Tony Pasin's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
South Australia: Drought | Statements by Members | House debates
Many farmers across South Australia have now endured two years of relentless drought. Meanwhile, Premier Peter Malinauskas has splashed cash on major events and photo opportunities otherwise, but...
Many farmers across South Australia have now endured two years of relentless drought. Meanwhile, Premier Peter Malinauskas has splashed cash on major events and photo opportunities otherwise, but regional communities have been crying out for help and they've been ignored. Only now, in the shadows of a state election campaign, is the Malinauskas Labor government taking meaningful action. Don't get me wrong, any support for farmers is welcomed, but the timing of this announcement raises serious questions. Producers across Barker and, indeed, right across South Australia have been calling for help while conditions have deteriorated. They have watched while low-interest loans that they were calling for were made available to farmers interstate as a matter of course. Droughts don't operate on election cycles. Support should be timely, it should be practical and it should be driven by conditions on the ground, not by political opportunism. The delay matters, because drought assistance works best when it's delivered early, when it keeps farms viable and prevents hardship, not months later when the damage is already done. Farmers deserve support when they need it most, not months later when the damage is deeply cutting. Sadly, all they get from 'party Pete' is interest only when it suits him and the interests of his party. Shame on him!
Economy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I ask that the member for Wills withdraw his unparliamentary remark.
I ask the member opposite to withdraw the reflection on members. It was unparliamentary.
Barker Electorate: Australia Day Honours and Awards | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise today to recognise and congratulate the outstanding Australians from the electorate of Barker who have been honoured as part of the Australia Day honours and awards. Australia Day honours...
I rise today to recognise and congratulate the outstanding Australians from the electorate of Barker who have been honoured as part of the Australia Day honours and awards. Australia Day honours provide an opportunity for our nation to acknowledge individuals who have made an outstanding and enduring contribution to Australia. These honours recognise service, leadership and dedication that enrich our communities and strengthen our country. They reflect the very best of the Australian spirit—service above self. This year Barker was proudly represented by a number of exceptional recipients. I congratulate Neville Bonney OAM, who was recognised for his service to conservation, the environment and the community. Mr Bonney has been a longstanding advocate for environmental stewardship and has contributed significantly to local conservation initiatives and community organisations. I also wish to congratulate Stephen Day OAM, whose award acknowledges his service to charitable organisations and to the finance sector. Mr Day has dedicated many years to supporting community and charitable causes through leadership roles and professional expertise within the financial sector. Ms Gerlinde Trappe OAM is recognised for her service to the community of the Barossa and to the arts. Her contribution has played an important role in supporting local cultural initiatives and strengthening community engagement through the arts. I also wish to acknowledge Dr William Gransbury OAM, who has been honoured for his service to the community of Angaston. Dr Gransbury has made a sustained contribution to civic life in Angaston through long-term community involvement and service in areas as diverse as mental health, heritage, community and sport. I also congratulate Mr Harold Long OAM, who is recognised for his service to the communities of Mannum, Salt Creek and Padthaway and, in particular, for his work supporting young people. Mr Long's commitment to youth development and to community participation has a long-lasting impact across multiple regional communities. He was, coincidentally, the year 3 teacher of two of my electorate office staff, who have many fond memories of Mr Long, including learning and performing the national anthem to their peers. Under Mr Long's tutelage, students were required to be able to recite both verses of the national anthem before they completed year 3. Barker is home to recipients of distinguished service medals. I congratulate Mr John Probert, awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal, and Mr Kieran Johnson, awarded the Ambulance Service Medal, for distinguished service for their respective organisations. Their commitment to protecting lives and community deserves our deepest thanks. To all those recognised this Australia Day, I want to say thank you. Thank you for everything you do. You strengthen our communities and you make Barker an even better place to live, work and raise a family.
Charlton, Dr Susan Lyndsay (Sue), AM | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise today to honour the life and service of Dr Sue Charlton, a deeply respected South Australian whose passing is being felt strongly in Mount Gambier and across the Limestone Coast. Sue was a...
I rise today to honour the life and service of Dr Sue Charlton, a deeply respected South Australian whose passing is being felt strongly in Mount Gambier and across the Limestone Coast. Sue was a committed champion of regional communities. As the inaugural chair of the Stand Like Stone Foundation, Sue helped establish a lasting model of community philanthropy and ensured that funds raised locally are directed back into local priorities, strengthening community outcomes across the Limestone Coast. Sue's impact was not confined to the Limestone Coast; Sue played a formative role nationally as a founding member and later chair of what is now Community Foundations Australia. Through that leadership, Sue helped to shape a network of community foundations that continue to deliver for communities right across our nation. Professionally, Sue devoted more than four decades to paediatric physiotherapy, improving the lives of children and families. Sue was a mentor, an educator and a researcher. Sue completed her PhD later in life and exemplified a lifelong commitment to learning and evidence based care. In January 2014, Sue was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to the community through philanthropic and charitable organisations and to the profession of physiotherapy. Sue Charlton leaves behind a legacy of service and leadership. Her contribution will endure through the institutions she strengthened and the many lives she touched. Vale, Sue Charlton.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The 15 souls that tragically lost their lives on 14 December on the beach at Bondi are owed at least the honesty of their polity. The honest truth—perhaps the hard truth for those...
The 15 souls that tragically lost their lives on 14 December on the beach at Bondi are owed at least the honesty of their polity. The honest truth—perhaps the hard truth for those opposite—is that we don't have a gun problem in this country; we have a problem with radical Islamic extremism. Objectively, a reasonable person might conclude that the US does have a gun problem, but we don't. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, a product of very hard decisions taken by former prime minister John Howard and his government. That's why I can't support these changes in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. They're a product of a couple of things, principally an attempt to hoodwink the Australian people and, sadly, to gaslight lawful, legitimate licensed Australian gun owners. I'm not going to stand in this place and support it. I know many of my colleagues won't either. The truth—again, a hard truth for those opposite—is that what happened at Bondi was not a failure of our national gun laws but a failure of national leadership. When the time came to deal with the rising tide of antisemitism in this country, our national leadership hid under the doona. We should be reflecting on those poor choices, not seeking to strengthen gun laws in effect as an attempt to distract people from what actually happened here. I remind the House that these terrorists not only had firearms; they also had improvised explosive devices. I remind the House that we have seen this kind of terror in Sydney with people wielding knives. I remind the House that we've seen it in Melbourne with people driving motor vehicles. It's always the motivation; it's never the method. I say to those opposite: please, don't gaslight Australian gun owners.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Today, we pause to acknowledge and honour the victims of the antisemitic terror attack that occurred at Bondi. We do so in sadness, in sympathy and in solidarity with the Jewish community and,...
