Tony Zappia's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Public Works Joint Committee; Reference to Federation Chamber | Committees | House debates
I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to.
Public Works Joint Committee; Report | Committees | House debates
I move: That the House take note of the 89th annual report.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 89th annual report and report No. 1 of 2026, Referrals made in September and October 2025. Report made a...
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 89th annual report and report No. 1 of 2026, Referrals made in September and October 2025. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). I ask leave of the house to make a short statement in connection with the reports. Leave granted. Once again, on behalf of the Public Works, I present the committee's first report for 2026 and the third for the 48th parliament. This report considers the following six proposed works: (1) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Black Mountain greenhouse redevelopment project, which has a total estimated cost of $37.9 million; (2) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness stage 1 part-life refit, which has a total estimated cost of $372.216 million; (3) the Australian Tax Office's proposed fit-out of leased premises levels 5 to 10, 152 Wharf Street, Brisbane, Queensland, which has a total estimated cost of $29.17 million; (4) Services Australia's proposed fit-out of leased premises at 90 Crown Street, Wollongong, New South Wales, which has a total estimated cost of $22.34 million; (5) the Attorney-General's Department's proposed fit out of existing leased premises at 3-5 National Circuit Barton, Australian Capital Territory, which has a total estimated cost of $39.93 million; and (6) the Department of Home Affairs's Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hawk Compound redevelopment project, which has a total estimated cost of $34.94 million. In considering these proposed works, the committee received submissions and held private briefings, public hearings and in camera hearings with the relevant agencies as well as conducting formal and informal site inspections at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness in Geelong, the Black Mountain greenhouse site in Canberra and the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre near Perth. After giving due consideration to the evidence that the committee received, the committee is recommending that it is expedient for all of the proposed works to progress. In addition to these recommendations, the committee recommends to the Australian Taxation Office that it continues to enhance and refine its change management processes, ensuring that it incorporates robust consultation procedures for the design and delivery stages of proposed works to effectively capture all affected staff. Similarly, the committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs ensures that current staff at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre are given an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed redevelopment design and that the committee be updated on such consultation efforts. With respect to the Yongah Hill Detention Centre, I also draw attention to paragraph 7.32 on page 42 of the committee's report No. 1 of 2026 relating to that redevelopment. In relation to the Attorney-General's Department's proposed fit-out of its current lease at 3-5 National Circuit, the committee recommends that the department exercise its two lease renewal options at the conclusion of the current lease in ten years time in order to maximise the value to the Commonwealth of the proposed fit-out. This would extend the use of the fitted out accommodation to 20 years. Finally, I take this opportunity to make some remarks on the cost of contract services in relation to the CSIRO's proposed refit of the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness. While the committee acknowledges the vital work done by the centre and recognises the need for and value in the proposed refit, the committee heard disconcerting evidence on the proportion of project costs to be expended on contractor services for the project—double what the committee has seen for other projects of similar scales. Yes, this is a complicated refit that requires specialised skills and knowledge to design and construct. This the committee does not question. However, when asked to justify the proportion of project costs that go to contractors, the committee did not receive convincing answers from the CSIRO or from witnesses from the contractors themselves. Given the magnitude of the quantum of money going to contractors for this project, this type of response is not good enough, and the committee expects more thorough and reasoned justifications for expenditure on contractors in the future. While I make this comment specifically in relation to the proposed works at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, this is a statement that could be applied to public work referrals more generally. I commend that report to the House, and I'll now make some comments with respect to the public works committee's 89th annual report. On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present that 89th annual report, which is one of the roles of this committee. The Committee is required by legislation to make a report every year on its work within 15 sitting days of the conclusion of the previous calendar year. As an election year, 2025 saw the end of the service of the committee of the 47th Parliament and the establishment of the committee of the 48th Parliament. This report covers the work of both committees over this period, as is required by the legislation. Chapter 1 of the 89th annual report outlines the committee's proceedings in 2025. In 2025, the committee reported on 10 major works with a combined cost of over $1.344 billion. The committee also scrutinised 75 medium works with a combined value of over $825.38 million. The committee also received 30 notifications for changes to already approved medium works. Chapter 1 also reemphasises the recommendation from the committee's 87th annual report for consultative review of the Public Works Committee Act 1969. The nature and volume of public works have evolved significantly since the committee was established over 100 years ago, and the act is in urgent need of reform to ensure it is fit for purpose in the current economic circumstances within which public works occur. The committee acknowledges the government's in-principle agreement with the recommendation and is eager to see the review progress so that the act can provide a more robust and modern framework for the work of the committee. Accordingly, the second chapter of this report provides an overview of the continuing need for reform to the Public Works Committee Act. The committee commends the efforts of those agencies who continue to engage in good faith with the public works scrutiny process. At the same time, the committee takes this opportunity to remind agencies that this parliamentary scrutiny function serves the critical purpose of ensuring that best value for money is achieved for the taxpayer dollar. While the committee for this parliament has only been established for seven months now, we have observed several concerning trends during our scrutiny of proposed works both for major referrals and for medium works. For the committee to confirm the best value for money has been achieved, agencies are expected to be frank and open regarding their sponsored works. Evasive, unclear and obstructive engagement—or, in the worst cases, complete lack of engagement with the committee—undermines the process and calls into question whether agencies have discharged their obligations to pursue best value for money. Agencies are reminded that this legislative obligation serves to prevent inappropriate expenditure of public money. The committee's scrutiny also requires agencies to confirm that all affected and interested stakeholders are appropriately consulted, including those opposed to a proposed public work. Consultation should not be a perfunctory exercise, nor should it be used to quickly identify and dismiss genuine concerns or opposition. Agencies must demonstrate the government has considered and continues to carefully consider how their proposals will affect employees of the agency and other stakeholders, the local community and the Australian public at large. Perhaps most concerning, though, is the general position agencies seem to have adopted concerning the use of consultant services in public works projects, which assumes that consultants guarantee best value for money. Too often the committee is seeing agencies readily shell out eye-watering amounts of taxpayer dollars on what appear to be excessive consultant fees, without any ability to explain what this money is achieving for the effective and measured fiscal delivery of projects. The committee will continue to scrutinise this agency expenditure on consultants to ensure that taxpayer money is serving the interests of the Australian public first, not the multibillion-dollar consultancy industry. I also have concerns with the longstanding practice that only entities that are on a government registered panel can tender for government work. At the very least, these panels should be more frequently reviewed and opened up to new entities. As a final reflection, 2025 was another significant year for the Public Works Committee, which continued to pursue the best value for Australian taxpayers as the government progresses its infrastructure priorities. I thank the committee of the 47th Parliament for their tremendous dedication during their service. I specifically thank the last committee chair, Mr Graham Perrett, the former member for Moreton; the Hon. Keith Pitt, former member for Hinkler; and Mr Andrew Willcox, the member for Dawson, who is still with us. They both served as deputy chairs. I thank them for their careful stewardship of the Public Works Committee through the 47th Parliament. I also express my thanks to the former committee secretariat staff for their support and guidance of the committee throughout the parliament. Lastly, I acknowledge my committee colleagues, particularly the returning deputy chair, Mr Andrew Willcox, and the current committee secretariat. I thank them all for their collaboration and proactiveness from the committee's establishment in this parliament. I commend the reports to the House.
