Melissa Price's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026. As the member for Durack, I consider this bill to be an issue close to my...
I rise to speak on the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026. As the member for Durack, I consider this bill to be an issue close to my electorate and to myself. Around 15 per cent of my constituents are Indigenous, equating to 30,000 voters from Broome, Kununurra and Derby, and from smaller communities in the Kimberley, East Pilbara, Gascoyne, Mid West and beyond. This bill directly affects me and my duty to support all those who are Indigenous and reside in Durack. I represent some of the country's most vulnerable people. The Albanese government, however, continues to let down those Indigenous people across Australia by offering up poor bureaucratic solutions to Closing the Gap targets, particularly those related to young people. First it was the Voice. When that failed because it was half-baked and poorly thought out, the Prime Minister appeared to have turned his back on Indigenous Australians. Unless there is a photo opportunity or perhaps a chance to get in front of the media, you won't see him talking or relating to Indigenous Australians. Prime Minister Albanese and his ministers went missing during the alcohol abuse crisis in the Kimberley in 2024, and also during the time that there were high rates—in fact, continuing high rates—of youth crime in the north-west of Western Australia. Labor was exposed, following the Voice referendum, as not having a plan B to deal with these issues. When it comes to making the tough calls or putting some work into finding solutions, the Prime Minister takes the easy option of hoping that maybe the vibe will fix them. This bill provides yet another example of just that—a headline-grabbing piece of legislation that doesn't deliver results. It adds more public servants and bureaucrats duplicating work already done by current Commonwealth, state and territory bodies such as the National Children's Commissioner and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission. There are also relevant bodies within half of our states plus the ACT, and the Department of Social Services is already required to consult children and young people. Labor had the choice, during their first 18 months in power, to either spend $450 million on a referendum or spend $450 million on improving the worsening frontline situation. I think we all know what Labor chose, and now four critical Closing the Gap targets are going backwards—adult incarceration, school readiness, children in out-of-home care and, sadly, suicide rates. As a coalition, we would prefer the prioritising of practical solutions rather than symbolic measures. More broadly, of the 19 Closing the Gap targets, just four are on track—one less than last year. In the context of children and young people, youth detention is up 11 per cent, preschool attendance is down 2.6 per cent, and 1.2 per cent fewer children are commencing school developmentally on track, compared to 2022. It should be obvious to everyone that creating a $33 million commission won't change these trajectories. Only practical, localised action will. Instead of adding bodies and departments, the minister should be reviewing and improving our current bodies to ensure they are doing their jobs and to hold them to account to deliver real results for Indigenous Australians. The people I represent can tell that Labor prioritise symbolism over practical actions. Frankly, results really don't matter, as long as the photos, the headlines and the reflection in the mirror all look good. It's pretty sad, actually. A hallmark of this government across both terms has been the shirking of responsibility and accountability, and this bill is another example. Work that should already be undertaken by roles within government, such as local consultation, providing advice, undertaking research and advocacy, is simply being shifted to a new position, moving accountability from government agencies, the Coalition of Peaks and the minister. As an opposition—and particularly as the member for the largest Indigenous population outside of the Northern Territory—we need to question. No. 1: how will the commission's education program reach children? Goodness knows the education department is struggling, so why does the government think the commission is going to be able to do any better? No. 2: why do we need another body to help close the gap? No. 3: what special or specific powers will the agency have, and why do they need these special powers? No. 4: how independent will this new independent authority be? The minister must confirm whether her department will be able to amend, edit and influence work undertaken by the commissioner prior to its publication. I regularly hear from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that they are tired of consultation. How do we know that this will not be just another outreach body, consulting the same people on the same issues without necessarily talking to the people that really matter—the people who are impacted, in localised areas? On this side of the House, we will always prioritise practical actions over symbolic gestures. A coalition government will empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people by ending the cycle of welfare dependency. We will ensure funding is only provided to organisations with a track record of good governance. I know and understand that it's is going to take really difficult work to make sure that there's no duplication by other bodies. We will work to increase school attendance rates, because the coalition considers school attendance a critical protective factor. In fact, I would say everyone in this place would consider that education is the first thing that we must deal with. The message and call to the government is simple: please drop the symbolism, the egos and the lack of detail and instead start prioritising practical and real action to support young Indigenous Australians and to close the gap. Quite frankly, we're all waiting for the plan B. The Voice failed. What is your plan B? This commission cannot be your plan B. Indigenous Australians deserve so much better from this government. The coalition does not support this bill.
National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026. The opposition supports this bill as a sensible technical reform that improves affordable access to...
