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

Senate · Wednesday 25 March 2026

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

At a glance

The Senate debated three additional appropriation bills providing over $22 billion in funding for the 2025-26 financial year. The Government defended the spending as necessary for defence, health, climate initiatives, and parliamentary operations. Opposition members criticised the bills as evidence of fiscal irresponsibility, arguing that high government spending was driving inflation and interest rates. Crossbench members raised concerns about value for money, citing failures in wage theft enforcement, excessive contractor costs, and non-compliance with AI transparency policies. No amendments were moved, and the bills were not opposed by the Coalition.

Outcome

The bills were debated but the transcript does not record the final vote or passage.

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

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

McCarthy moved the second reading of the three bills, which together provide approximately $22 billion in additional appropriations. McCarthy stated that Appropriation Bill (No. 3) allocates $9.2 billion, including $2.9 billion for the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, $1.5 billion for health and disability services, and over $1 billion for defence. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides $3.5 billion, largely for defence capabilities and water recovery under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, along with funding for the Housing Australia Future Fund. The Parliamentary Departments Bill adds $9.2 million for parliamentary operations. McCarthy commended the bills to the chamber as essential for implementing government decisions made since the budget.

Opposition response

Chandler argued that the bills represented a lack of fiscal discipline, adding over $22 billion to expenditure in one year. Chandler contended that this high level of government expenditure was contributing to entrenched inflation and higher interest rates, which were hurting families through increased mortgage and living costs. Chandler stated that the government’s claim of exercising restraint was contradicted by the need for these large additional appropriations. Chandler noted that while the opposition would not block the bills, they would highlight the economic consequences of the government’s spending choices.