Labor Government | Adjournment | House debates
In March, South Australians will choose who governs the state for the next four years. It will be a choice between an experienced, disciplined and competent Peter Malinauskas Labor government and...
In March, South Australians will choose who governs the state for the next four years. It will be a choice between an experienced, disciplined and competent Peter Malinauskas Labor government and a mix of untested non-Labor candidates. The South Australian Liberal Party, previously seen as the natural alternative to Labor, is paralysed by disunity, scandal and inexperience. Four years ago, when Peter Malinauskas was elected premier, he outlined a vision to transform South Australia, tackle the issues that mattered and make South Australia a leader, not a follower. Today the widely held view is that he has delivered on his vision and has turned South Australia around. Whilst the following is by no means a comprehensive list, it provides some noteworthy achievements of the Malinauskas Labor government. Since 2022, South Australia has had the strongest four years of international trade on record, with $21 billion worth of goods being sold to the world. Unemployment is at 3.9 per cent and is the equal lowest of all Australian states. On dwelling stats, construction work, jobs growth and economic growth, South Australia is now leading or amongst the highest ranking of the Australian states. Over 15,000 homes were approved in South Australia in 2025—more than any other year in history and a 22 per cent increase over 2024. In the health sector, whilst there is still so much more to do, South Australia now has over 1,460 more nurses, 640 more doctors, 380 more allied health professionals and 300 paramedics and ambulance officers. Thirteen new or rebuilt ambulance stations have been opened, and four 24/7 pharmacies are now operating. If re-elected, a fifth is planned for the Adelaide Hills. Serving the Makin electorate region, there are now 80 more hospital beds at the Lyell McEwen Hospital and 72 more at the Modbury Hospital. The events calendar in South Australia is packed, including the bp Adelaide Grand Final, formerly known as the Adelaide 500, which has been secured until 2034, while the LIV Golf tournament and the AFL Gather Round draw tens of thousands of people to South Australia. School funding is at a record high. Five new technical colleges have opened, including The Heights Technical College in the Makin electorate. If re-elected, an additional three technical colleges will be built throughout the state. On energy, South Australia now has the equal lowest wholesale electricity prices. Stronger standards for retirement villages are now in place, including caps on some fees and better transparency in contracts. If re-elected, the Malinauskas government has also announced that three new mental health assessment units will be constructed next to the Royal Adelaide, Noarlunga and Lyell McEwen hospital emergency departments, whilst the old Women's and Children's Hospital will be transformed into a dedicated aged-care precinct. Working together, the Malinauskas and Albanese governments have stepped in to save Bedford from collapse and protect the futures of 1,250 supported workers, 300 employees and clients with disabilities. Likewise, the South Australian and Albanese governments are providing support for the Whyalla Steelworks. The Marshall Liberal government's privatisations of our train and tram services have been reversed, with both now back in public hands. Through investments in police recruitment and tackling crime, SAPOL now has the second highest rate of operational staff per 100,000 people, and South Australia now has the lowest re-offending rate in Australia. For 15 consecutive months, overall crime in South Australia has fallen. Last year's state budget saw massive investments in infrastructure projects, including the North-South Corridor, jointly funded with the federal government; the new Women's and Children's Hospital; the High Productivity Vehicle Network; the Curtis Road level crossing removal; and safety upgrades on Main South Road between Myponga and Yankalilla. In the Makin area alone, over $14 million was committed for much-needed sports club facilities, and the decades-old septic tank community wastewater management system in the Tea Tree Gully council area is being replaced with direct home connections to SAWater mains. In recent years I've worked closely with state MPs in the Makin electorate: Blair Boyer, Rhiannon Pearce, Olivia Savvas, Michael Brown and John Fulbrook. They are all committed and hardworking representatives for the areas and deserve to be re-elected. At a time of so much local and international uncertainty, the South Australian Malinauskas Labor government has the stability and credibility to deal with the difficult matters whilst not ignoring the daily issues facing South Australian businesses and households, and I will be doing all I can to ensure that it is re-elected.
Defence Properties | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government reforming the Defence estate? What has been the response to this, and how does this compare to other approaches?
Jonceski, Mr Ljupco (Luch) | Condolences | House debates
Having listened to so many fine tributes to Ljupco Jonceski—or, as we all knew him, Luch—it's hard to add much more to what has already been said. I begin by making this observation:...
Having listened to so many fine tributes to Ljupco Jonceski—or, as we all knew him, Luch—it's hard to add much more to what has already been said. I begin by making this observation: it was absolutely wonderful to see Luch's family on the floor of Parliament House yesterday when the Prime Minister moved the condolence motion. For someone who had been so much a part of this House, who had spent so much of his life in this building—and, in particular, on the floor of parliament where few people ever get to step—I think it was not only appropriate but so good to see his family share in the space that took up so much of Luch's life. To them I extend my sincere condolences. Luch died too young, and I'm sure that the heartache of knowing that he died too young is something that they will have to try to work through over the years ahead. When I heard of Luch's passing, like so many others I couldn't believe it. I just thought, no, it can't be possible. Sometimes things seem to be what they are—I can recall on the very last day of last year when we were in this place, seeing Luch there and admiring him on that particular day for the way he conducted himself and for the way he worked within this building. When I reflected back on it later, I thought, 'I have been here for 18 years, but why did I think of him on that particular day in the way that I did?' Perhaps it was because, for some unknown reason, it was the last time I would see him. When I came back here after the break, and even now, I still don't find it real that he's not part of this building and that he's not one of the people that we see each and every day. When I was first elected in 2007 and came here, Luch was the first attendant I got to know. He was the one that you might say I was introduced to as one of the attendants of this place. From that very first moment, he made me feel welcome and he made me feel supported. For a new member, it's pretty important to know that you feel that you've just made a friend that knows this place and is going to be there for you when you need that support. It's incredibly important. Over time, you build up relationships with so many other people, but he was the very first person I can actually recall. Others have spoken of the way he was able to support people in this room, regardless of which side of politics they came from, and to do so in such a professional way that everyone felt treated—as others have quite rightly said—equally. And they were treated equally; he didn't differentiate and he tried to support people in every way he could. One of the things I did notice about Luch was that he got to know the procedures and processes of this place so well, and he was a stickler for procedure. I could see that in the way he would talk to his other attendants, making sure that things were done right according to the rules and conventions of this place. He did that and I admire him for it. The credibility of this place all comes down to the way we all conduct ourselves and the processes which we adhere to and which, in turn, give legal standing to everything we do. Luch wanted to make sure that was done properly, and he always did. As we all know, the role of politicians is not always easy, and there are indeed stresses that we all face each and every day. As so many other members have pointed out, Luch could read people. He could read the floor of parliament and he could read when he perhaps needed to do that little bit extra that others might not have picked up on but Luch had. With respect to his work here, I have to say that it is something that has touched each and every one of us, because he touched each and every one of us in a very, very personal way. He reflects and embodies what I believe is the spirit of all of the staff that work in this building—whether it's the attendants, whether it's all the other staff that we see in Parliament House—who, equally, are nonpartisan and don't treat anyone differently but collectively make our role work as well as it does and give us the support that they do. I suspect that Luch, even among the attendants and the other staff, set an example for others to follow, which is something that we should also appreciate. I thank him for his personal support, but I also thank him for being the role model he became as an attendant in this place. As others have said, and as the last speaker—the member for Riverina—quite rightly pointed out, it's not usual that we honour someone that hasn't been a statesman of some sort, yet here we are, honouring and remembering Luch, because he did touch our lives. I say to Luch: thank you for your support during my time here. It's greatly appreciated, as I'm sure it is for all the others. May you rest in peace. Just while I'm on my feet, I will also take the opportunity to recognise Malcolm Balcarek. Malcolm, who also passed away only recently, was one of the small team of Comcar drivers in Adelaide. Malcolm's funeral, I believe, is tomorrow. Like Luch, Malcolm was one of those people upon whom we rely each and every day who do such a wonderful service—unassuming and always there supporting. Again, I simply want to say thank you to Malcolm and offer my condolences to his family.