I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026. The opposition supports this bill as a sensible technical reform that improves affordable access to immunisation products for families who choose to access these products, particularly families wanting to protect their babies from respiratory syncytial virus, known as RSV. RSV is one of the most common causes of serious respiratory infection in infants and young children, leading to thousands of GP visits, emergency department presentations and hospital admissions each year. It particularly affects babies under six months of age and places significant stress on families and hospitals, especially during the winter months. It remains a major cause of hospitalisation for Australian children. This amendment ensures Australia's immunisation framework remains fit for purpose, particularly so that RSV immunisations for infants, such as Beyfortus, can be considered for listing on the National Immunisation Program. Importantly, the National Immunisation Program listing process should not be confused with no-jab no-pay immunisation requirements. These operate under separate legislative and decision-making frameworks, and this legislation does not make any changes to those arrangements. Effective products to protect infants against RSV are already available in Australia and have protected thousands of babies, but access remains inconsistent across states and territories, meaning some families miss out on free access to protection. Listing these products on the National Immunisation Program, should they be recommended through the usual assessment processes, would provide national consistency and ensure families have predictable, equitable access wherever they might live. The bill updates the definition of 'vaccine' to be more precise, given the current definition simply states that a vaccine is 'a vaccine for the purpose of immunising persons'. This current definition only allows for the listing of vaccines that stimulate the immune system, known as active immunity. The amendment contained in the bill updates the definition to allow for passive immunological products such as Beyfortus, which provide ready-made antibodies to be considered for listing on the National Immunisation Program. These products are already widely used in medicine, including antivenoms and treatments given after exposure to infections such as tetanus. Importantly, the bill does not automatically list any product. It simply allows products to enter the existing evaluation process. Any product must still go through Australia's health technology assessment system, which is a rigorous and evidence based process to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices. Safety, effectiveness and value for money remain central to any listing decisions. This bill simply aims to provide more affordable and nationally consistent access for families who choose to protect their children through immunisation. The need for this reform became clear when products protecting infants against RSV could not proceed through the National Immunisation Program under the current legislation. Almost all children contract RSV by the age of two, and, while many cases are mild, RSV can cause severe illness in babies, particularly those under the age of six months. Temporary Commonwealth-state funding arrangements have allowed interim access, which has already seen some improvement in the rate of infant hospitalisations due to severe RSV and a decrease in intensive care admissions. However, the temporary and state based nature of the arrangements has resulted in inconsistent uptake across states and uncertainty for clinicians and Australian families. This bill would address these concerns by allowing RSV immunisation products for infants to be considered by Australia's health technology assessment system for listing on the National Immunisation Program. Taking pressure off our hospitals by removing cost barriers to preventive health care could not be more important than right now, when our hospitals are facing unprecedented pressures. The Prime Minister has failed to take responsibility for the impact of his aged-care crisis on hospitals right across the country, which is taking away hospital beds from families who urgently need them right now. We know thousands of older Australians are currently stuck in hospital because they cannot access the aged care they need—whether that is home care or residential aged care. This means hospital beds are being taken up by older Australians who have nowhere else to go, which creates dangerous bottlenecks that impact patients with urgent needs, including children with severe RSV. This is a direct result of the Albanese government's aged-care crisis—with more than 220,000 older Australians currently waiting for aged care, a net loss in available residential aged-care beds being projected for this decade and only about five per cent of the new aged-care beds needed to meet demand being delivered last financial year. The Productivity Commission has exposed a worsening aged-care crisis under the Albanese government, with wait times for older Australians continuing to blow out dramatically over the past year. The new report reveals the median wait time for older Australians to access home care has blown out to 245 days, which is more than double the wait time from just one year ago. Labor promised to put the 'care' back into aged care, but all they have managed to do is put the 'wait' back into the waiting list. As a result, hospitals are being left to carry the load of a system in deep trouble. Again, we support the amendments in this bill to provide families with better access to immunisations that could protect their children from hospitalisation. However, if the Prime Minister really wants to take pressure off our hospitals, he has no excuse left. It is time for him to also take responsibility and to fix the aged-care crisis he has created. The coalition has consistently supported affordable access to medicines, treatments and vaccines through strong Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and National Immunisation Program systems. Supporting this bill aligns with that commitment; however, more work needs to be done to ensure Australians have timely and affordable access to new medicines, treatments and vaccines as they become available. On average, it now takes 466 days after registration for a medicine to be listed on the PBS under this Labor government. That is more than a year's delay and is totally unacceptable. Behind those numbers are real people waiting for treatments that could change or even save their lives. Patients, clinicians and industry stakeholders consistently tell us that Australia's system for approving and funding medicines is slow, outdated and overly complex. The health technology assessment review was commissioned to fix precisely this problem, yet, more than 600 days later, many of its recommendations are still sitting unanswered. This review represents a critical and a clinical opportunity to modernise our processes so they remain world class, responsive to innovation and genuinely patient centred. That opportunity must not be wasted. So, while we support the amendments to this bill, the opposition condemns the government's broader failure to ensure Australians have timely and affordable access to life-saving and life-changing medicines and treatments. Once again, this bill is a practical and technical amendment to ensure Australia's National Immunisation Program remains fit for purpose. It improves affordable access for families who choose to protect their children through immunisation, in particular, in responding to the threat posed by RSV to Australian children. The bill maintains safety and assessment safeguards and it does not change immunisation requirements. Therefore, the coalition will support this bill. However, we will continue to call out the government for dragging its feet on critical reforms to our health technology assessment system to ensure Australians have timely and affordable access to new medicines and treatments, and we will continue to call out the Prime Minister for the ongoing aged-care crisis, which is placing serious pressure on hospitals right across this country. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.
