The existing level of water recovery has already caused significant economic and social harm to basin communities. Any further reduction to the consumptive pool must be accompanied by a full socioeconomic assessment covering the whole basin, not just the farm gate. The sustainable communities fund is competitive, and small towns cannot match larger regional centres for grants. The full cost of water policy decisions must be counted. Rather than continuing to spend Commonwealth money on reducing the consumptive pool, the coalition will invest in infrastructure and bulk water supply to grow effective water availability. Basin infrastructure is ageing. In some cases, it is approaching a century old.”
“This is not an argument against environmental water. It is an argument for better planning, consultation and accountability. Basin communities are telling us that the CEWH has not demonstrated the performance needed to justify the trust being placed in it. A commission of inquiry can test the evidence independently. It can compel documents and hear directly from communities and experts across all basin states, rather than relying on internal reviews or selective reporting. The commission should examine: Water users across the basin comply with complex rules, metreing requirements and reporting obligations. That same standard must apply to the Commonwealth. The coalition believes there should be no further reductions to the amount of water available for productive use.”
“What they are asking is whether the basin plan is being implemented fairly and transparently, and whether it is delivering real environmental outcomes. At a water forum in Narrandera earlier this year, irrigators, rice growers, cotton producers, local councils and industry groups spoke loudly and we listened. They are not opposed to environmental water. They want to know what it is achieving. They want to understand how decisions are made and what happens when things go wrong. People want practical answers. What watering action is planned? What does success look like? What are the risks? What impacts on third parties are expected? And how will communities be told what actually happened? Too often, decisions are announced after the fact, in language that the people most affected cannot easily engage with.”
“We want to reverse detrimental changes that the Labor government has made to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; to ban any further buybacks and further reductions to the amount of water available for productive use; to balance the socioeconomic neutrality test with environmental outcomes; to ensure there are no further reductions to the consumptive pool and seek to increase the consumptive pool by delivering efficient water infrastructure to secure the future of basin communities; and to reform the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH). This bill targets the fifth principle. People across the basin are not arguing against caring for our rivers. Communities understand that rivers need water.”
“Towns like Wakool in New South Wales watched football clubs close and their RSLs fall into financial difficulty. Schools lost enrolments, and freight, retail and hospitality businesses contracted. These outcomes are the direct result of policy decisions that have never been subject to a proper socioeconomic test. The coalition is fighting for five key principles for the basin.”
“The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act 2023removed the 1,500-gigalitre cap on Commonwealth water purchases. Multiple buyback programs are now running at the same time. This is happening even though the government has acknowledged that major complementary works, including constraints relaxation and floodplain restoration projects, will not be delivered in full or on time. The original basin plan was built on the idea that recovered water and complementary works would go hand in hand. That is not what is happening. The result is a growing imbalance across the basin. Productive water is being removed from communities before the works that were meant to justify that removal have been delivered. The effects go beyond farms. Previous buyback rounds saw the population of communities severely decline.”
“It will also look at the impacts on farming, regional economies and basin communities. The CEWH is the single largest water holder in the Murray-Darling Basin, controlling more than 2,000 gigalitres of water. Environmental water now accounts for around 72 per cent of river flows across the system on average. The CEWH decides when and where to deliver that water, whether to carry it over and whether to trade. Those decisions affect river operations, environmental outcomes and water markets from Queensland to South Australia. The CEWH must therefore be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. Too many basin communities do not believe it currently meets that standard. Since 2022, the Albanese government has pushed basin policy heavily towards water buybacks.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Murray-Darling Basin is not one place. It is a system of rivers, floodplains and communities spanning four states and the ACT. The basin produces around $30 billion in agricultural output each year. It supports more than one-third of the nation's food production and more than 8,000 irrigated agriculture businesses. What happens in this basin matters to all Australians. That is why I am bringing forward this bill and why I urge this parliament to support it. This bill establishes a commission of inquiry into the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, or CEWH. The commission will examine how Commonwealth environmental water is managed and whether it is delivering the environmental outcomes that are claimed.”