Bolkus, Hon. Nick | Condolences | House debates
I'll begin my remarks by extending my condolences to Nick Bolkus's wife, Mary; to his children Aria, Mikayla and Nicholas; and to his sister, Anna. When you're speaking last on a condolence...
I'll begin my remarks by extending my condolences to Nick Bolkus's wife, Mary; to his children Aria, Mikayla and Nicholas; and to his sister, Anna. When you're speaking last on a condolence motion, there's not much left to be said, especially having listened to the contributions of all my colleagues here in this place over the last day or two, where I believe that they all have beautifully summed up Nick's life. I wasn't able to get to the funeral service for Nick at the Greek Orthodox Church, otherwise known as the Cathedral of Archangels Michael and Gabriel, in Adelaide on 21 January, because parliament here was sitting, but I was able to get to the state memorial on 22 January at the Allan Scott Auditorium in the Hawke Building at the University of Adelaide. Again, the collective contributions there on the day, beginning with Daniela Ritorto, Premier Peter Malinauskas, former deputy premier John Rau, Mary, Aria and Mikayla, and the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing's contribution in this chamber yesterday, I believe perfectly encapsulate the life of Nick Bolkus and the person he was—the husband, the father, the friend, the politician and the community man that so many others have spoken about in their contributions about him. The number of people who were at the Allan Scott Auditorium state memorial service also provided a glimpse of the respect that Nick was held in by people from across the country. The number and diversity of people who had come to know him and the impact that he had had on their lives were well displayed on the day by the presence of those people. I first met Nick Bolkus shortly after the dismissal of the Whitlam government, when I took a job working as research officer to Senator Jim Cavanagh. Nick was then working for Clyde Cameron. The federal MPs and senators at the time predominantly worked on the 15th floor of the AMP building, which was located directly across the road from the state parliament house. The senators and members had their offices up there, but the staff of the federal representatives were located in a shared room where I, Nick, Paul Holloway and Malcolm Dixon also worked—Paul working for Ralph Jacobi, the then member for Hawker, Malcolm Dixon working for Senator Reg Bishop and Nick, as I said, working for Clyde Cameron. Within that shared space there was a private office. Unsurprisingly, Nick Bolkus took the private office—he was the most senior of all of us at the time. He took the office, and I'd still see him every day as we worked, effectively, alongside each other. What was noticeable was that Nick didn't seem to do a lot of work as a research officer but, in fact, spent most of his time networking with people within the political system and outside of it—building relationships with MPs, community leaders and business people and with whomever else he was able to. In fact, it would be fair to say that I can rarely recall Nick without the phone glued to his ear, such was his interest in trying to make connections with people in and around the state, and interstate as well. At the time, whilst he was a young person, every Friday the MPs would come back from Canberra—people like Reg Bishop, Jim Toohey, Mick Young and, sometimes, Senator Don Cameron, Clyde's brother, and state members Jack Wright and Geoff Virgo, who were considered to be some of the more influential MPs of the day, and my friend the member for Adelaide would probably remember many of those MPs—and would gather for lunch at one place or another, and I'm pretty sure that, at those lunch meetings, they would try to sort out the issues of the country and the internal issues of the Labor Party. Chinatown and Hindley Street were popular venues. It was interesting that Nick was already embraced by that group so early in the piece. My view is that they embraced him because they saw the qualities in him that would make him a future leader, and they were absolutely right. They backed him, and he ended up as a senator in this place in 1981, after having been elected in the 1980 election. In 1981 Senator Jim Cavanagh, who I worked for, retired, so my connection with Nick became somewhat more distant after that. He was elected to the Senate. I went back into my own private life and so on. But we always kept in touch. It wasn't until pretty much the time that I got elected to this place that we once again came together, you might say, and regularly contacted each other over a whole range of matters. The interesting thing about Nick's career is that he went on to be a minister and—again, as the member for Adelaide pointed out—the first Greek person to become a cabinet minister, which, in its own right, was a huge achievement. But he was someone who was absolutely committed to policy work. I'm pleased that the Minister for Home Affairs, in his remarks before they were cut short, touched on his contribution to Indigenous land rights and, in particular, the debate that took place after the Mabo decision in the High Court where legislation was brought into the parliament, and, subsequently, the debate in terms of amendments to land rights when the Howard government took office. As someone who had taken an interest in land rights—because former senator Jim Cavanagh, who I worked for, was in fact the first minister to bring legislation relating to land rights into this parliament—I listened with interest to the very long debate that took place when Labor was in opposition and there were amendments to the land rights act. Yes, it was a long debate, but, again, Nick Bolkus played a leading role in that debate—as he did in the debate under Paul Keating when Labor introduced legislation following the Mabo decision. It's one of the achievements of Nick that has not been given, I believe, sufficient airing or sufficient credit for. Whilst we talk about multiculturalism and his contribution to that, which I entirely agree with and I concur with all the remarks that have been made about that, he also contributed immensely to the Indigenous land rights issues in this country, and that shouldn't be overlooked, because it did set a precedent and a pathway for Indigenous land ownership that we still have to this day. When he left politics, I would occasionally catch up with Nick, and, again, his interest in politics never waned—not only his interest, but, quite frankly, he was someone who could read the political winds so well. He was someone that you would take advice from because you knew that he understood politics and he understood what the likely consequences of different decisions were. It was always a pleasure to catch up with him to hear his insights