Social Cohesion | Statements by Members | House debates
Australians are rightly concerned by the clear deterioration of social cohesion in this country. We've seen it in the shocking acts of violence unleashed at Bondi Beach. More broadly, we are...
Australians are rightly concerned by the clear deterioration of social cohesion in this country. We've seen it in the shocking acts of violence unleashed at Bondi Beach. More broadly, we are seeing it in the vandalism and desecration of war memorials across Australia, including the 100-year-old St Helens cenotaph staff in Tasmania. We also saw it on Australia Day, where there was an alleged act of terror driven by racism at a protest in Perth, with a dangerous device thrown into the crowd. Australians have a fundamental right to protest peacefully and they equally have the right to feel safe when exercising that freedom. Violence, intimidation and terrorism have no place in our democracy. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a deeper problem, a growing sense of division and grievance that is pulling Australians apart. This must be confronted early, and it must start with education, teaching young Australians to love this country, to honour our veterans and to learn how to disagree peacefully without resorting to hatred or violence. If we fail to act, we are headed down a dark path. We must set clear standards for what is acceptable. Burning our national flag, desecrating memorials and terror attacks should never be excused, and we must introduce strong consequences. Australia is at its best when we are united—one people proud of who we are, respectful of our history and committed to a shared future.
Western Australia: Fishing Industry | Constituency Statements | House debates
Last December, the Western Australian Cook government announced a 21-month ban on recreational boat based fishing for demersal species and a permanent ban on commercial fishers from Kalbarri to...
Last December, the Western Australian Cook government announced a 21-month ban on recreational boat based fishing for demersal species and a permanent ban on commercial fishers from Kalbarri to Augusta. And, for the Kimberley and Pilbara, the commercial catch limit has been halved. In already tough times, many fisher men and women in my electorate of Durack were unable to enjoy the festive period and are now wondering how they can provide for their family and community. This ban not only impacts the fishers themselves but also impacts local hospitality owners and workers, the tourism industry, tackle shops, bait suppliers and consumers. While all acknowledge that we need to preserve and protect our fish stocks, this ban from the WA government has been heavy-handed and rushed with less than a month's notice—yes, one month's notice—between the announcement and implementation of the plan. I'm incredibly proud of the resilience and courage shown by those impacted, despite the emotional and financial toll on them, particularly those multigenerational fishing families who are now having to pull their nets, sell their boats and find new employment. Despite being the richest state, the WA government could only manage a meagre $29 million compensation package, which will not compensate deckhands and those below management level. It is really disgusting. In comparison, the federal and Queensland governments have committed more than $160 million to phase out gillnet fishing in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Why is it that WA families have drawn the short straw? My WA fishing families are just as deserving as Queensland fishing families. Inflated egos and bulldozing through legislation without proper consultation processes mean you get hardworking Western Australians who've been left behind by the Cook government and further abandonment of regional WA by Labor. I, together with over 30,000 Western Australians who've signed the e-petition, am calling for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into WA fisheries to examine the need for a clear, long-term plan for sustainable fisheries that supports all stakeholders. I also call on the federal minister for fisheries to step in and provide greater compensation alongside the WA government. This is a matter of urgency. This is urgent, and those impacted deserve to be respected and acknowledged. So to Premier Cook and to Minister Collins: please get together and decide on a much better, fairer, more equitable compensation package. Regional Western Australian men and women in the fishing industry deserve nothing less.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025. At the outset, the opposition supports the passage of this bill. We do so because these...