“I was looking for some hope, not for me but for the people of the Lyne electorate, for the people of Taree and the Manning. I put in a pre-budget submission to the government. I didn't leave this to chance. I made the case again, in a pre-budget submission to the government. The case is 'that the Mid-Coast LGA, in the SEIFA index, is well below the Australian average'. We have fewer general medical practitioners per thousand of population—significantly fewer. The Manning Hospital is the region's only public hospital and is seeing a substantial volume of semi-urgent and non-urgent—that's triage 4 and 5—presentations that are appropriate for an urgent care pathway. I looked up the figures this morning. In the October to December period, 46—”
“On urgent care clinics, in a media release—a joint statement with the Prime Minister—Minister Butler said: The network of Medicare Urgent Care Clinics are proving to be a gamechanger for all Australians. How can it be a game changer for all Australians when the electorate of Lyne does not have a Medicare urgent care clinic? Are we not Australians? Are we in the Lyne electorate considered second-class citizens? Now, I didn't leave this issue to chance. I have written seven times to the minister. Not once has he written back to me; I've only had a response from his chief of staff. And I've asked to meet with the minister. I think people in this place know just how passionate I am about this issue. Next week is the anniversary of the May floods of last year, the one-in-500-years flood that smashed my electorate. Taree was the epicentre.”
“I quote from page 50 of the Women's Budget Statement: The Government's investment in the ongoing operation of UCCs— urgent care clinics— is likely to have a greater positive impact for women, increasing free access to a service they are more likely to use. Well, that does not apply in the electorate of Lyne. For the past 12 months, I have stood in this place and I have made the case for an urgent care clinic in the Lyne electorate. When I opened the budget papers, I was disappointed to see that, yet again, somehow—I think the government has lost the map of regional Australia. They've certainly lost the map of the Mid North Coast of New South Wales.”
“So, when you reduce financial assistance to local governments, you are impacting the way that people in our communities can live. I've just touched on one issue that that is incredibly disappointing from this federal budget. I'm also disappointed at the stripping of $103 million from the National Water Grid. I have a dam that needs to be built in the Manning. That opportunity is potentially now lost. I also note that funding has been stripped from the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program and that funding has been reduced for the agriculture stream of the Natural Heritage Trust. Now, this is about helping and supporting people in our regional communities to invest in environmental stewardship. As I said, I think this is a regional funding bloodbath. Shame on this Albanese government.”
“On that point, I was exceptionally disappointed to learn that under this budget the distribution of financial assistance grants has fallen again as a percentage of Commonwealth tax revenue down to 0.49 per cent, from one per cent. That has a real impact on regional councils. Some councils in regional members electorates rely 10, 20 or 30 per cent on those financial assistance grants. They make the difference to fix the local roads, to make sure that the local footy club has a field that they can play on that's safe and to look after the local swimming pool. In our local council areas—we're talking about in the MidCoast—it's not just one centre that they have. They have five or six centres that have a swimming pool, that have a library and that have community sporting facilities.”
“We've got the Lorne Road, and the member for Maranoa is here. He has been to Lorne Road and made a substantial funding commitment to Lorne Road. This is a key road from the Comboyne Plateau down to the Pacific Highway. It's a produce route for dairy, beef and horticulture, yet, again, you're playing chicken with your life if a tanker is going up to collect milk and you're bringing your family down, maybe to go to school at Camden Haven High School. These are critical routes. This matters to the people in regional Australia. Good roads matter to people in regional Australia. I think it is different in the cities. I've lived in Canberra. They do a pretty good job, I have to say, for roads in Canberra. I don't think they should be getting much money from the Commonwealth. I know where the money should be going, and that's to local councils.”
“They're also crying out for investment and support for local councils to put money into the length of The Bucketts Way, the length of The Lakes Way. The Lakes Way used to be the Pacific Highway. I've now got constituents coming to me talking about busted suspensions and blown tyres on that Lakes Way, which is not only an important route for people from Foster and Tuncurry down to Bulahdelah along the Pacific Highway, but is a tourist route. We're talking about attracting people to our region, and they're coming on a pothole filled road. It's a substantial road, but it's one that's full of potholes. That's just great for showcasing the wonders of the great lakes. We've got the Thunderbolt's Way as well, and I could go to a lot of those smaller roads that are key productive routes.”
“Anybody that's from Dungog—maybe their kids go to school in Medowie or maybe they're working at Williamtown or Raymond Terrace—use the intersection, The Bucketts Way and Medowie Road. You're playing chicken with the traffic at those intersections, yet they're not on the priority list for the New South Wales government. They need to be, as does the Houston Mitchell Drive intersection with the Pacific Highway, which is, I think, one of the most dangerous intersections on the Pacific Highway. It needs to be addressed. When you raise it with the New South Wales government, they're talking about making another U-turn 200 metres down the road. That is not going to save the lives of the people that use that intersection, and the community has been crying out for investment there.”