into what might lie ahead, and we would do that quite regularly. In fact, when I had Lindsay Tanner, who was the finance minister after my election to this place in 2007, come out to my electorate to do a community forum, I had Nick as the emcee—again, because of his interest in politics, his ability to perhaps elicit the right questions that the public might want to hear and the people that were attending might want to hear and also his ability to be able to contribute to the forum responses that there might be. Lindsay was so well known and it was great to have the two of them there together, because they had both worked with each other and knew each other, and it was an asset for me to have both of them there. Subsequent to that, as I said, I'd kept in touch with him, but, in later years, Nick's health started to decline. When he went into the nursing home in 2019, I would visit him. Regrettably, because of COVID, the visits had to be stopped for a while. But, once the restrictions were lifted, I'd still go back and visit him, and I watched him deteriorate physically over that time. I'd take him outside of the centre, and we'd go down to the local shopping centre nearby. I'd take him down there for a coffee, and we would again talk politics. And, even though he was physically almost unable to feed himself or drink his coffee, his mind was as sharp as it was the day I met him. Again, he was someone that you could ask for advice about what was likely to happen. He could read the political winds, as I said earlier, and that never left him. In his time here, at this place, I know that he developed friendships with a lot of MPs—I'm talking about friendships that were life lasting—and it was so good to see people, at the memorial service, like Laurie Brereton, Warren Snowdon and Brendan O'Connor come along. Nick, when he was reminiscing about his time in this place with me, would often mention them as being partners in whatever else he was doing. The late Simon Crean was another person—and I know Simon would've been there had it not been for the fact that he couldn't be there, because he had passed away—that I know Nick would speak so highly of. Everything's been said about his contribution to public life and the examples of the people that he has helped, and I'm not going to go over all of that. But I say this about him: he was a person who, like all of us, came into this place wanting to make a difference, and he did. He made a difference in this place. He made a difference back in South Australia in particular, where he was an influential leader within the Labor Party. He made a difference within his own Greek community; the member for Adelaide referred to his international contacts and so on. And he made a difference to people's lives, including people overseas—and again there were examples given of that. He did so always committed to, and always being a true believer and a faithful member of, the Labor Party. Even when he left this place—and he didn't leave under his own decision—he never turned his back on the Labor Party or the people that he had got to know over the years. I'll finish with this observation about Nick: I knew him for most of my life, and in all that time I can never once recall him raising his voice—not once; not within the chamber and not outside of the chamber. He was always quietly spoken, very placid and very considered in everything he said. So to Nick I say: Nick, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your friendship. Thank you for what you did for the people of Australia. May you rest in peace. Debate adjourned.
Middle East | Constituency Statements | House debates
At the ecumenical worship service for the opening of the 2026 federal parliamentary year, there was a call for peace throughout the world. Every day, billions of people struggle through life...
At the ecumenical worship service for the opening of the 2026 federal parliamentary year, there was a call for peace throughout the world. Every day, billions of people struggle through life living in extreme poverty, violent conflict, war and oppression, none more so than the Palestinians, who have never known peace in their lifetime and who only know a life of daily survival and misery. With so much else going on in people's lives here in Australia and overseas, and with people tiring of the decades-old Palestine-Israel conflict, the daily sufferings endured by Palestinians hardly rate a mention in mainstream media here in Australia. That has been even more noticeable since the announcement of a ceasefire in October, when, for most outsiders, the conflict was supposedly settled. Yet the shootings, the bombings, the air strikes and the suffering did not stop with the announced ceasefire. Credible sources report that, since the ceasefire, over 500 Palestinians, including innocent women and children, have been violently killed. The Israeli land grab continues. Journalists are barred from the region in an attempt to prevent the truth from being reported. International aid to desperate and starving Palestinians is restricted by the Israeli military. And even with the recent opening of the Rafah crossing to Egypt, on-the-ground reports claim that very little aid is now getting through. Aid workers who risked their lives to save people are pleading for international intervention to force the Netanyahu government to ease their restrictions over Palestinian people, and now the Jewish Independent reports that the Israeli Knesset is considering legislation that would make the death sentence mandatory for intentional killing by Palestinians, but not by Israelis. Since October 2023, around 72,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children, 1,700 health workers and 259 journalists and media workers, have been killed; 182,000 people have been wounded; 870,000 have been displaced; and 10,000 Palestinians have been taken prisoner. Whilst some will dispute those statistics, credible reports, including from aid workers and UN observers on the ground, who have addressed MPs in this place, confirm that the situation for Palestinians is horrific and their ongoing oppression and the widespread loss of life is very real. Yet the world turns a blind eye whilst Palestinians lose their lives, their homes, their lands and their rights. Accusations of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide against the Netanyahu government are now regularly raised with me. History will judge this period harshly, but that will be of no use to the desperate Palestinian people, who, right now, are pleading for help as they struggle to survive. For them, peace is an elusive dream.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It's a pleasure to follow the member for Richmond. Having heard her contribution and how well she summarised the importance of this legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of...