I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025. At the outset, the opposition supports the passage of this bill. We do so because these amendments are necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the veterans reform framework and to allow the transition to a single, simplified compensation and rehabilitation system to operate effectively from 1 July 2026. For too long, veterans and their families have been forced to navigate a fragmented system spread across multiple acts of parliament, each with different rules, thresholds and processes. The coalition supported the royal commission's interim recommendation to simplify and harmonise these arrangements precisely because complexity creates stress, confusion and, all too often, injustice. That is why we supported the primary reform legislation and why we continue to support the objective of a single ongoing framework under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. A unified scheme has the potential to reduce duplication, improve consistency in decision-making and make entitlements, claims and review pathways easier—not harder but easier—for veterans and their families to understand and access. This bill is largely technical and consequential in nature, but these amendments—well, they matter. They go to how the system functions in practice, how fairness is preserved, and how confidence is maintained during what is a significant transition. The bill clarifies review and appeal rights under the new framework, ensuring veterans retain access to internal reconsideration and external merits review through the Veterans' Review Board, with onward appeal pathways preserved. It establishes clearer rules for claims and decisions that straddle the transition date, reducing legal uncertainty and the risk of inconsistent outcomes. The bill also addresses important practical matters, including dependent compensation where death occurs after the transition date but relates to earlier service; the application of funeral benefits; education assistance for students and dependants; impairment and additional disablement payments; and the preservation of allowances and decoration payments so that recognition based support continues uninterrupted. These are precisely the kinds of details that matter deeply to veterans and families, particularly at times of illness, loss or transition. However, it must be said that this is now the second miscellaneous measurements bill required to complete or correct the government's original reform package. Quite simply, it's just not good enough. These provisions are not new or unexpected. They are core implementation details that should have been resolved in the primary legislation. Veterans, their advocates and their families deserve certainty and stability in the law, not rolling fix-up bills. Legislative patchwork risks undermining confidence in a system that reform was meant to simplify. While the opposition will not stand in the way of amendments that protect entitlements and ensure the framework works as intended, we will continue to hold the government to account for incomplete legislative delivery. The opposition has moved an amendment to remove the mandatory legislative requirement to notify the Chief of the Defence Force when a serving member lodges a Veterans' Review Board application or accesses non-liability healthcare. We strongly believe that decision should rest with the serving member, not be hardwired into legislation. Automatic notification to the Chief of the Defence Force risks reinforcing perceptions of career risk and stigma, particularly around mental health. Evidence before the royal commission made clear that some ADF members delay or avoid seeking care because they fear the impact on deployability or career progression. Simply from a wellbeing and suicide prevention perspective, encouraging early, trusted access to care must be paramount. Legislative settings should reduce barriers, not create new perceived risks. Defence will still be able to access operationally necessary information through existing mechanisms or with the member's consent where required. On Monday, many of us in this place attended the Last Post Ceremony at the Australian War Memorial. During the ceremony, it was noted just how important it is that this parliament maintains a direct line of sight to the War Memorial. We in this place have the power to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way, and with that power comes an enduring responsibility to use our authority to properly support our defence personnel and to really care for our veterans. It was a really deeply moving reminder that our obligations to those who serve do not end when the uniform comes off. They continue in the systems that we build, the laws that we pass and the way we treat veterans and defence personnel throughout their lives, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable. The coalition record reflects that commitment, from establishing the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to delivering non-liability mental healthcare, strengthening Open Arms, recognising service through the Veterans' Covenant, investing in wellbeing centres and important transition support and, I'd say, the creation of the Australian War Memorial itself. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the men and women in uniform who I recently had the pleasure of meeting at RAAF Base Pearce and HMAS Stirling, which I'm sure the deputy chair is quite interested in. It indeed was a privilege to speak with so many people on that day, particularly the young personnel who are just starting out on their careers and are enjoying their careers in the ADF, a career which offers incredible opportunities, skills and pathways for those who choose to serve. So, to our sailors, our soldiers and our Air Force personnel: we hear you, we see you, and you matter. Our ADF men and women do an extraordinary job, often away from their families, and they deserve our respect and our support—real support, not tricky legislation but real support that helps them when they are in need. That is the lens through which we approach this bill. We support it because it is necessary, but we will continue to push for legislation that puts veterans and defence personnel first, not just in principle but in practice. I thank the House.
Economy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I cannot support this Albanese firearms bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. In Australia, we already have some the most restrictive gun...
I cannot support this Albanese firearms bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. In Australia, we already have some the most restrictive gun laws in the world. You can't just go and buy a gun when you please. There are already restrictions, waiting periods, a genuine needs test and an intensive licensing regime. This bill risks punishing law-abiding citizens while failing to address the root cause of extremism and terrorism. The root cause of the Bondi terrorist attack was radical Islam; the government should be laser focused on combating that issue instead of going after law-abiding firearm owners. Antisemitism in this country has been building for some time, and we needed to take action a long time ago. This legislation is simply a stunt to make it look like the Albanese government is taking action. Just slapping the words 'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism' into the title of the bill doesn't mean that the legislation will have that effect. Who do we expect to actually hand back their guns under this regime? It will, of course, be the law-abiding owners like WA farmers, recreational shooters and hunters. It won't be the criminal gangs or anyone intending to do us harm. This falls well short of the Prime Minister's own stated goal of instituting a John Howard buyback. There is no legislative guarantee of fair-market value compensation for property surrendered, which would be consistent with the 1996 model. Additionally, there is no legislative guarantee of compensation for hardship and loss of business, including the buyout of businesses deemed unviable. Rushing this legislation shows a contempt for Australia's one million gun owners. Guns have a real purpose for many in my community, whether they be farmers who need guns for pest management or their livestock, or for recreation, which I know they enjoy seriously in my electorate of Durack—they are entitled enjoy that sport. The coalition will not be supporting this legislation, but, unfortunately, it looks like some dirty deal has already been done between the Labor Party and the Greens political party. This will be just the latest in a long list of examples of the Labor-Greens alliance penalising regional Western Australia. We've seen this play before. We've seen the contempt of the WA Labor government, and now we are seeing it from the federal Labor government. Like the WA Labor gun law changes, it is the law-abiding WA farmers, pastoralists, shooting clubs and firearms businesses that will bear the brunt of this legislation, which will do nothing to confront the threat from radical Islamists or extremists in our community. I can't support this legislation.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
I rise today to offer my condolences and those of all my constituents in Durack to the families and friends of the 15 innocent victims of the Bondi Beach terrorist attack. We all grieve with you...