“In this budget, there was not one additional cent in roads funding for any part of regional Australia, including the Lyne electorate. I made a number of submissions about particular roads, including the unfinished Pacific Highway. When the commitment was made to duplicate the Pacific Highway back in the mid-nineties, it came after the Kempsey and Grafton bus crashes. The decision was made at the time to fast-track the four-laning of the Pacific Highway and come back and do those overpasses and grade separated interchanges. We are now 20 years on, and we've got six of those overpasses still not on anyone's books. They're not on the state government's priority list. There has been some funding, I admit, for The Bucketts Way, but we are a long way from seeing any prioritisation of fixing those intersections.”
“I'm on an inquiry at the moment looking at the financial sustainability of local government. They're crying out for more investment. I know the government says that they've doubled investment in Roads to Recovery, a great coalition and National Party program from 20-odd years ago. They acknowledge that Roads to Recovery is making some difference, but it's come at the expense of axeing the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, a program that every council that's appeared before the inquiry has praised as a means of getting funding out to key projects because it's not competitive; it's effectively block funding, and it allows them to prioritise those critical local roads and small roads in their communities.”
“I was very disappointed to see in the regional statement that the list of urgent care clinics in regional Australia left off Maitland. It left off the Maitland urgent care clinic. I was very disappointed because like you, Deputy Speaker Swanson, it's important to communities in the southern part of my electorate. Deputy Speaker, you may want to have a look at that list; I think it's on page 51 of the regional statement. Maitland is not listed. It should have been listed, as should Taree, but I will come back to that in another speech today. You're all welcome to join. If I can just focus on one area, quite extensive notes in my submission were around local roads. I think all of us—the member for Fisher and the member for Mallee—are desperately needing investment in local roads.”
“It doesn't matter if it's a pothole in your local street or a major piece of infrastructure.' I developed a submission which I put into the Albanese government's Treasury process prebudget submission. I did the right thing, making sure the government was very clear on the agenda for the Lyne electorate. The budget was handed down, and all I can say is that the budget that was handed down provides no hope to the people of the Mid North Coast. It is a regional funding bloodbath at a time when my community needs support. It's crying out for support and for so many services and so much infrastructure right across the region. I know a lot of you would be expecting me right now to say, 'What about that urgent care clinic in Taree?' I'm saving that up for the women's statement.”
“Next week represents a year since my electorate was smashed by a once-in-500-years flood. Next week will be a very traumatic time for many people in my electorate. I had hoped that the federal budget that was released on Tuesday night might just do one thing: give some hope that this government cares, listens and delivers for the people on the Mid North Coast and Hunter region that I represent. I wasn't going to leave anything to chance with this federal budget. I'm a new MP. I'm learning the ropes. I did not want to leave anything to chance, so I took the opportunity to develop a prebudget submission. I worked with my communities. I asked them: 'What are the priorities in your community? Share them.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. The Labor government have fallen 77,000 homes behind their own housing target. Labor have allowed 1.4 million new migrants to come to our country since they were elected. How many houses have been built for all the new migrants?”
“I want to acknowledge all survivors who've spoken publicly and relived unimaginable trauma in pursuit of this reform. I want to acknowledge all those across government departments, advocacy organisations and the legal profession who have worked to bring this legislation forward. Most importantly, I acknowledge survivors like Edan, whose bravery has helped drive meaningful change for others. As Edan said, it's time for Australia to heal. I commend this bill to the House.”
“But Edan also said something else, which speaks to remarkable courage and resilience: 'In surviving that moment, I realised—why not stay alive for the other victims?' That courage deserves the respect of this parliament and this nation. This legislation matters because it tells survivors they are not alone. It tells them their suffering matters, it tells them their accountability matters and it tells them that parliament is prepared to act. This bill may not resolve every issue. There may well be aspects that require refinement or strengthening in the future. But the most important thing we can do today is to finally close these loopholes so offenders can no longer abuse the system to avoid paying court-ordered compensation to survivors. I want to again acknowledge Carolyn Kelly for her determination and advocacy.”
“Put simply, you cannot commit a heinous crime and then expect to hide behind your superannuation or hide behind bankruptcy, nor should human rights arguments be distorted in ways that deny justice to survivors. Importantly, the bill also sends a much broader message to victims-survivors across Australia. Many survivors still suffer silently. Many still struggle to trust institutions, many still feel shame for crimes committed against them and many still feel the system is not truly on their side. Edan spoke movingly about reaching a point in his life where, in his words, the pain of existing was heavier than the fear of dying. Those words should stop every one of us in our tracks because behind every statistic is a human being carrying unimaginable pain.”