It's a pleasure to follow the member for Richmond. Having heard her contribution and how well she summarised the importance of this legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025, I feel she's left me with very little else to say! I commence my own remarks by thanking the nurses in our health workforce—over 400,000 of them across the country, and, as the member for Richmond quite rightly pointed out, the most evenly spread and the largest health force sector we have in the country. Every day they provide patient care that is second to none in terms of the relationships they build with patients, the confidence they give them, and the counselling and support they give them to get through, in many cases, very difficult health issues. It's not surprising that, given the work they do, they are probably rated as the most trusted profession across all professions in the country. That says a lot about the confidence the community has in nurses. That is not surprising when you think about the work they do, dealing each and every day with sometimes incredibly difficult situations—dealing with patients that have got very serious injuries, horrific injuries at times. They have to face that on a regular basis, whether it's drug-affected people or people with serious disability or even dementia; they're dealing with people who don't know what they're doing, and it's incredibly difficult and draining work. In particular, it can also be very risky work. I note that this year marks the 10th anniversary of the murder of South Australian nurse Gayle Woodford, in the outback in South Australia. I well remember that incident. That highlights the work nurses do and the risks they often take. I'm pleased to say that, as a result of what happened to Gayle, the laws were changed to try and provide a little bit more support and security for our nurses at the time. Australia's health system is indeed one of the best in the world; again, we can attribute much of that to the work of the nurses and what they do. But even though it is a good health system here in Australia—and I think that would be widely accepted and recognised—the reality is it is under stress. We have an ageing population and a shortage of health professionals right across the health profession spectrum. Trying to fix that is not something we can do overnight, because, in each case, health professionals need years of training in order to do the work they do. The fact the sector is under stress is not good for patients, because at times they can't get in to see their GP or the health professional they need. Nor is it good for the health workforce themselves, who are put under incredible pressure and often have to work long hours in order to try and fit in demands from the patients that want to see them. Neither side wins unless we can fix the system. Whilst it is something that will take time to fix, there are things we can do right now that will make a difference. The Minister for Health and Ageing, since his appointment as health minister, has been methodically working through the steps we need to take in order to bring the health system back to the level at which we would all like to see it. Empowering nurses to prescribe medications is one of those things we can do right now and are doing right now; I commend everyone who was involved in that decision and, having made that decision, bringing it to the House in the form of this legislation. Not only do nurses have, in my view, the professional qualifications and, as I said earlier on, the confidence of the community to do what they do; their daily experience in dealing with the patients they deal with each and every day matters. It's sometimes the experience of being in the job that teaches you more than any academic training you get in universities. Whilst they are out there every day doing the work they do, they're learning on the job each and every day, which, in my view, makes them thoroughly accredited to prescribe and give medications to their patients. They know what will work as well as anybody else. They know what a patient needs when they see a patient as well as anybody else. Whilst this legislation does bring in some additional appropriate safeguards to ensure that nurses get additional training and oversight by a health professional working with them, it enables them to do what they know needs to be done—that is, when a patient needs certain medication, they are able to prescribe it for them. In doing that, there are an enormous number of benefits. Firstly, the patient benefits because the patient gets immediate access to what they need. Secondly, it takes pressure off the health system because the patient doesn't have to wait for a doctor to come in—a doctor who may also be working long hours and unable to get there when the patient does. So it takes pressure off the doctor or the GP or whatever other health professional might have been called in. It also takes pressure off our emergency departments in our hospitals. For example, quite often people in aged care, where we now have registered nurses on duty 24 hours a day, need medical assistance. If the aged care premises can't get a doctor—and many doctors are not able to attend—then people are simply sent to the nearest hospital. That ties up medical staff at the hospital, and it ties up hospital beds as well. Having a nurse able to prescribe the medication that the patient needs will relieve an enormous amount of pressure on a whole range of different people within the health network more broadly. It also means that, for people in remote and rural areas—which is where nurses play a particularly important role—there will be additional services. When you go into remote and rural areas, the chances of finding a doctor are very, very difficult; in fact, those are some of the areas where we have the least number of doctors. What we do have across the country is nurses in those places. Those nurses provide literally all the medical care that people need because there's no-one else. Again, enabling them to be able to prescribe medications is critical to them being able to do their job and to do it well for the patient. Apart from the fact that there are no doctors, the reality is that, for many of those people, travelling to the nearest centre where there is a GP practice or a hospital is sometimes impossible. In remote areas, travel isn't easy, and, even if people can get to a centre, it is costly. So this will save people both money and time. That is indeed a good thing. As I said earlier, these decisions are not made flippantly. There is a process in place whereby nurses will get additional training. I understand that the first cohort of nurses providing prescriptions will be able to do so from 1 July. There is oversight. As I said earlier, they are working in partnership with an authorised health professional. These are some of the security measures that have been implemented as part of this legislation, and they are responsible measures. The nurses themselves, even before they get to this step, have had to show a level of experience within the workforce. I think they have had to have been a registered nurse for at least three years. So they're already experienced people, but that additional training and oversight ensures that there aren't any risks being taken. I'm going to close with perhaps what all other speakers on this side of the House have closed with. This is another step in trying to reform our health system in this country. It is a health system that—as I have said from the outset—is good but can be better. We are getting there one step at a time. The 122 urgent Medicare clinics that have been opened across the country and the 15 clinics that are about to open will make a difference as well. The workforce is growing thanks to this government. We are slowly getting more doctors into the system. I understand that some 17,000 have been added in the last two years. We've tripled the GP bulk-billing incentive for pensioners, concession cardholders and kids, and since November that has been expanded to all Australians. The proportion of bulk-billing has risen from around 20 per cent in 2025 to now 40 per cent. We have literally doubled the number of GP practices that are now bulk-billing. That's all because we've tripled the incentive. As has been said time and time again, the price of PBS medicines has been reduced to $25. For concession card holders, the price will be $7.70 right through to the end of this century. The most recent hospital agreement means record funding for our hospitals. I close with this comment: there's probably nothing more important to families than good health. Particularly when someone is unwell, there is nothing else that matters in their life other than their health because, without their health, they literally have nothing, so the health system does matter to people. We have a good health system. This is going to make it better. I commend this legislation to the House.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
To the families and loved ones of the people killed at Bondi on 14 December, I extend my profound condolences. I can only try to understand their grief and their loss. It has now been over a...
To the families and loved ones of the people killed at Bondi on 14 December, I extend my profound condolences. I can only try to understand their grief and their loss. It has now been over a month since the Bondi Beach shootings. Time moves on so quickly, and, for most people, normal life resumes. But it doesn't for those killed at Bondi, nor for their families and close friends—15 people that were celebrating life, probably looking forward to the summer holidays and Christmas plans that never came to pass. For their families and close friends, and for those wounded, their lives were changed forever, left with heartache and memories that will never leave them. On 14 December our nation was left shocked, angry, saddened and grieving in a way I have never seen before: angry at those who committed such a cowardly and heartless act; shocked that such an event could happen in Australia, where the principle of a fair go is ingrained in our identity and where we pride ourselves on multicultural success; saddened and grieving that 15 defenceless people—including 10-year-old Matilda—who had done no harm to their killers and were going about their lives as we all do could be mercilessly gunned down. We cannot turn back time, we cannot bring back the lives of those killed and we cannot restore the lives of their loved ones. But we can, and we do, thank those who in any way assisted on the day—some risking or losing their own lives, as so many other speakers have noted. Today there is too much hate throughout the world—too many innocent lives lost every day because of hate, bigotry, greed, and racial and religious intolerance. Hate and bigotry are used by evil people to indoctrinate others, who then commit vile atrocities even at the cost of their own lives. Jewish people know hate and bigotry only too well, having experienced antisemitism for centuries. The Bard, William Shakespeare, wrote about it over 400 years ago in his play The Merchant of Venice. In act 3, scene 1, Shylock, a hated Jewish moneylender and a victim of antisemitism, when questioning why Jewish people were so despised, exclaims: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer … He goes on: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? That passage reminds us all that we all have much more in common than that which divides us, yet, 400 years later, nothing has changed. Every life is precious, every life is sacred and every life matters. Laws may constrain behaviour, but they will not restrain a crazed person who is prepared to die for their cause. It is only when people overcome hatred and bigotry that others will feel safe. And people are not born with hate in their mind. It is taught to them. And, just as hate is taught to them, so can love be. We must not let the Bondi killings slowly fade into the past. We owe it to the Jewish community, who have already endured so much, and we owe it to the 15 people killed and to their families to do all that is possible to prevent another tragedy. May the loss of their lives not be in vain but become a time of reflection and a turning point for the better for our nation.
Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. Over recent years there's been a lot of misinformation about migration. Some of it has just been through...
I speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. Over recent years there's been a lot of misinformation about migration. Some of it has just been through misunderstandings, but much of it has been deliberate, intended to sow division within communities, to score cheap political points or to divert attention away from the real issues that are causing social struggles. The fact is that migration has been critical to Australia's development, and this has been particularly so since World War II. In the years since then, there has been an influx of migrants. Immediately after World War II, we saw a huge number of British and European migrants come to this country. In the decades that followed, that changed, with people coming here from many other parts of the world. The reality is that today we often speak of Australia as being a successful multicultural country, with, indeed, almost every country in the world being represented by people who now live here. In the past four decades, under Labor and coalition governments, we have seen, I understand, some seven million or more people come and permanently settle in Australia. Yet I accept that Australians want a controlled immigration program. They want an immigration program that serves Australia's needs and that they can have confidence in. Importantly, they want an immigration program that is not rorted, yet that is what has been happening over recent years, during which, because of widespread conflict overseas, desperate people fleeing war or persecution have been prepared to do whatever it takes to come to Australia. These are, indeed, vulnerable people who are then taken advantage of by, sometimes, people smugglers who put them through life-threatening journeys, and if they do manage to reach Australia, they then are often taken advantage of by employers or job recruiters. Often people of their own culture are those very job recruiters—people who promise them work on the basis that they can secure employment for them but who then exploit them in the process. If I get time, I'll talk a bit more about that later on. In 2016, the coalition government established the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, and I commend them for doing so. They established that taskforce in response to revelations of serious migrant worker exploitation. An inquiry was then held, chaired by Professor Alan Fels AO, with Deputy Chair David Cousins AM. The findings of that inquiry were released in the Report of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce in March 2019. A paper released by Australia Policy Online, which I believe articulates what the real issue was so well, had this to say in comment on the taskforce report: Wage exploitation is of great concern to the Australian community. It is damaging to Australia's reputation and may lead to negative flow-on effects to the proper functioning of the labour market and the economy. It is unfair not only to migrant workers, but also to other employees who are undercut on wages and job opportunities, and law abiding employers trying to compete on price. Australia prides itself on being a country where the principle of fairness underpins our economic and social relationships. However, migrant worker exploitation is a direct repudiation of this. … … … Migrant workers who are in Australia on a temporary basis may have poor knowledge of their workplace rights, are young and inexperienced, may have low English language proficiency and try to fit in with cultural norms and expectations of other people from their home countries. These factors combine to make them particularly vulnerable to unscrupulous practices at work … Fears about the consequences of approaching government agencies are common among migrants from less democratic countries than our own. The paper says a lot more, of course, but I think those sentiments sum up what the issue is and what we are responding to today—that people have indeed been exploited for much too long. That exploitation can take the form of underpaying wages; forcing workers to work extended unpaid hours; threatening to cancel a worker's visa if they complain or raise concerns about their work conditions; coercing workers to hand over their passport, as the member for Adelaide referred to earlier; forcing workers to work in unsafe or poor health and safety conditions; cramming workers into inadequate housing; and even physical threats. In June, a parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales heard from a GP in Wagga Wagga that hundreds of women were 'seeking abortions that they would not normally want' in order to keep their work visas. That is the extent to which the exploitation seems to have manifested itself. It is because of those concerns that we have this legislation. The taskforce I referred to earlier, commissioned by the last coalition government, found issues that I believe were widely known throughout the community—issues that I think everyone in the chamber would have come across at some stage or another. The number of worker exploitation cases that have been exposed over the years is a matter that should be of concern to this parliament. The taskforce provided 22 recommendations in their report; yet, three years later, the last coalition government had done nothing with them. It commissioned a report and then just sat on it, as it did with Graeme Samuel's review into the EPBC Act. It seems that the last coalition government was very good at kicking the can down the road on these important issues by commissioning reports that would obviously delay any response from the government, and then, once they'd received them, did nothing. Once again, it is up to Labor to fix the problem, and that is what this legislation does. This legislation sets up a register of approved work sponsors. In doing so, it will provide transparency, accountability, and enhanced protections for temporary skilled migrants. It will also support temporary skilled migrant workers who need to find a new sponsor if that need arises. And, as other speakers have made absolutely clear, this legislation arises after extensive consultation—consultation by the previous coalition government and then by the Albanese Labor government; consultation that went far and wide throughout the community and included community groups, business, and so on. This legislation goes a long way towards stamping out some of the problems I referred to earlier. It may not fix every problem, but it's a start in the right direction. I have no doubt that worker exploitation will continue. In fact, worker exploitation isn't simply limited to skilled migrants who come from overseas; it occurs on a regular basis in many other sectors. However, the fact remains that skilled migrants make up the largest cohort of migrants to Australia. We face skilled workforce shortages again because the last coalition government did nothing about training up Australians. Instead, they decimated TAFE while simultaneously paying huge sums to shonky training organisations. The Albanese Labor government is fixing that as well, with free TAFE training. But, logically, it will take some time before those trainees are work ready. I understand that, to date, over 725,000 people have enrolled in free TAFE courses. I commend them for doing so, and I look forward to them filling those skill shortages for which we're currently having to find people from overseas. In the interim, however, we do have a skilled workforce shortage, which must be met. If it's not met, then the whole community will suffer. If we don't bring in skilled tradespeople, we can't build the very houses that everybody is screaming out for at the rate at which they need to be built. If we don't bring in skilled tradespeople or skilled professionals from overseas we won't be able to fill the health and medical workforce shortages that we're seeing right around the country, particularly in the country regions, where, I understand, that, if it weren't for the skilled professionals that we are bringing in from overseas, there would be communities without doctors and nurses. Look at the aged-care sector. Again, if it weren't for the skilled people coming in from overseas, it is very likely that many of those centres would be unable to operate and the vulnerable older people that we have in this country who are looking for aged care would not be able to get it. On one hand we have a real need that must be met, and on the other hand we have a shortage of the skills that are required to provide the services that people need. We need to find a way of fixing that that is appropriate in terms of both meeting our migration statistics and our migration intake and ensuring that those people who come into this country are then given work and paid accordingly and are not in any way abused as people have been on so many occasions. In concluding my remarks, I'll make this point. Worker exploitation is, as I said earlier, not just isolated to migrant workers; it occurs across the board. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that migrant workers who come here are exploited much more so than others. I used some examples earlier on of why that is the case, but I'll simply make this point. Imagine someone fleeing a war-torn country under circumstances in which they risk their lives and then reaching Australia. They would do anything they need to do in order to stay here, not only to protect their own life but also to be able to earn a few dollars so they can then send that back to family members who they left in their home country. These are vulnerable people who are at the mercy of unscrupulous operators, and we have seen example after example of that here in Australia. It is not to say that all employers are unscrupulous, but we need to ensure that those who are unscrupulous are no longer able to do what they are doing. I have heard the concerns from members opposite that this legislation goes too far and that too much information is going to have to be provided to authorities with respect to employers who take on migrant workers. I say to members opposite that those employers who are doing the right thing have nothing to fear. This legislation is no different to any other piece of legislation which regulates activities in this country or provides laws. Laws are always provided only in order to control the minority who do the wrong thing. If it weren't for the minority who do the wrong thing, we probably wouldn't need any laws whatsoever. This is simply another example of where the government need to act to protect vulnerable people as we have done in so many other areas of government policy. I commend this legislation to the House.