Today, we pause to acknowledge and honour the victims of the antisemitic terror attack that occurred at Bondi. We do so in sadness, in sympathy and in solidarity with the Jewish community and, indeed, with all Australians who have been shocked by this most hateful of acts. The scenes that unfolded at Bondi were confronting and heartbreaking—families freely and joyously celebrating Hanukkah, a celebration of light turned dark in an instant; a community going about an open expression of their faith until they were met with unthinkable violence driven by hate; the worst loss of Jewish life outside of Israel since the Holocaust. Innocent lives were taken, others were wounded, and countless more carry the emotional and psychological scars of an incident that has caused everyday Australians to gasp and to think to themselves that this doesn't happen in Australia. Australia is a safe, peaceful and tolerant nation. It is precisely because of those qualities that this attack has been so deeply felt. We pride ourselves on being a place where people can worship freely and congregate without concern. When that basic expectation is violated, when Australians are targeted for who they are and, indeed, for what they believe, we must confront it honestly and without equivocation. The victims of this attack are in the thoughts and prayers of my constituents. Their families carry a burden of grief that no-one should be forced to bear, and they have our deepest sympathy and support. To the Jewish community, we offer not only our condolences but our solidarity. I extend my heartfelt condolences to all who mourn and all who grieve. Antisemitism has no place in Australia. It is an ancient hatred that has taken a modern and aggressive form, emboldened by events abroad and normalised by a failure to challenge it at home. No Australian, Jewish or otherwise, should walk their neighbourhood in fear or be forced to gather, pray or learn behind guarded gates. This parliament has a responsibility not merely to condemn antisemitism but to confront it. That includes naming it, rejecting it and refusing to tolerate attempts to excuse or justify it. That means calling out antisemitism explicitly and recognising the role that Islamic extremism played in this attack. It means recognising the threat that this twisted ideology poses to the safety and security of all Australians. And it requires acknowledging an uncomfortable truth—that antisemitic hatred was allowed to fester in our streets and in our public discourse and that the warnings were not ignored until lives were lost. At Bondi, we saw the terrible cost of hatred when it metastasises into violence. But we also saw bravery. From victims, from bystanders and from first responders who ran towards danger to protect others. In the face of darkness, everyday Australians showed extraordinary courage, and I want to, as others have, honour them as well. This attack was not only an assault on Jewish Australians; it was an assault on the values that underpin our liberal democratic society, and that's an attack on all of us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association, egalitarianism and mutual respect are all important principles that make the Australian nation what it is. This attack has made clear that antisemitism is not confined to particular suburbs or cities, nor is the responsibility to oppose it confined to any single community. Across the Australian nation, Australians looked to Bondi with shock and sadness. They understood instinctively that this was an attack on all Australians, and they understood something else—that hatred left unchallenged never remains merely words. They now look to this parliament to speak plainly and to act responsibly, and to demonstrate our values are not just slogans but standards backed by resolve. To the Jewish community, I want to say: the people of Barker stand with you. We grieve with you. We will not allow your safety, your dignity or, indeed, your sense of belonging to be compromised. Your struggle against antisemitism is ultimately Australia's struggle to defend the values that define all of us. May the memories of those who lost their lives be a blessing, may the injured recover fully and may this parliament honour their suffering by reaffirming the principles that make Australia the country we love—principles that we must protect with vigilance and resolve. I commend the motion to the House.
Climate Change, Energy | Adjournment | House debates
I wish to draw the House's attention to a Federal Court judgement. It was a judgement of Justice Wigney, delivered on 15 July of this year, in the case of Pabai Pabai & Anor v the...
I wish to draw the House's attention to a Federal Court judgement. It was a judgement of Justice Wigney, delivered on 15 July of this year, in the case of Pabai Pabai & Anor v the Commonwealth of Australia. It's significant for a reason that I'll make clear. The case involved a group of Torres Strait Islanders who argued that the Commonwealth had been negligent in not protecting them from climate change. Justice Wigney, helpfully, summarised the government's defence in this case—the defence, by the way, that was authorised by this government via this government's Attorney-General. Justice Wigney said: The Commonwealth, on the other hand, submitted that it had no control over the risk of harm to Torres Strait Islanders from the impacts of climate change. … It is not a problem over which Australia alone has any, or any significant control. … Australia's targets alone are unlikely to have any impact on climate change or the risks posed by its impacts. Well, well, well. On the one hand we have a government that at question time and at every opportunity tells us that, if we don't pursue these unrealistic and unachievable carbon emissions reduction targets, then effectively we will be facing bushfires, cyclones and all manner of climate risks. But on the other hand, quietly, away in the Federal Court, instructions are provided to counsel to make the very opposite submissions. I repeat: The Commonwealth, on the other hand, submitted— in a court no less, the Federal Court of Australia— that it had no control over the risk of harm to Torres Strait Islanders … This is a government that believes deeply in the maxim of 'do as we say, not as we do'. This has laid bare the hypocrisy of those opposite. I look forward to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy—if he can keep the lights on during question time—advising the House of how it is that the government made that submission to the Federal Court, when its rhetoric both at question time and at every other opportunity is directly the opposite. I also rise to draw the attention of the House—courtesy of a whistleblower in my electorate—to a proposed wind farm at Keilira in the south-east of South Australia and to highlight what I think are some true costs. The proposal would see 80 to 100 turbines of between five and seven megawatts rolled out across an 18,000-hectare patch—landholders have been contacted—and it would involve not only the turbines but also a high-voltage transmission line. The problem is the high-voltage transmission line doesn't exist. It would require a new 300-kilometre double-circuit 275 kV line from Mount Gambier to Tailem Bend, effectively. This proposal is south-east stage 2. ElectraNet previously built stage 1, Tungkillo to Tailem Bend, at a cost of $1.45 billion. That means this project would run to $5 billion to $6 billion. So, if constituents are wondering, the power bills are going up because these are the kinds of projects that have to be paid for. I'm concerned, in particular, that there's no rehabilitation bond required in these projects, unlike mining and gas projects. I'm concerned that the developer and, ultimately, the asset owner may not be liquid at the time that these turbines ultimately fall into disrepair. Others in this place have made clear that the cost per turbine for decommissioning, in today's dollars, ranges from a quarter of a million dollars to a million dollars. Of course, we know of the risks. There's blade rot, blade shear, PFAS chemicals, lubricants et cetera. We heard this week in this place that asbestos is present in some of the wind farm brakes. There have been concerns raised by Livestock SA, and I share those concerns. The bottom line that I want to deliver directly to potential hosts of these assets is: insist on a rehabilitation bond; get independent legal advice, and that doesn't mean speaking to the developer's lawyer; do your homework; and demand guarantees around soil, water and livestock protection. This is your asset, and you must take action to protect it. Question agreed to. Feder ation Chamber adjourned at 11:37
Barker Electorate: Environment | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise today to draw the attention of colleagues to a matter of urgent concern. It's the escalating coastal erosion at Southend, in my electorate, and the recent failure of the application by the...