“While the legislation itself is technically complex, its moral purpose is actually very simple: if a court has ordered compensation to be paid to a survivor of child sexual abuse, the offender should not be able to evade responsibility through legal loopholes. This legislation also recognises something important about the purpose of superannuation—superannuation exists to provide dignity and security in retirement. It was never intended to become a shield that allows perpetrators to avoid accountability for horrific crimes. As the bill itself makes clear, these powers are limited to exceptional circumstances and operate under court supervision.”
“Firstly, it creates a mechanism to allow certain amounts held in a perpetrator's superannuation to be accessed in order to satisfy unpaid compensation orders relating to child sexual abuse offences. Secondly, it amends the Bankruptcy Act so that these compensation debts survive bankruptcy and cannot simply be wiped out. These are significant reforms. I acknowledge this bill is legally and technically complex. It intersects with criminal law, family law, bankruptcy law, taxation law and superannuation law. There are detailed provisions dealing with competing claims, court oversight and interactions with other legal processes. I acknowledge the considerable work undertaken by officials, legal experts and ministers to bring the legislation to this point.”
“How do you quantify the panic and fear triggered by ordinary daily tasks that most people take for granted? How do you measure lost confidence, lost opportunities, broken relationships or the life someone should have had? The truth is you cannot. But compensation still matters, because compensation is about recognition. It's about accountability. It's society saying to survivors: 'We hear you and we believe you. And what happened to you was wrong.' When the legal system allows offenders to use bankruptcy laws or protected superannuation to avoid those obligations, it sends exactly the opposite message. It tells survivors that the system still protects perpetrators more than victims. That is why this bill matters so much. The bill has two principal objectives.”
“I want to acknowledge Edan's extraordinary courage in speaking publicly about his experience so that others may not have to endure the same injustice. Edan said something incredibly powerful in a speech that I wish he could have delivered in this chamber. In it, he said: This is not about vengeance; it's about the mechanics of healing. Those words go to the very heart of why this legislation matters, because this debate is not really about money. No amount of money can restore a stolen childhood, no amount of money can undo years of trauma, and no court ruling can fully repair the damage caused by abuse. And, as Edan so powerfully explained, how do you even begin to quantify trauma? How do you put a monetary value on not being able to hold down a job because of PTSD?”
“Today I want to sincerely acknowledge and thank the Assistant Treasurer and the government for listening, for engaging seriously with this issue and for acting. In this place, difficult reforms can sometimes take years to progress. When governments are prepared to genuinely listen to survivors and opposition members, and to respond constructively—that certainly deserves recognition. This legislation exists because brave people refused to give up. Edan Van Haren is a survivor of horrific abuse. Following civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, he was awarded compensation by the court. But the offender later declared bankruptcy from prison, effectively avoiding responsibility for paying that judgement debt. That should never have been allowed to happen.”
“After meeting with Carolyn in my office in Wauchope and hearing Edan's story, it became immediately clear to me that the law needed to change, particularly when it was obvious there were already many other legal precedents where certain debts survive bankruptcy. Child support debts survive bankruptcy, certain fraud related debts survive bankruptcy and some debts owed to the government survive bankruptcy. So how could it possibly be the case that compensation owed by a convicted paedophile to their victim could simply disappear? That made no moral sense, and, frankly, it made no common sense either. So I took the issue directly to the minister. I advocated strongly for reform, through parliamentary speeches and through a submission to the government's discussion paper on the exposure draft to this bill.”
“For survivors, it can feel like being failed by the system all over again—not just once through the abuse they suffered but again by a legal system that allows offenders to escape accountability. This issue was brought directly to me by one of my constituents, Carolyn Kelly, a strong, determined and deeply compassionate woman who refused to stay silent after seeing the injustice her grandson, Edan Van Haren, experienced. Carolyn did not come to me asking for sympathy; she came asking for justice. She has fought tirelessly, not just for her grandson but for survivors right across Australia, who deserve fairness, dignity and recognition.”
“I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. I came to this parliament to help make Australia a better place and to stand up for people facing injustice, especially those who too often feel invisible, unheard or left behind by the system. This bill is one of those moments where I can play a very direct role in this parliament to genuinely change lives for the better. Today we have a chance to fix a serious injustice that has hurt survivors of child sexual abuse for far too long. For years, convicted offenders have been able to avoid paying court ordered compensation to their victims simply by declaring bankruptcy and shielding assets through superannuation laws. That is simply wrong.”