Petition: Light Pollution | Statements by Members | House debates
I present a petition with 12,144 signatures organised by the Australasian Dark Sky Alliance. The petition is calling for legislation to limit light pollution, specifically artificial light at...
I present a petition with 12,144 signatures organised by the Australasian Dark Sky Alliance. The petition is calling for legislation to limit light pollution, specifically artificial light at night. Light pollution has a number of negative consequences, which include ecological impacts on plants and animals, harming biodiversity; human health, especially sleep disruption; energy waste; and a reduction in the visibility of stars and planets, impacting astronomy. At present, there is a lack of comprehensive legislation to address light pollution and its impacts. I note that addressing light pollution does not mean forgoing useful lighting but rather going about it in a smarter way, which might include targeted lighting, choosing an appropriate intensity of lighting or eliminating unnecessary lighting. I'm advised that the petition has been considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions and found to be in order. This petition is timely as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Conservation Congress recently carried a motion on this very matter. I commend the Australasian Dark Sky Alliance for their efforts in raising a matter which I suspect many people are not aware of, and I draw the matter to the attention of the minister and to the attention of the House. The petition read as follows Light pollution caused by excessive Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) has harmful effects on human health, is harmful and disruptive to vulnerable species of flora and fauna, and has negative impacts on the economy, including placing unnecessary loads on electrical infrastructure, which leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Reducing ALAN not only helps to reduce the harmful effects listed above, but can also lead to benefits, such as making streets safer by reducing glare and light trespass, and increasing Astrotourism. We therefore ask the House to interduce legislation to limit light pollution and ALAN, including public and private exterior illumination, ensuring that lighting is only used when and where is it necessary, and is limited to levels which are safe and fit for purpose. Countries such as France, Germany and Croatia have already successfully introduced such legislation which limits light pollution and ALAN. from 12,144 citizens Petition received.
Mental Health | Private Members' Business | House debates
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report for 2025: Referrals made in July 2025. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in...
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report for 2025: Referrals made in July 2025. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. This report is the fourth report of 2025 and the second for the 48th parliament. This report considers two proposed works by Airservices Australia. The first proposal deals with the Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Services' NexGen project for the upgrade of end-of-life facilities for phase 1A in Queensland and Victoria, which has a budget of $163.4 million. The second proposal is for PFAS remediation works at the former firefighting training grounds at Rockhampton Airport in Queensland, with a budget of $24.975 million. Phase 1A of the NexGen works proposes to rebuild end-of-life facilities at Airservices Australia aviation rescue firefighting stations, complete minor works and build cold-drill firefighter training grounds across Queensland and Victoria. The proposed works are intended to support training objectives, comply with regulations and meet workforce capability needs. The works will also ensure that stations receiving the first newly procured ultralarge firefighting vehicles are fit for purpose and capable of storing the new fleet. The PFAS remediation at Rockhampton Airport propose to manage PFAS contamination from affected infrastructure and soil at the former firefighting training grounds at the airport. The objective of the proposed work is to reduce the risk of PFAS contamination to humans and the surrounding environment. This will occur by removing 90 per cent of the estimated 140 kilograms of PFAS mass residing in the soil and around the former firefighting training grounds. After conducting site inspections in Rockhampton related to the two inquiries and holding public and in camera hearings into the proposed works, the committee is satisfied with the proposals. The committee acknowledges the efforts of Airservices Australia to ensure that its firefighting stations are up to date and fit for purpose, and there are modernised training facilities to support the expanding workforce. Further, the committee acknowledges the proactive steps Airservices Australia has taken to ensure remediation works on PFAS contaminated sites are carried out efficiently and effectively. The committee, therefore, recommends it is expedient that the proposed works are carried out. I commend the report to the House.
Byner, Mr Leon | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise to acknowledge the life of radio personality Leon Byner, who passed away on Remembrance Day, 11 November. Through his top-rated mid-morning talkback program on 5AA, Leon became a trusted...
I rise to acknowledge the life of radio personality Leon Byner, who passed away on Remembrance Day, 11 November. Through his top-rated mid-morning talkback program on 5AA, Leon became a trusted household name throughout South Australia. Leon was not just a host but a problem solver and a justice advocate for people who had no-one else to turn to. He cared for people who were treated unfairly and was a straight talker, holding government and business leaders to account. Leon would always begin his program with a thoughtful commentary on a current issue of public concern, never taking political sides but focusing on the issue where a local, state or federal government or, at times, industry response was needed—and always giving every person in the firing line a chance to be heard. Through his callers and regular expert guests, Leon's program was filled with helpful everyday information. When Leon referred a caller to one of his many contacts, he would always ensure the referral had been followed up. Nothing slipped his mind. Poor health, sadly, brought Leon's six-decade radio career to an end. For the thousands of listeners who regularly tuned into his program, Leon will be remembered fondly and with much respect and gratitude. To Leon's family, his long-time producer, Tammii Caught, and all his radio colleagues and friends, I extend my condolences.
Makin Electorate: Schools | Constituency Statements | House debates
As we draw towards the end of the year I expect that, as I do, all members of this place will be attending year 12 graduation ceremonies in their electorates. They are special events that I look...
As we draw towards the end of the year I expect that, as I do, all members of this place will be attending year 12 graduation ceremonies in their electorates. They are special events that I look forward to, and I make every effort to attend the ceremonies of each of the public and private schools in the Makin electorate. Every school has its own individual way of celebrating year 12 graduations, and so they are all very different. However, for all the differences, there are important similarities in all the graduations. The first is the genuine care for the students shown by the respective teachers and other school staff and the reciprocal respect and gratitude students have for their teachers. The second is the impressive maturity and development of the students, who have reached a milestone in their lives, having completed some 12 years of structured education, and are about to embark on their own direction in life. We live in a time where, for all the supports and mod cons, for young people life can be so difficult. They are constantly influenced by the world around them. Additionally, peer pressure, bullying, self-esteem, image and exam preparation can all be disruptive influences on their lives, in a world that is already bursting with stress and anxiety. No-one understands these pressures better than the teachers who educate, guide and nurture the students on a daily basis at such a critical time in their lives. They listen to their stories and struggles with a sympathetic ear. These are teachers who simultaneously have their own personal lives and responsibilities to deal with—teachers whom I see on graduation nights filled with pride at seeing their year 12s graduate but also showing a touch of sadness as they say goodbye to the young people who have been so much a part of their lives. I thank staff at the following high schools in the Makin electorate: Banksia Park International High School, Endeavour College, Garden College, Gleeson College, Golden Grove High School, the Heights School, Kings Baptist Grammar School, Modbury High School, Para Hills High School, Parafield Gardens High School, Pedare Christian College, Pinnacle College, Roma Mitchell Secondary College, Salisbury East High School, Torrens Valley Christian School, Tyndale Christian School and Valley View Secondary School. I say thank you for all you do, year in and year out, in preparing young people in your care for their future as they consider their careers and ultimately make their contribution as future leaders of society. We owe all of those schools and their staff our genuine and sincere gratitude. To the graduates of 2025, I wish you well with your exam results and every success in your future.
