Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Wednesday 11 March 2026

Continued from Tuesday 10 March 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

Members debated the government's expenditure priorities, with Labor MPs highlighting investments in healthcare, housing, education, and local infrastructure as evidence of responsible economic management. Opposition members, including Tom Venning, criticised the government for high spending that they argued drove inflation and increased national debt to $1.2 trillion. Venning specifically opposed expenditures such as the $96.5 million Bureau of Meteorology website upgrade and advocated for lower taxes and disciplined economic management. The debate covered specific local projects, cost-of-living measures, and concerns about democratic engagement and regional infrastructure funding.

Outcome

The debate was interrupted before a conclusion was reached.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Briskey argued that the appropriation bills reflected a government focused on repairing the economy and supporting working families through targeted tax cuts and healthcare reforms. Briskey highlighted the restoration of Medicare bulk-billing incentives, the capping of PBS script costs at $25, and significant investments in social and affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund. Briskey also noted the reduction of student debt by 20 per cent and local funding for sporting facilities and youth mental health services in Maribyrnong.

Government response

Gorman emphasised the benefits of federation and criticised secessionist ideas, highlighting Commonwealth investments in Perth such as the WACA redevelopment, Scitech, and the Perth ferry network. Gorman referenced a leaked Liberal Party review that described their previous campaign and economic plan as incoherent and confused. Gorman argued that the government was delivering practical benefits for Australians while the opposition remained divided and focused on fringe political ideas.

Opposition response

Willcox opposed the bills, arguing that the government was mismanaging funds by prioritising bureaucracy over nation-building and border security. Willcox criticised the cancellation of the Urannah Dam project and the insufficient funding for the Bruce Highway, citing only $432 million available against a promised $7.2 billion. Willcox also attacked the government's energy policy, claiming it relied on expensive renewable infrastructure and subsidies for home batteries that benefited wealthy households while increasing costs for regional industries and consumers.