I rise today to offer my condolences and those of all my constituents in Durack to the families and friends of the 15 innocent victims of the Bondi Beach terrorist attack. We all grieve with you as you begin this long journey of healing. Sunday 14 December 2025 will be remembered as one of Australia's darkest days. This was an antisemitic attack committed by Islamic extremists, directed at Jewish Australians who came together as a community for Chanukah by the Sea, a celebration of peace, faith and hope. My heart goes out to the Jewish community, who were the targets of this attack but have also had to face rising antisemitism in Australia in the past few years. Beyond this sickening attack we have seen far too many examples of antisemitic vandalism and hate. When the news broke that a shooting had occurred at Bondi Beach on the first night of Hanukkah, I think many Australians would have been shocked and horrified yet, sadly, not completely surprised because this has been building in Australia. While the gunmen targeted Jewish Australians, make no mistake: this was an attack on all Australians. This was an attack on our values and our way of life. Australians have often reflected that this is the sort of thing we've come to expect overseas. We've comforted ourselves by saying how lucky we are here and that an attack like this could never happen in Australia. Like many Australians, I feel a deep sense of dread that this has happened in our country, and I am so sorry that currently Australia is not a safe haven for Jewish Australians. Colleagues across the chamber have reflected on the victims of this terrible event. I want to pay special tribute to the youngest of the victims, 10-year-old Matilda. Many may have seen the photos of Matilda at the Hanukkah event, taken moments before the terror was unleashed, that showed the joyful girl she was. She looked to be having such a good time, enjoying the petting zoo, popping bubbles, getting her face painted and smiling with her sister for photos. Those photos paint a picture of what that celebration should have been about. Matilda's parents described her as a 'softie' who loved animals, practised judo and rarely wanted to be apart from her little sister. Beyond this, the most touching tribute came from her father when he described why they named her Matilda. At the Bondi memorial, he said: We came here from the Ukraine … and I named her Matilda because she was our firstborn in Australia. And I thought that Matilda was the most Australian name that could ever exist. So just remember—remember her name. It's clear from these words that when Matilda's family came to Australia they wanted to join us and to be Australian. They wanted to be a part of our culture and our way of life and to be safe. Compare that to those who are accused of taking Matilda's life. When you have people in this country who hate everything we stand for, who are antisemitic, who aren't tolerant, who are Islamic fanatics and who refuse to assimilate into Australian culture, this is what happens. This sort of violence should not happen here, but it will again if we don't address that. When the Prime Minister called for action in his address this morning, I agreed with him. It's well past time for action, though, and time to address the root cause of this attack. To do so, we must acknowledge what that root cause is, and that is radical Islam. We need to realise that Australia is under no obligation to import ideologies that are inconsistent with Australian values. To the contrary, we are obliged to stop this importation of hate. Let's not paper over this tragedy, pretending this was simply a firearms issue or an isolated case of radicalism. It wasn't a law-abiding farmer who was behind this attack. It was a pair of radicals—one invited in and allowed to stay, and another who was born and raised here. Our way of life, and what we take for granted, is very fragile at the moment, and that is why action is needed. As we reflect on the horror and the implications of this terrible attack, let's also honour the Australians who put themselves in harm's way at Bondi Beach to prevent further loss of life and those who acted to treat the injured. We are very grateful to our first responders and to those innocent bystanders who acted to protect their fellow Australians. In doing so, some were injured and some lost their own lives. We must remember the good that does exist in this country and what the best of our country looks like. We must wrap our arms around the families of those taken far too early, those who were injured and those who are on the path to recovery. I thank the House.
Energy | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The Vinnies WA CEO Ann Curran has delivered this damning assessment of life under Labor: The demand for our support services,...
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The Vinnies WA CEO Ann Curran has delivered this damning assessment of life under Labor: The demand for our support services, particularly for Emergency Assistance, is greater than ever before. She said: Not only are people struggling to pay their rent, but they don't have enough money left at the end of the week to buy essentials such as food … Can the minister who works part-time confirm that the government's failure to deliver its promised $275 power bill cut has ruined Christmas?
Infrastructure | Questions without Notice | House debates
Smyth, Dr Erica, AC, Weller, Mr Greg, Hill, Mr Shane | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise to acknowledge several respected Western Australians whose recent passing has touched communities across Durack and beyond. Dr Erica Smyth AC was a pioneering geologist and one of the most...