I rise today to draw the attention of colleagues to a matter of urgent concern. It's the escalating coastal erosion at Southend, in my electorate, and the recent failure of the application by the director of engineering services at the Wattle Range Council for federal support under the Disaster Ready Fund. Southend, a small coastal town, is experiencing terrifying coastal erosion. Strong waves and wind from the Southern Ocean have stripped away metres of sand from the beachfront. In some areas, up to three metres of sand has been lost in just one season alone, exposing steep drop-offs, threatening the local caravan park and forcing the closure of the main beach due to safety concerns. This is not only a blow to local residents but a real threat to the town's future as a tourism destination. Wattle Range Council rightfully sought $1.8 million from the federal government through the Disaster Ready Fund to implement key erosion mitigation works. Their vision included not just short-term sand replenishment but durable infrastructure to secure the beach, defend assets and preserve the natural beauty that underpins the region's identity and economy. Yet their application was rejected. That decision requires scrutiny because responsible early investment now will prevent far greater loss in the years ahead. This not an isolated incident. A number of regional communities across my electorate face similar pressures. Flinders University research warns that the data is still limited, but what they measure already shows a worrying trend of repeated storm events preventing natural recovery and leaving dunes permanently eroded. Furthermore, South Australia's Department for Environment and Water has recognised the urgency through the Coast Protection Board's grant program. Wattle Range Council applied for funds to address erosion, flooding, sand drift and other coastal risks. They received $32,000 from the state government for detailed design work at Southend, but this is only a small fraction of what is required to actually undertake the works. It's vital we invest more federally in this region. Failing to act now will result in greater damage to public infrastructure, community assets and local businesses. I call on the relevant minister to urgently review the circumstances surrounding this unsuccessful application and work directly with the Wattle Range Council and the Southend community to identify an immediate pathway. Southend's coastline is one of the Limestone Coast's great natural assets, and with timely assistance we can ensure it remains intact for generations to come. This is not just a local issue; it's a clear opportunity for the federal government to support a community taking responsible, forward-looking steps to protect itself. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to stand with their fellow Australians at Southend and provide the support they deserve and, in fact, need.
South Australia: Roads | Adjournment | House debates
I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of Barker, a vast, proud regional electorate in South Australia. I want to express my strong opposition to the proposal to reduce the default speeds...
I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of Barker, a vast, proud regional electorate in South Australia. I want to express my strong opposition to the proposal to reduce the default speeds on unsigned rural roads to 70 kilometres an hour. Let me begin with a simple truth: the problem on our regional roads is not the speed limit; the problem is the state of the roads themselves. For years, communities across my electorate have been pleading for the basics: proper sealing of unsealed roads, shoulder upgrades, resurfacing work and potholes filled before they become craters. Instead of delivering what regional Australians need, this government has had the laziest of proposals—a consultation on slowing everyone down in the name of road safety. It has been called 'lazy' by the Grain Producers SA, who represent hardworking grain growers of South Australia, the largest rural commodity. They have said clearly that reducing speed limits without fixing roads will not make travel safer but it will make rural life harder. Their members are the ones travelling huge distances on poorly maintained roads every single day. They know these roads better than anyone, and they are not alone. This proposal is not just inconvenient; it is economically damaging. In my electorate, transport is the lifeblood of the economy. Freight operators, farmers, small businesses, service providers and others rely on the efficient transport of goods over long distances. Cutting speed limits by nearly a third on many of these roads will slow down supply chains, increase costs and reduce productivity. The Australian Trucking Association has already warned that slowing freight routes will raise costs for food, fuel and essential goods. Long distance drivers are deeply concerned that spending more time on the road will increase the risk of driver fatigue, one of the most significant risk factors contributing to road accidents in rural Australia, so the government are ignoring one of the most well-documented risks in regional driving. Experts on road safety and rural planning agree that the safest and most effective approach is to actually improve the road, not simply lower speed limits. That means sealing unsealed surfaces, widening shoulders, improving line marking and proper maintenance. The government know this. Their own regulatory analysis acknowledges that most regional roads are in poor condition. But rather than fix it they have gone for the cheap answer—shift the burden onto regional drivers, regional families and regional businesses. That would be disappointing enough, but I now want to turn to what should be one of the most concerning aspects of this proposal. While government ministers continue to market this as a 'safety measure', the consultation regulatory impact analysis tells a very different story. It is as though they want to tell that story sotto voce. On page 10, the RIA explicitly includes emissions reduction from lower fuel consumption as a calculated benefit of reducing rural speed limits. I thought that must have been a mistake, but on page 56 the document shows that emissions savings are not a side note; they form a material part of the monetised benefits used to justify this policy. And on page 70, so as to reinforce the position, the modelling integrates emissions reduction per vehicle kilometre as a key variable in the cost benefit analysis. Let's be clear: these are not accidental inclusions; they are deliberate. What we see here is the Albanese Labor government using road safety as a convenient cover for a backdoor net zero agenda, an attempt to reduce emissions through speed productions, not proper energy or climate policy. Regional communities are being slowed down because this government wants to meet their unrealistic emissions reduction targets. But, instead of saying that honestly, they have packaged it up as a safety reform. That's not transparency, it's not good governance, and it's certainly not respect for regional Australians. The people of my electorate—and indeed all Australians, regional or otherwise—deserve safer roads, not slower ones. They deserve honesty, not hidden agendas; they deserve investment, not excuses. Congratulations to the state Labor government, who has ruled this out as a proposal—presumably because they're in the shadows of an election. I urge the government to withdraw this proposal. And, if you think it's a bad idea as well, sign my petition. It shouldn't be about emissions reduction; it should be about safer roads.
Cost of Living | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. The CEO of one of Australia's energy retailers recently warned: … the cost of this transition is really going to affect the people who can afford it...
My question is to the Prime Minister. The CEO of one of Australia's energy retailers recently warned: … the cost of this transition is really going to affect the people who can afford it the least, so people that are already struggling to pay their power bills are going to get slammed with more cost … Prime Minister, why is the part-time energy minister, full-time president globetrotting around the world seeking to broker global climate conference communiques instead of helping struggling Australians at home?
Albanese Government | Private Members' Business | House debates
I understand the reluctance to second this congratulatory motion! The member for Banks just accused me of not listening. I listened intently to his five-minute dissertation. What I heard, what...