United States-Australia Framework for Securing of Supply in the Mining and Processing of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths | Private Members' Business | House debates
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm seeking the call to make a point of order. I very much appreciate the comments being made by the member for Gippsland, but I fail to understand how they are relevant to the bill that is...
I'm seeking the call to make a point of order. I very much appreciate the comments being made by the member for Gippsland, but I fail to understand how they are relevant to the bill that is currently before us, so perhaps he could advise the House as to what the relevance of that is to the bill before us. I would ask you to bring him back to the bill that's before us.
Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It's a pleasure to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and to follow the member for Sturt, who's just given a very good argument and a clear...
It's a pleasure to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and to follow the member for Sturt, who's just given a very good argument and a clear explanation of why this legislation is so important. Some 50 years ago, in 1975, in introducing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill, the then Attorney-General Kep Enderby, stated: … the Tribunal is not to be an ordinary court, but neither is it to be an appendage of government departments. The Tribunal is to be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of departmental administration. Nothing less than a tribunal of full judicial status would be satisfactory for these purposes. He went on: The tribunal is not to be bound by the rules of evidence but is empowered to inform itself in any way it sees fit. He then ends his speech with: It will provide an opportunity to build up a significant body of administrative law and practice of general application as well as providing the machinery to ensure that persons are dealt with fairly and properly in their relationships with government. Those opening comments, I believe, very well describe the purpose and intent of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal and its successor, the Administrative Review Tribunal, which is the legislation that we are now dealing with. And albeit the name has changed, it is my view that the purpose and intent of the tribunal never did. Since 1975, when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established, society and the way it functions has changed markedly. Laws, regulations and processes have changed. Government administrative processes have changed as well. Society has changed. Community expectations and demands have changed. So where a grievance arises, the community must have confidence in the review process that is currently available to them. That is what this legislation seeks to do. It's a legislation that looks at what has happened in the past 50 years and seeks to address any flaws in that legislation, and effectively says, 'How can we do things better?' I believe this legislation will in fact lead us down the path where we will be doing things better. Any review process must be speedy, because for people who have lodged a review of their case with the department—and we've already heard that there are some 400 pieces of legislation under which people might challenge a decision—the delays can be both traumatic and even life-changing, as other speakers have quite rightly pointed out. Indeed, for people waiting for a decision, every day can seem like eternity, adding to stress whilst at the same time putting their lives on hold. With respect to that, I'm sure other members of this place would have had similar experiences as me within my office in Makin. We regularly see people come into the office who have lodged an appeal, because they want to challenge a decision, and have been waiting months and months for that appeal to be heard. In those intervening months, their lives are effectively put on hold or severely disrupted in a way that certainly causes them severe distress and anxiety. It's important that we have a process that deals with their applications as efficiently as possible. It's just as important that the outcome must be fair and just, which is why the Administrative Review Tribunal is not bound by normal legal framework. It is for that very reason. In fact, it has often been said that law and justice are not always the same. Indeed, a court is a place where the primary responsibility is to administer and apply law. The ART has, I believe, a slightly different role in that it's a process that seeks to deliver justice, common sense and fairness that might not otherwise be found when you simply apply law. In other words, it's a process where one would say it delivers a fair go. Sounds simple, but regrettably that has not always been the case. Too often decisions are made by ministers, their delegates or departmental officers who use their personal judgement and their analysis and sometimes, regrettably, their bias in reaching the decisions they make. We saw that with the robodebt debacle, where a flawed computer-generated process was used to burden people with wrongful debts. As everyone in this House knows, the consequences of the robodebt debacle were devastating for so many people. It's the role of the ART to ensure that the community can have confidence in whatever processes we put in place, from here going forward. Decisions under this new arrangement can now be made on the basis of written materials, without holding an oral hearing. This is particularly with respect to student visa cases, but I understand there is also flexibility for that to be extended in the future. The point I want to make is based on my experience in the Makin electorate. Many people have come in and said, 'Yes, we will lodge an application for a hearing to be held, but we don't feel confident to front up to the people that are going to sit there and make the decision.' Because they don't know the laws or they don't speak the language well—whatever the case is—they feel somewhat nervous about appearing before a tribunal, which they envisage as being a court setting. This new arrangements means that, in their own quiet time, they will be able to write things down and put together a submission, perhaps with the help of people who are willing to assist them, and then submit it so it can form part of the hearing. This is incredibly important, and it's an improvement on the current process, whereby they would otherwise have to go in themselves and appear. This process will be much more streamlined. It will enable more cases to be heard, and that in turn will shorten the waiting times that people are currently experiencing with respect to their appeal applications. As I said a moment ago, being able to present their case in the quietness of their own home will certainly save people the emotional stress they might feel when appearing before a quasi-judicial body. Simultaneously, timely decision-making will prevent non-genuine visa applicants from using the Administrative Review Tribunal as a delaying tactic, as the member for Sturt alluded to in her contribution a few moments ago. I have no doubt that some of the applications for review are lodged simply to delay a final decision being made. That not only ties up the tribunal's time and resources and puts people in the waiting queue for even longer, but it's also a costly process for taxpayers. It is often used simply as a delaying tactic so that someone can continue to do whatever it is they are appealing against. Again, a streamlined process which reduces the time for an application to be heard will hopefully eliminate some of that as well. Since 2024 we've seen a surge in student visa refusals. I don't know how many of those reviews end up in a decision being overturned. In fact, I say this with respect to all applications that go before the ART. How many of them successfully overturn the original decision? It would be an interesting study to carry out, and it would be important to know those statistics. Without knowing those statistics, it seems to me that the increase in the number of student applications warrants specific focus on those applications. This legislation does that, because it allows the process to be streamlined through applications being heard without the person appearing in person. It's a process which I believe will go a long way towards fixing up the current problem, which is the long waiting list. There are other matters in this legislation that others have spoken of which I won't go into detail about. I see the minister is in the chamber right now, and she probably wants to sum up. In a nutshell, this is simply an improvement that is warranted and arises because, as things change, we need to change the laws of the land to ensure that they are still relevant and applicable to society today. I commend the legislation to the House.