I rise to acknowledge several respected Western Australians whose recent passing has touched communities across Durack and beyond. Dr Erica Smyth AC was a pioneering geologist and one of the most influential leaders in Australia's minerals and petroleum sectors. From her early days cleaning crayfish during school holidays in Geraldton to senior roles at BHP and Woodside, Erica's career embodied determination, innovation and public service. She championed research and exploration in uranium, serving as the chair of Toro Energy and as a non-executive director at ANSTO, Emeco Holdings and the Commonwealth minerals exploration CRC program. Beyond industry, she was a passionate advocate for scientific and medical research, particularly in diabetes. In 2018 she was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for her extraordinary contribution to industry and to the nation. Her passing leaves a significant void, and I extend my deepest sympathy to her family, friends and colleagues. Greg Weller was a stalwart of the WA Liberal Party and a tireless advocate for regional Western Australia. He dedicated more than 50 years of service across the Canning, Durack and O'Connor divisions and made a lasting impact on regional road safety. Through his long involvement with the Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, Greg helped secure important improvements throughout the 1990s, including overtaking lanes at Bindoon Hill, 'prepare to stop' signals on Perth's highways and essential truck rest areas across the wheatbelt. These practical outcomes continue to keep motorists safe today. Greg and his late wife, Fran Weller, formed a formidable team committed to sound governance and strong representation for rural and regional WA. Fran was a passionate educator and stood for the agricultural region in the 1993 and 1996 elections, and together they proudly supported the work of Liberal governments under leaders such as John Howard, Peter Costello and Richard Court. In 2013, both Greg and Fran received a federal meritorious service award, from Prime Minister Tony Abbott, recognising their decades of loyal service. I enjoyed Greg and Fran's company very much. Both were never shy to share their point of view, and their advice was always intended to be encouraging and well meaning. Greg remained engaged right to the end, serving as a Liberal Party selection committee delegate as recently as 2024. Former member for Geraldton Shane Hill, whose recent, sudden passing has been felt deeply across the mid-west, also leaves a lasting legacy. Shane served as the member for Geraldton from 2001 to 2008, with a passion for and strong belief in opportunity for all. His dedication to community service will not be forgotten. I extend my sympathy to his family, his friends, his former colleagues and all of those who loved him.
National Security | Grievance Debate | House debates
We are living in dangerous times. Our most senior Defence leaders, intelligence agencies and strategic experts have been clear: Australia is facing the most dangerous strategic environment since...
We are living in dangerous times. Our most senior Defence leaders, intelligence agencies and strategic experts have been clear: Australia is facing the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. Conflict breaking out in our region is no longer a remote possibility. The Defence secretary and the deputy secretary have respectively warned that the risk of an incident has heightened over recent years and that the trajectory is becoming more risky, not less risky. The director-general of our domestic intelligence agency, ASIO, recently warned that China is conducting multiple attempts to scan and penetrate critical infrastructure in Australia and other Five Eyes countries. According to Mr Burgess, they are targeting water, transport, telecommunications and energy networks—pre-positioning for a potential sabotage of critical infrastructure. These grey-zone activities appear to be increasing at the same time as the Chinese Communist Party undergoes the largest military build up of any nation since the Second World War, without providing any strategic assurances. These are, by and large, agreed facts within Australian politics. Where we disagree with those opposite is how we should respond. Alarmingly, the Albanese Labor government seems content to respond to the increasing challenges of today on yesterday's budget. Earlier this month, it was reported in the Australian that the ADF's three service chiefs have told Defence Strategic Review lead, Sir Angus Houston, that they are being forced to slash their sustainment budgets. One example is the revelation that, under Labor, dozens of workers maintaining and upgrading the F-35 fighter jets have been redeployed to comply with budget requirements. Such decisions leave critical platforms and the nation exposed at a time when we can no longer rely on an extended warning time. So it begs the question: what is the purpose of having multimillion dollar equipment if it is not properly maintained and ready for use at a moment's notice? Honestly, if conflict were to break out, I don't expect the enemy to sit around and wait for Australia to catch up. Now, while sustainment appears to be on the chopping block, we are also not investing in new capabilities, and this is where Australian defence industry is suffering. Obtaining nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership is a generational opportunity for our security and for Australian industry, and it must be realised, but delivering AUKUS should not come at the expense of other capability requirements. As the Leader of the Opposition called for in an address on national security last week, we need to meet this moment with seriousness, urgency and action. That begins with increasing defence spending to at least three per cent of GDP. This should include investing in mass missile production and the development of an integrated air and missile defence system, allowing us to detect and destroy missiles fired at