I understand the reluctance to second this congratulatory motion! The member for Banks just accused me of not listening. I listened intently to his five-minute dissertation. What I heard, what I'm sure people in the gallery heard and what the people of Australia heard is: 'Australians have never had it better.' If you believe that, you're talking to a different subset of Australians than me. Electricity prices are through the roof. I want to talk about Medicare, because in my community it's a real issue right now. But the member opposite also talked about a future made in Australia, and those of us on this side, he suggests, want to talk down manufacturing. We want to talk it up; it's those on the other side who want to close down Australian manufacturing. If you don't believe that, go and talk to any smelter in Australia right now. Tomago might be the place where you'd start, but it's not the place where you'd finish. I'm not here to address the member for Banks's comments, enthusiastic as he is to talk up the progress of the Albanese Labor government over the last six months. But I want to address the first point he makes—the government delivering, he says, on their election commitments. The first proof point he points to is Strengthening Medicare. I want to take him on a journey to my electorate. South-east South Australia contains the second-largest city in South Australia, my hometown of Mount Gambier. On 3 May 2025, Mount Gambier had an urgent care clinic. That urgent care clinic—that Medicare urgent care clinic—was closed in June. Closed. It never met its obligatory opening hours, those extended hours that never were, but it literally closed in June. Over the six months, if that had occurred, you'd think that it would have reopened, given the government proudly claims it has strengthened Medicare over the course of the last six months. I'm here to tell the member for Banks and all those opposite that it remains closed. Closed! Thankfully those opposite have been able to—in the five months since it has closed and the six months that they've been in government—issue a new tender for the urgent care clinic in Mount Gambier, but I'm told on the grapevine, quietly, despite the fact that the minister issued a press release celebrating the tender, the facility won't be open until next year. We are at about 200 days right now that that facility has been closed. The weeds are up to my waist. I offered to go with my whipper snipper and tidy it up, but the offer wasn't accepted. There have been 200 days to this point, but it will be something more like seven months before that facility reopens. That would be bad enough, but right now in South Australia's second-largest city, the state that the minister relevant to this portfolio hails from, every single GP clinic in that community has issued a public statement that they're not able to accept any new patients. I had a constituent contact me recently who is a patient of a particular clinic, but, because his doctor has retired, he's no longer able to return to the clinic. Do I blame the clinics? Absolutely not. Do I put a call out to people living in that community to show respect to frontline staff at those clinics who are often subjected to rather terse conversations when they have to inform a person living in that community: 'Sorry, you can't see a doctor. You won't be able to see a GP; you'll have to drive 100 kilometres that way or 50 kilometres that way, or, better still, travel to Adelaide.' Do I put that call out? I do. I'll tell you who I apportion the blame to: Minister Butler. The member for Banks scoffs, but hear me out. One of his first actions as a minister, in 2022, was to change the distribution priority areas, meaning that a doctor who was obligated to work in an area of need, like Mount Gambier in my electorate, was no longer required to practice in Mount Gambier—they could practice in Adelaide. The member opposite scoffs, but I can tell you that on that day I received two phone calls, from the two largest clinics in Mount Gambier. Do you know what those phone calls said? 'Tony, we've just had a number of doctors resign en masse and we won't be able to service the people of Mount Gambier.' He's to blame. (Time expired)
South Australia: Drought | Constituency Statements | House debates
I've spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the dire situation that farmers face across much of South Australia with unprecedented drought, much of which nobody could recall in...
I've spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the dire situation that farmers face across much of South Australia with unprecedented drought, much of which nobody could recall in living memory. I thought I'd give an update. We've been blessed across spring with average to better-than-average rainfall across much of regional South Australia. In fact in parts of my electorate you couldn't imagine a better break. But, unfortunately and cruelly, that hasn't been experienced universally. There is a portion of my electorate that is now entering what could be the second if not the third consecutive year of drought. It's the Mallee in my electorate; the situation is dire. I've got farmers who are telling me they were hanging on for this season and, as every day passed and as every windy event passed, they have succumbed to a situation where they now realise that this drought hasn't left them. The concern for them is that the media and attention have moved on because, as I said earlier, much of South Australia—and indeed across Australia—has experienced really good conditions. I want to take this opportunity to raise the flag on behalf of that district. The Mallee—the Coorong—in my electorate is still suffering significantly and what they need are some pretty basic supports. First of all they need carry-on finance, low to no-interest loans. We've got an incredibly popular premier in South Australia, but he doesn't do the tough stuff. What he needs to do right now is lean in and support these farmers in drought. We need to expand on-farm infrastructure rebates, we need increased and continued mental health and community supports and we need practical funding for fodder and water transport where required. In terms of the federal government, farm household allowance is a lifeline into these communities right now, as it is for every regional community that goes through circumstances—whether it's price commodity shocks or drought. Quite frankly the net asset test is far, far too low. Unfortunately $5 million as a net asset test excludes people. We need to review the test and deal with it. Quite frankly many of my farmers in drought are disqualified from activating farm household allowance because of it.
Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Baby Priya's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, does two things I absolutely support and one thing I can't. The bill updates the Fair Work Act to treat a natural stillbirth...