“In closing, I'm pleased, as I said, that the bill will go to a committee for further consideration and, hopefully, consultation with the business sector. The intent of the bill is certainly something that I support, because those who create value, who build brands, who invest in quality and who employ Australians deserve to have their work protected. They deserve protection from fraud; they deserve protection from intellectual theft, and they certainly deserve a level playing field. But they also deserve an economic environment that allows them to succeed. Right now, too many businesses are not just fighting counterfeiters; they're fighting to stay afloat. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.”
“This government has failed to get inflation under control early, presided over spending that has added to demand pressures, introduced workplace changes that increased complexity for employers and delivered energy policies that are driving up costs rather than bringing them down. You cannot claim to protect Australian business from counterfeit goods while making it harder for those businesses to survive. You cannot claim to support intellectual property while presiding over conditions that are forcing businesses to close, and you cannot claim to strengthen the economy while confidence continues to fall. Protecting intellectual property is not just about stopping counterfeit goods at the border; it's about ensuring that Australian businesses are strong enough to innovate, to invest and to grow.”
“This matters in the context of this bill, because when legitimate businesses are weakened, counterfeiters gain ground; when margins are thin, unfair competition hits harder; when confidence is low, investment in innovation declines; and when businesses fail, the very intellectual property we're seeking to protect disappears with them. While the government says this bill supports a prosperous and reputable retail sector, the reality is that its broader economic policies are doing the opposite. We've seen rising insolvencies, weak business investment, declining confidence and increasing cost pressures. You cannot separate those outcomes from policy choices.”
“According to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, more than 11,000 companies entered external administration in 2023-24, and insolvencies are now running at over 13,000 annually—the highest level in more than a decade. Entire sectors are struggling. Construction firms are collapsing under rising costs, hospitality businesses are closing their doors, retailers are facing declining demand and there are far too many empty shops on our high streets. At the same time, businesses are facing escalating costs. Energy prices remain high, insurance premiums are rising and borrowing costs have surged. The Reserve Bank of Australia has made it clear that inflation has remained persistent, forcing interest rates to stay higher for longer, and businesses are carrying that burden.”
“This brings those offences within the Infringement Notice Scheme under the Customs Act, allowing Australian Border Force to issue penalties without the need for lengthy court proceedings. This is intended to strengthen enforcement, but the use of strict liability offence where fault is not required to be proved is a very serious legal tool. This requires further examination and consideration, and I'm pleased that there has been agreement for this bill to be considered by a Senate committee. While I understand the problem that this legislation is seeking to address, we must also be honest about the broader environment in which Australian businesses are operating. Right now, businesses are under immense pressure, and that pressure is undermining their ability to compete—not just against counterfeits, but in the economy more broadly.”
“Counterfeit goods can include everything from phone chargers to pharmaceuticals, from beauty products to vehicle parts. These are not trivial items. These are products that Australians use every day—products that, if counterfeit, can cause real harm. A faulty charger can start a fire, a counterfeit pharmaceutical can fail to treat illness, and a fake vehicle part can put lives at risk. When people talk about counterfeit items they often think of fake handbags, but we're talking about items that are far more serious and have significant consequences. And when we talk about intellectual property, we're not just talking about legal rights; we're talking about consumer safety. This bill creates a new strict liability offence for importing goods with false trademarks—that is, counterfeit goods.”
“I rise to speak on the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about protecting Australians from dangerous counterfeit goods and defending the rights of genuine businesses from fraud and intellectual property theft. That is a goal we support, because counterfeit goods are not a harmless imitation. They are a direct threat to consumer safety, business integrity and the rule of law. As outlined in the minister's second reading speech, we know the scale of the problem. In just one financial year, over 700,000 counterfeit items with an estimated value of more than $35 million, if those goods had been genuine, were seized at the border. That is not a small issue. That is a systemic problem, one that demands a strong and effective response.”
“We must ensure regulators have not just powers but the intent to act. We must ensure that those who exploit the system face swift consequences, and we must restore confidence for participants, for families and for taxpayers. The NDIS cannot become a blank cheque. It must remain a targeted, sustainable system that delivers real outcomes for Australians living with disability. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is not the leap that is required. The Australian people deserve to have their taxes spent judiciously and meaningfully, and, most importantly, Australians living with disability deserve a system that works for them, not for those who seek to exploit it.”