the Australian mainland. We need a greater ability to rapidly build, deploy and resupply unmanned and autonomous weapon systems. We should be learning the lessons from Ukraine in rapid drone development and continue work on undersea weapons systems. Critically, we also need to develop a greater sovereign capability for satellite connectivity. Whether it's missile defence, drones, strike power or intelligence, communication is key, and, without our own satellites, we are left exposed and dependent on others. Unfortunately, last year, the Albanese government cancelled our largest Defence space project, JP 9102, which would have provided locally controlled and operated geostationary communication satellites and ground stations. Now, even the projects Labor say that they are committed to are not moving at speed. You need only to look at the Henderson shipyard in my home state of Western Australia. The latest warning on progress at Henderson came last week from Austal CEO Paddy Gregg, who has raised the prospect of Western Australia losing out on multibillion dollar shipbuilding contracts. He has called for less talking and more doing from the government and has said, 'We haven't seen a whole lot of action, and we don't have long to wait.' This stands in stark contrast to the claim of the Minister for Defence that work at Henderson is happening at a pace. Well, I think we all know it's more like at a snail's pace! Labor was elected in 2022 and stalled decisions on the Henderson redevelopment. They still don't expect planning to be completed even by 2027. The coalition fully supports the vision for Henderson as a defence precinct that will deliver continuous shipbuilding, starting with Army's Landing Craft Heavy and then the domestic build element of the Mogami program. It will also be the site to support the sustainment of Australia's surface combat vessels and will play an important role in delivering the AUKUS agreement as a contingency docking area for our future nuclear-powered submarine fleet and the site of depot level maintenance, including graving docks. It is essential we get this right. Labor's failures on defence extend well beyond preparedness. Unfortunately, there are too many incidents of this government treating our defence personnel and veterans in a disgraceful manner, and I don't need to look too far to see this problem with an ongoing issue surrounding the closure of the Flying Start childcare centre at RAAF Base Pearce in the southern part of my electorate. Defence family stations in Bullsbrook were recently given just three months notice that Flying Start would be closed and that they would need to find alternative arrangements. With such short notice and proximate centres being near capacity, defence families face substantially higher out-of-pocket costs and longer commute times. I was contacted by one defence family who noted that the reasoning for the closure—apparent increased aircraft noise—just didn't add up. Seven weeks ago, I wrote to the Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Personnel, asking for clarity. Sadly, some seven weeks have gone by and, despite multiple follow-ups with the ministers' offices, I am yet to receive a response. Worse yet, the defence families who have reached out directly to multiple WA Labor MPs have also been ignored. I mean, come on—this is no way to treat our Defence families. To make real and substantial gains in recruitment and retention, we need to make Defence an attractive proposition for families. Labor's approach to making decisions without input from personnel or veterans was also evident through their shameful proposed changes to the Defence honours and awards system. The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal) Bill 2025 was introduced in the House in August without any consultation with the coalition or key stakeholders in the ex-service community. When it made its way to the relevant Senate committee, there was 74 of 75 public submissions that outlined strong opposition to the bill—that's 74 out of 75. The only submission that supported the bill was from the Department of Defence who just happened to be the author of the bill. This bill would have stripped away appeal rights of the ADF personnel and veterans and placed a 20-year time limit on the actions of our service men and women. This effectively put a use-by date on, 'We will remember them'—absolutely disgusting! Thankfully, the coalition was able to secure the support of the Senate crossbench to force the Albanese government to withdraw this legislation. Those opposite will try and say that we're just picking fights and that Labor really is in the corner of our veterans—well, the actions don't show that. We didn't hear one word of condemnation from those opposite when former prime minister Keating launched his disgusting slur on the former national RSL president and retired major general Greg Melick. Let me let me just remind you what the former prime minister said. He had a crack at Major General Melick, who'd used his Remembrance Day address to warn that we need to lift defence spending to deter growing regional threats. For the crime, Mr Keating branded him 'another RSL dope'. He accused him of wanting to 'drag us into a military exchange with the Chinese' who, according to Mr Keating, have never held an intention to attack Australia. In times like this we should be listening to people like Major General Melick, who has served our nation in uniform for 50 years. That service should be met with respect, not insults. Unfortunately, the minister for Veteran's Affairs–the same minister who won't get back to me on the Flying Start centre and who introduced the honours and awards recognition legislation—chose to rebuke Major General Malik, not Mr Keating. Not good enough.
Durack Electorate: Roads | Adjournment | House debates
In October this year I stood at this dispatch box and gave a speech in regard to the state of the roads in the Shire of East Pilbara. What I said back in October is as follows: In February,...