Baby Priya's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025, does two things I absolutely support and one thing I can't. The bill updates the Fair Work Act to treat a natural stillbirth and a baby who dies shortly after birth in the same—so as to enable paid parental leave to apply without the ability of an employer to seek to avoid that obligation owing to the nature of those unfortunate circumstances. I want to be really clear. I think that is what is intended in this bill, I think that's what's intended by Baby Priya's law and that is what I absolutely support so fulsomely that I can't even put it into words. I commend the previous speaker for her contribution about how difficult it must be to live through those kinds of traumas—every support for a family dealing with that kind of tragedy. So often with my own children I think, in this role, about how lucky I've been as I meet children—I'm sure, Deputy Speaker, you've had this experience as well—who are challenged in life because of health or circumstances. You can't help but think about how lucky you have been and how, in life, you have perhaps won the lottery of life as you are empathising with those constituents, acting on their behalf and supporting them. But I did say there are two things this bill does that I support and congratulate the government for adopting and one thing it does that I can't support. I can only hope and think that this is an unintended consequence that hasn't perhaps been thought through. As I read the act and as legal experts have read the act and have confirmed with me, it would effectively treat an intentionally late-term aborted child in the same way as it would a natural stillbirth or a baby who dies shortly after birth. That is something I can't support. Perhaps it's an unintended consequence because some of the jurisdictions around our country have adopted late-term abortion legislation and not everyone in the community is cognisant of that. But, in my own state of South Australia—I'm certainly no expert on other jurisdictions, although I've spoken to colleagues who confirm that, in some other jurisdictions, the laws are even more liberal than in our own home state, Deputy Speaker. In my home state a late-term abortion up to birth is now lawful. I can see my friend opposite quizzing that. I'm happy to share that information with you. It's as shocking a concept to me as it perhaps is to those— No, I wasn't talking about you, Member for Dickson; I was talking about my friend opposite. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. Perhaps this law has been framed in a way without having that background. The following probably indicates that it is not an unintended consequence, because, recently, in correspondence from Minister Gallagher's office and, subsequently, in Senate estimates, courtesy of Labor minister Jenny McAllister, we've had it confirmed that the stillborn baby payment—a payment made by the Commonwealth department to families who have suffered a stillborn tragedy—is payable to individuals who have taken the decision to terminate a pregnancy late in the term, as is Commonwealth paid parental leave, up to $22,000. Apologies to the chamber, but I can't avoid making this statement. Not everyone understands, but I need to clarify that abortions that are undertaken in the third trimester effectively require a stillbirth to take place. You can, as I have, speak to medical experts and become aware of that. Quite obviously the definition is that a payment is made in the event of a stillbirth. And, if a birth has to take place in the third trimester, then, of course, the payment is made. What our nation needs—and I'm not proposing to do it via this bill, because, as I said, I support the substantive elements of this bill, not the unintended consequence—is a definition of what 'stillborn' means, and stillborn must exclude the intentional decision to undertake an abortion. If that were the case, I wouldn't be speaking. The bill would have my support, because the Fair Work Act would simply be saying, 'In the event of a stillbirth, as defined, excluding late-term abortion,' then, of course, an employer can't seek to renegotiate leave for a family dealing with that grief. As I have said, we need to ensure that we're very clear about this. I would prefer a world in which those Commonwealth payments aren't made either, and that definition of stillborn would deal with that as well. These are uncomfortable discussions and debates, but I want to be very clear and I want to end where I started. I completely support Baby Priya's bill as it relates to a baby that passes away shortly after birth or, indeed, in the event of a stillborn child, as we would ordinarily define that to be. I hope very much that those opposite accept that what I'm talking about is an unintended consequence and that, in the fullness of time, we can work towards excluding paid parental leave. I think it's clear in the title 'paid parental leave' that it should be available to parents and that it should be available to people who had wished to become parents but for the grace of God have not become parents through an incident or outcome, but it shouldn't be available to people who don't wish to become parents. I hope that in the fullness of time we will be able to clarify this for the parliament, the people, the bureaucracy and business—those who will ultimately administer Baby Priya's bill.
Loxton's Longest Brunch | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise today to acknowledge the success of Loxton's Longest Brunch. The event brought together 160 farmers, volunteers and local families for a long-table-style brunch, held on the main street of...
I rise today to acknowledge the success of Loxton's Longest Brunch. The event brought together 160 farmers, volunteers and local families for a long-table-style brunch, held on the main street of Loxton. Last Sunday morning, Loxton was transformed into a space of solidarity and support. Attendees took their seats shoulder to shoulder with primary producers whose work underpins the region, and they enjoyed some local food and drinks. This fundraising event was structured in a way to ensure that all funds stayed in the community, via gift cards that were provided to primary producers for local stores—an acknowledgement that retail businesses also do it tough during drought. Together, the Loxton community raised an incredible $11,000 for primary producers who are living through the severest drought in living memory. These events remind me, and should remind all of us, of what makes regional South Australia so special: strong communities, connected and resilient, punching on through tough times, with a deep pride in the land and the people that sustain us. So I congratulate the organisers, the volunteers and every attendee for making Loxton's Longest Brunch not just a meal but a meaningful expression of community strength in the Riverland region. I was shattered I couldn't be there. I love a brunch of any type, but I'm grateful my donation facilitated for five farmers to attend that meaningful event.
Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Perhaps one day it might be named after me, but I doubt it, Madam Deputy Speaker Scrymgour! I rise to speak in support of the Repeal Net Zero Bill, which was recently introduced to the House by...
Perhaps one day it might be named after me, but I doubt it, Madam Deputy Speaker Scrymgour! I rise to speak in support of the Repeal Net Zero Bill, which was recently introduced to the House by the member for New England—a bill to end Australia's reckless commitment to net zero by 2050. Net zero in the most basic terms is the idea that a nation balances the amount of greenhouse gas it emits with the amount it removes from the atmosphere so that the net effect on the climate is zero. It sounds neat, even noble, but in practice net zero is a costly illusion—a political slogan masquerading as science, imposed without honesty and absent realism. Since its adoption, Australia's commitment to net zero has delivered nothing but pain to the Australian people. It has driven up the cost of power, destroyed manufacturing and gutted regional communities, while doing absolutely nothing to change the globe's climate. Australia contributes just over one per cent of global emissions—one per cent—yet this government behaves as though Canberra holds the planet's thermostat. Meanwhile, China, India and Indonesia are building hundreds of new coal-fired power stations. Together they account for almost half of global emissions. They are not stopping. They're not slowing down. Yet Labor persists with this ideological crusade, punishing Australians for the sins of other nations. Net zero has become a moral vanity project for those who can afford it and an economic catastrophe for those who cannot. It's easy to preach climate virtue from an inner-city office. It's much harder to pay the power bill on a farm or keep the lights on in a small workshop in regional Australia. Everywhere I go across my electorate, people are telling me the same thing: their power bills are crippling them; businesses are closing; and farms are furious at the destruction of their country for wind and solar projects that tear up paddocks, divide neighbours and desecrate landscapes that our families have cared for for generations. These so-called renewables aren't clean, and they're not green. They're future landfill—industrial junk that will one day be left rusting in our fields because this government has made no provision for their decommissioning or rehabilitation. Farmers will be left with the cost and the contamination, and those opposite in this place are doing nothing but looking the other way. Labor's net zero policies are built on deceit. They tell Australians that power prices will fall, yet every bill tells a different story. They claim jobs will grow, yet we're watching our heavy industries collapse. They promise energy security, yet they are shutting down the very power stations that keep the lights on. Through the safeguard mechanism, the Capacity Investment Scheme and a web of green subsidies and taxes, the government is transferring billions of dollars from hardworking Australians to foreign backed renewable companies. That is not environmental policy. It is economic sabotage. All this significantly weakens Australia at a time when the world grows more dangerous by the day. When our nation's security depends on self-reliance and strong industry, we're dismantling our competitive advantage in affordable, reliable energy. The government speaks of transitioning—but transitioning to what? A grid that is 82 per cent intermittent and dependent on the weather? Vast solar and wind farms built with Chinese steel, Chinese labour and Chinese financing? This is not sovereignty; it's surrender. The greatest hypocrisy of all is that the same voices who lecture Australians on climate virtue continue to rely on fossil fuels for their own comfort and convenience. They fly across the world to climate conferences, stay in five-star hotels and demand ordinary Australians tighten their belts in the name of saving the planet. The United Nations climate bureaucracy, led by unelected officials, now dictates to sovereign nations like ours what we can mine, what we can manufacture and how we can live. I will not stand by while unelected foreigners, backed by global billionaires, tell the Australian people to accept higher costs, fewer jobs and a weaker nation. At the same time, we're witnessing the slow death of manufacturing in this country. Food plants, glassworks and aluminium smelters—industries that once made Australia strong—are being forced offshore not because they're inefficient but because they can no longer afford the price of power in Labor's Australia. This legislation is not about denying climate change; it's about defending the Australian people from a policy that is impoverishing them. It's about sovereignty, affordability and fairness. It's about putting Australians first. Our duty in this place is to put the people of Australia first, not the global climate lobby. Our responsibility is to ensure affordable power, secure jobs and a strong nation. Net zero has failed economically, strategically and morally. The House must have the courage to end it.
Australian National Flag | Adjournment | House debates
Over the past few weeks, Australians have watched in disbelief as the Australian flag—our national symbol, our shared inheritance, our unifying emblem—has been desecrated and burned...
Over the past few weeks, Australians have watched in disbelief as the Australian flag—our national symbol, our shared inheritance, our unifying emblem—has been desecrated and burned in the streets at so-called peaceful rallies. These are not acts of peaceful protest; these are acts of contempt. These are acts that cut at the very fabric of who we are as a nation. I want to say plainly that burning the Australian flag is not an act of free expression. It's not a part of spirited debate; it's not our democracy at work. It's a brazen insult to our history and our people and to every man and woman who has worn the uniform, defended and died for our flag on battlefields across the globe. We tell our schoolchildren to treat the flag with respect. We teach them to stand tall during the national anthem and to recognise that the flag is more than fabric. It's the story of Australia stitched together in courage and in sacrifice. Yet, while we instil this respect into our children, we allow adults to torch that very flag in public and in front of cameras without consequence. That's not freedom; that's a disgrace. Other nations, including allies we admire, treat the desecration of their national symbols as serious crimes, and rightly so. Yet, here in Australia, shockingly there exists no law that directly prohibits the burning of our national flag. There are none. It's an appalling gap in our legal framework and is one that demands correction. To those who will leap to their feet and lecture me about free speech: you must know that freedom of speech is not freedom to desecrate. George Orwell reminded us: If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. But that doesn't allow you to trample on the very symbol of our liberty. Burning the flag is not speech. It's not dialogue. It's not even descent. It's contempt. Therefore, I want to announce that I intend, at a forthcoming sitting, to introduce a private member's bill into the lower house, a bill that will make the burning of the Australian flag a criminal offence. The bill will impose penalties for those who wilfully desecrate our national symbol. Respect for the flag is respect for the nation. If we can't defend our own flag, then what are we defending? The Australian flag belongs to no political party, no single group and no ideology. It belongs to every single Australian, including those who were born here and those who choose to make this great nation their home. It's the emblem that unites us when so much else is around to divide us. If we allow it to be torn down, burned and mocked with impunity, then we weaken not just that symbol but the unity it represents. The time for silence has passed. The time for excuses has passed. The time to act is now. So I say to those opposite: will you stand idly by while our national flag—the flag that binds us, the flag that's draped over the coffins of returning diggers—is reduced to ashes in our streets, or will you stand with the Australian people and defend it? This is not about politics, or at least I hope it's not. This is about patriotism, this is about principle, this is about whether we as the elected representatives of the Australian people have the courage to say enough is enough. The Australian flag is not just fabric. It's the story of Gallipoli, of Kokoda, of Long Tan. It's the story of migrants who came here seeking freedom and opportunity. It's the story of our farms, workers, teachers, volunteers and factories, and of how we built this nation together. I'm not going to stand by while that story is set alight by those who despise it. I say in this place again, if you can't defend your flag, you can't defend your country. Let us rise above division. Let us rise with courage and come together and support that bill and send a message loud and clear to the Australian people: the Australian flag will be defended, it will be honoured and it will never be burned again in public without consequences.
Health Care | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise today to highlight the reality of a health-care crisis unfolding in my electorate of Barker—specifically, in the community of Mount Gambier. The urgent care clinic that the minister...
I rise today to highlight the reality of a health-care crisis unfolding in my electorate of Barker—specifically, in the community of Mount Gambier. The urgent care clinic that the minister promised would ease pressure on our local hospitals has been closed since June, yet, in question time on Monday, the minister stood in the chamber and proudly asserted that all of our nation's 90 urgent care clinics were currently operating. This is simply not true. Either the minister doesn't know or he is not across his brief. Either way, it's unacceptable. The consequences for my community are dire. All four GP clinics have confirmed they're not taking on new patients. Families can't find a doctor for their children, elderly residents are struggling to manage chronic illnesses and people are left with no primary health-care options. The people of Mount Gambier deserve honesty from this government, and they deserve to access health care. Instead they've been left behind. This is not just a policy failure; it's a betrayal of trust. Minister, front up to the people of Mount Gambier and tell them that you've failed. Come to Mount Gambier and tell these residents why they've been abandoned. Maybe you could tell them that it's a direct result of your decision, in 2022, to alter the distribution priority areas. Minister, your Prime Minister is fond of saying, 'All you need to access health care is your Medicare card.' In reality, in Mount Gambier, you need to travel hundreds of kilometres to do it. It's not acceptable and the minister knows it.
Address-in-Reply | Governor-General's Speech | House debates
It is a great privilege to rise to give this speech-in-reply, particularly having been given the immense honour of being re-elected to this place now on five consecutive occasions. Like previous...
It is a great privilege to rise to give this speech-in-reply, particularly having been given the immense honour of being re-elected to this place now on five consecutive occasions. Like previous speakers I'm incredibly humbled by the faith that the people of Barker have placed in me. It was a humbling experience in 2013 and it has been a humbling experience on every single occasion since. These are not privileges that are earned solo; they are part of a broader team's effort. I want to take the opportunity early in this contribution to acknowledge one team member. I was in regional Victoria campaigning in my role as shadow minister for roads and road safety when my staff told me I needed to find a quiet place to take a call. At that point I thought, 'Hmm, I wonder which journalist has found something to ask me about.' The caller asked me if I was feeling okay, and then they said, 'Tony, we have some really sad news to tell you.' That sad news was that a very close friend and someone who'd been on this political journey with me for a very long time had passed away. His name was Nevin Lamont. Nevin had served as the Barker FEC treasurer since 2013. At the last AGM that Nevin attended, which was the AGM of 2024, he pulled me aside and said, 'Tony, I think this election campaign might be my last.' He didn't mean his last on earth but rather his last as treasurer. But it turned out that Nevin didn't get to see the outcome of the election in 2025. I want to pay tribute to Nevin. Nevin's own grandfather served in this place as the member for Barker. Nevin was a loyal supporter of mine, someone who would walk on broken glass for me and for the Liberal movement. He was a farmer from Glencoe. He was then someone who became a photography enthusiast, which led to a business in retirement. He threw his support behind the Liberal Party. I just want to pay my respects to Nevin in this contribution. Nevin, it's a measure of your contribution that people continue, both as part of that campaign and in meetings subsequent, to refer to how Nevin would deal with a particular matter. So vale, Nevin Lamont. While I'm dealing with volunteer contributions, perhaps I can give the shout-outs now. In particular, I want to give one to Barker FEC President Sophie Wilksch. This is a young lady who was elected to the presidency in the lead-up to the 2022 election. She was a quietly spoken individual. She has grown immensely, and she assisted in my campaigns in 2022 and 2025. Sophie was an amazing support during the campaign. I'd also like to give shout-outs to Sue Andrew in the Riverland, and Greg O'Brien and Suzy Howell, who I'll mention again, in the Murraylands. Shout-outs also go to Clayton Scott in the Barossa; the Peuckers, Mark and Julie, in Mount Gambier; and, through MacKillop, Matt Neumann and Lachy Haynes, who of course has served for a number of years as rural and regional chair of the Liberal Party in South Australia. Thanks also to my staff, many of whom go above and beyond, some of whom have taken the decision, after a number of elections and terms—in particular, my former chief of staff, Vanessa Juergens—to move on to greener pastures. To Ness I want to convey my thanks. It's a particular challenge when you come to work for a member of parliament like me, having worked for former foreign minister Alexander Downer. The electorate office that had my name on the door was the first electorate office I had ever been to in my life. Mine was not a journey through staffing or other things, so Ness had a hard time in the first three or so years. I'm incredibly grateful for her service. Equally, thanks to Charlotte Edmunds, who worked with me in electoral seats and also did much of the work in the portfolio responsibilities I had. I'm so pleased to see her career journey progressing now through the Limestone Coast Local Government Association as their chief executive officer. To Suzy Howell, who has been a long-term stalwart in my office and was much loved by constituents, happy retirement! While I am acknowledging people, can I acknowledge the former leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton. This is a man who, at times, for political reasons or otherwise, has been derided, but I think on election night we saw a glimmer of the character of the man. In his acknowledgement, his concession speech, when he spoke about the Prime Minister and how proud the Prime Minister's mother would have been of his achievements, I think that volumes of the Peter Dutton I knew and do know. I want to thank Peter for his service to the Liberal Party, his service to the parliament and, in particular, his service to the nation. I want to also thank him for giving me the great privilege to serve as assistant shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, and subsequently as shadow minister for roads and road safety. I listened to the member for Kingston's contribution, and it was fine. It reminded me of one thing when she was acknowledging the new members of the Labor caucus. I want to acknowledge one group of people who I expect have not been necessarily acknowledged—at least, not frequently—in this debate, and that is the cohort of Liberal candidates who presented themselves to the Australian people. I had the opportunity to meet many of them and campaign with some of them, and I have to tell you that the result those opposite achieved at the election was not a reflection of the quality of those candidates. Those candidates were let down, and I have offered my personal apology to many of them, as I have to conservative voters, notwithstanding the result in Barker. I want to quickly again thank my staff, who, during my time as assistant shadow minister, took on portfolio responsibilities over and above electoral responsibilities, because there wasn't an allocation of additional staff. That's a huge burden, but it was one they dealt with to great effect. I want to thank them particularly for the development of our policy on road safety. The concept of delivering to this nation the first ever no-fault investigation program—which the Australian people ultimately rejected, but I hope those opposite consider it—is an incredible achievement against a background of doing that with very limited resources. I want to also acknowledge, both as a South Australia member of parliament and, more importantly, as the shadow minister for roads and road safety, as I was then, the announcement we made around the Truro bypass and the greater Adelaide freight route. For those not familiar with Adelaide, Adelaide remains the last of the capital cities in Australia to have the main trucking route boring all the way through it. It means all the heavy vehicle traffic that comes from southern Australia, Melbourne and the south-east of South Australia needs to traverse through the middle of Adelaide on Portrush Road or Cross Road. These are some of the most densely populated suburbs of Adelaide. Disappointingly, it's apparent that too many schools are located in this area, and it's also at the bottom of the sharpest descent into a capital city anywhere in this country. There is every sort of risk that presents itself with this heavy vehicle traffic. It was our policy to remove the majority of that heavy vehicle traffic from the streets and suburbs of Adelaide via a commitment of $1 billion to build the Truro bypass, to duplicate the Swanport Bridge and, of course, to build the interconnection between the Dukes and Sturt highways. Unfortunately, that project will not be proceeded with. As it relates to the Truro bypass, it was a project that was about to start when the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government began her infrastructure review and effectively knocked that project off the to-do list. It is disappointing. I'm sorry to make this assertion, but those opposite went to the South Australian people with a proposal to build half of that road. Unfortunately, the South Australian state government simply doesn't have the money to pay the balance, which is a sum greater than half a billion dollars. That was, in my assessment, an attempt to hoodwink the people of South Australia into believing that it didn't matter, that they were getting a road in any event. They've now woken up to the reality that the road is more than a decade away, and I pray most days that the road safety risks that the failure to make that investment represent won't realise themselves. Let's talk about the regions. It's hard for me to make a contribution without saying it. Those opposite enjoy an incredibly strong—and I referred to it the other day—hypermajority. Having said that—and I would've said this before the events of Ballarat a week ago—that's not a universally agreed position across the country. The National Party are fond of saying that their members of parliament did particularly well at the last election. I can tell you that, in truth, regional, rural and remote members of parliament, particularly those on the Senate right, did well at this election. I note my colleague opposite referred to some seat, and that might be true, but when we're close to losing the seat of Bendigo, you might need to be a little concerned about what's happening in regional Australia. I can tell you what is happening in regional Australia. Regional Australia is feeling ignored. It felt ignored during this campaign and it's feeling ignored right now. When you've got people pleading with the Prime Minister to save their industry, an industry that's done every single thing that government has asked of it—and I appreciate you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, don't share my view on this topic. The campaign to keep the sheep was one that resonated in two electorates, and perhaps that's why the call to save the live sheep industry fell on deaf ears. I'll tell you about another policy area that's falling on deaf ears, and that's the Australian wine industry. I've got viticulturists in my electorate that have lost money in three or four successive vintages. This can't continue. Those opposite were fond, in the lead up to the election and indeed in the lead up to the '22 election, of blaming former prime minister Morrison for his actions vis-a-vis China. The truth is that didn't help, but the reality is that's a misunderstanding of what's happening globally to the wine industry. Globally, demand for wine and the propensity to drink wine is in sharp decline. That might be because people want to be healthier. It might be because people are choosing alternative drinks. The reality is demand has crashed, and it has crashed globally. Indeed, Australia left the Chinese market, and our competitors, Italy, Chile, France and America, all saw a market decline at the same time. So a major exporter, Australia, leaves the market, and it is still in decline. The reality is that there needs to be structural assistance in relation to the Australian wine industry. We're going to lose this industry, and I fear for older producers who simply have no other option but to fall destitute. I call on those opposite to heed the calls of the Australian wine industry. Regional Australians, particularly South Australians, have been forgotten during this drought. Much of regional South Australia is living through the most severe drought in living memory. There is limited to no support available—no specific support. When, in 2016, we found ourselves in drought on the east coast and in South Australia, our then government provided grants to local government and specific grants to farmers. None of that has been forthcoming. I suppose I am effectively suggesting that if it's not in the metropolitan news cycle—if it's not affecting metropolitan Australians—then you're not seeing a lot of love or attention. The farmers in my electorate, who've been in drought for more than two years, are particularly interested in the approach of those opposite to the algal bloom in South Australia. Nobody, not a farmer I know—salt of the earth as they are—would be opposed to any form of support going to the coastal communities on the back of this. But I just think it's interesting that dead fish on beaches in Adelaide lead to almost twice-daily visits by senior ministers from the government of those opposite to Adelaide, to profess their undying and loving support for these coastal communities, when I've got farmers on bended knee asking for support. While I've got the time I have, can I just make a couple of other observations. I was sitting through question time, listening to the minister for health talk about GP clinics, particularly urgent care clinics. Can I tell the House and the minister—I know he's aware of this because, while he might not hear my regular speeches on the topic, I understand the South Australian state minister for health has written to him about it—the Mount Gambier urgent care clinic has been closed since June. I don't mean 'not open in particular hours'; I mean closed. Why? It went into liquidation. You might say, 'Mr Pasin, that's impossible, because these projects are block funded.' True, they are, but the operator of that business went into liquidation and, as a result, it is closed. There's a tender process going on. I call on the minister to expedite that, for no other reason than this: there are four GP clinics in Mount Gambier—four—and every single clinic has now confirmed publicly that it is not taking on additional patients. So you've got four GP clinics that aren't taking on additional patients. It's great if you are a patient of the clinic, and, to disclose an interest, I am. But, if you're new to Mount Gambier and your kid's sick, you can't go to a GP clinic. You can ring all four of them, but you'll be told, 'We are not taking on extra clients.' Then you can go around to the urgent care clinic, but it's boarded up. So where do you go? You go to emergency. That's not good enough, and it's something that needs to be addressed immediately. When asked why this happened, I said I warned this would happen in 2022, when the minister for health changed the distribution priority areas. The minute he did that—the next day—I got phone calls from clinics saying that doctors had resigned. Finally, can I say that I was privileged to make commitments to the following organisations as part of the campaign: the Murray Bridge Players and Singers; the Tailem Bend RSL; the Penola bowling club; the Mount Gambier and District Saleyards, via the District Council of Grant; the Kapunda Soldiers Memorial Garden and their efforts at Dutton Park; and the Mount Burr Netball Club. To all of those organisations, who are incredibly worthy and who have been ignored for too long: can I tell you I will continue to campaign for the funding and support you need. No-one was more disappointed than me that we failed to form government at the last election. I went to bed that night thinking about each of your organisations and how happy you were when I came to your facilities and gave you a commitment that a Dutton-led Liberal government would fund your respective projects. I'm going to work hard every day to ensure that whatever opportunities are available—and, sadly, in the last term there were too few; I hope there are more—deliver the social capital communities need particularly in my electorate of Barker. I will work every day to make sure we can deliver on those. Finally, it is an immense privilege to serve as the member for Barker. If you had asked a young, perhaps primary school aged Tony Pasin whether he would ever serve in this parliament, he would have thought you were crazy. I don't take that privilege for granted. I'm fighting every day for the people of Barker.
Prostate Cancer | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise this morning to talk about an event that I'll be hosting in coming weeks. On Wednesday 10 September, from 11.30 am, I'll be hosting my annual Big Aussie Barbie to raise funds for prostate...
I rise this morning to talk about an event that I'll be hosting in coming weeks. On Wednesday 10 September, from 11.30 am, I'll be hosting my annual Big Aussie Barbie to raise funds for prostate cancer research and, more importantly, to raise awareness of the disease and specifically of the need for blokes to get tested. This is the 10th year that I've hosted that event. I do it in partnership with the Limestone Coast Prostate Cancer Support Group, and we've raised over $10,000. But, much more importantly than that, on every single one of those mornings we've had one or more people who had recently been diagnosed with the disease come along and connect with the local support group. Those are people that have heard for the first time in our lives that they've got the big C, and they're incredibly scared. I've seen them come to those breakfasts and leave much calmer and much more settled about what was about to happen in their cancer journey. I've got to give a great shout-out to Richard Harry, a constituent of mine. He's a great bloke, and he's someone I connected with through this process. My journey on this issue began in 2014. I attended a barbecue here that was hosted by the Prostate Cancer Foundation. It was there that I heard for the first time the startling facts about the diagnosis and the death rate, and it was plain to me that there was much more that needed to be done. It was equally plain to me that in that forum the Prostate Cancer Foundation was preaching to the converted and we needed to get that message out. That's why I began hosting, as I do every year, the Big Aussie Barbie out the front of my office in Mount Gambier. Mr Deputy Speaker Boyce, I know you know—and I'm sure the member for New England, who has his own lived experience with this, understands—that one in seven men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. Fifty-four men will be diagnosed with it today, 54 men tomorrow and 54 men every single day thereafter. Three thousand five hundred men die from the disease each year. That's nine families every day who lose a loved one to this dreadful disease. The Big Aussie Barbie aims to raise awareness and understanding of the disease and raise funds to support awareness programs. These are deaths that we can prevent with early intervention. It's only thanks to the generosity of the community of Mount Gambier and the Limestone Coast and the volunteer efforts of the local prostate cancer group that I can bring this to reality. I want to extend my thanks to them, and I want to make a call out: if you're in or around Mount Gambier of 10 September at 11.30, come down and have a snag. If you can't, jump on my Facebook page and chuck us a donation.