In October this year I stood at this dispatch box and gave a speech in regard to the state of the roads in the Shire of East Pilbara. What I said back in October is as follows: In February, Cyclone Zelia devastated road networks in the Shire of East Pilbara. For eight months, the shire has worked incredibly hard and negotiated in good faith to secure funding, with $26 million required to rebuild 10 damaged roads, including vital access routes to the Western Desert communities— including the community of Punmu— The response from the state and federal governments has been, frankly, insulting, with the current proposal totalling just $12 million. Instead of funding a like-for-like rebuild, they are prescribing a deliberate downgrade of roads that will fail once again when the next cyclone inevitably hits. Since I spoke those words, nothing much has been resolved to overcome the issue of how we're going to finance the repair of the roads in the Shire of East Pilbara. I call on the Minister for Emergency Management to work harder to solve this issue for the people who call the Shire of East Pilbara home. The reality is that the emergency relief system that requires councils to fix roads impacted by natural disasters and then seek reimbursement is no longer sustainable. As we head into cyclone and bushfire season, it is high time that we had a total rethink and did a total redesign of how we deal with damage caused to key infrastructure by natural disasters. I don't want you to take my word for it, Mr Speaker, because I have got some wonderful correspondence from a lady called Edith Costello. She is the CEO of Punmu Aboriginal Corporation, and she has recently addressed a letter to the Prime Minister, dated 22 November 2025. If it hasn't arrived yet at the Prime Minister's office today, it will get there shortly, maybe tomorrow or the day after. I want to make the point that the Prime Minister may not have seen this letter yet, but I have assured Edith that, when his office receives the letter, they will take its contents seriously and they will take serious action. This is her letter to our prime minister: Prime Minister, I write with respect on behalf of the Martu People of the Punmu Community in Western Australia. I have voted Labor my entire life, and my family has supported your party for generations. This letter is written in good faith and with respect—but also with urgency. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to be heard. I understand that the full reality of life in very remote communities may not always reach out, and I write so that you can hear it directly. Punmu is a remote aboriginal community carrying heavy responsibility with limited resources. We manage essential services, safety, housing, health and governance under conditions that most Australians will never experience. We are doing everything we can, but we cannot do this alone. Punmu is a strong, self-reliant community. We operate three successful, community-owned and community-run businesses. We have a zero crime rate not because of neglect, but because of strength, leadership and self discipline. Our children attend and are supported by our local community school. At the same time, many families are living in extremely difficult conditions. Most homes are no longer safe to live in and have been deemed irrepareable, yet up to fifteen people are living in these houses. Martu families rarely complain. However, I have had mothers come to me in tears asking for tents so their children can sleep safely instead of enduring insect infestation while they sleep. Our access road is in VERY poor condition, damaging vehicles and limiting access to essential services. Federal support to assist the Shire of East Pilbara to rebuild and maintain this road would make an enormous difference to the safety and wellbeing of our people. My family and I have supported your party our entire lives. This letter is written with loyalty, urgency and honesty and with belief in a government that is accessible and understands its people. I do not seek publicity. I desperately need practical support and a direct line of communication. I write in good faith and with respect, asking only to be heard. I would be grateful for the opportunity to speak with you personally or communicate directly via email. Kind regards Edith Costello CEO Punmu Aboriginal Corporation
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's environmental reform package—the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills—which demonstrates Labor's latest attempt...
I rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's environmental reform package—the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills—which demonstrates Labor's latest attempt to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Let me be clear from the outset: I care very deeply about our environment. I represent more than 1.4 million square kilometres, the largest electorate in Australia. When you cover that kind of ground, you see our country in a way that few others do—that few others will truly appreciate. And I'll tell you what I see when I look out the window of those little—and also those large—planes as I traverse Durack. I see thousands of kilometres of coastline—pristine, rugged and breathtaking. I see the Ningaloo Reef, one of the great natural wonders of the world, home to whale sharks, turtles and coral that Australians and visitors travel halfway across the globe to experience. I take great joy in seeing the red earth of the Pilbara and the Kimberley, a landscape that tells the story of the continent's ancient history, its strength and its spirit. But I also see the farms, the stations and the mines, which are the heartbeat of the Australian economy—the producers, the pastoralists and the workers who get up before dawn to grow our food and export our resources and who help to keep our lights on. These industries sustain local communities, they underpin our national prosperity, and they provide the royalties and the tax revenue that fund our hospitals, our schools and, indeed, our environmental protections. That is why I say this: we will not support reform that puts ideology ahead of practicality. We will not support measures that threaten Australian jobs, deter investment or weaken our productivity. Let me be 100 per cent clear on this: not all mining projects—or, for that matter, renewable energy projects—will get environmental approval, and nor should they. That's because not all projects will be able to demonstrate their ability to coexist, without undue damage, with the environment. What project proponents need is a quick no or a quick yes to their environmental approvals. That's not what these bills will do. We will therefore not be supporting this package of bills, as they are about centralising control in Canberra, expanding bureaucracy and stifling the very industries that underpin our national prosperity. It's worth reflecting on how we got here. The process began when the then environment minister, now Leader of the Opposition, commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to undertake a review of the EPBC Act. Following the review, the coalition government introduced legislation to undertake reforms that would have improved the system, but, unfortunately, the Labor Party teamed up with their bedfellows, the Greens political party, to block it. Now, a few years later, Labor has returned to parliament with its own version, one which is more complex, more bureaucratic and more hostile to business than the 26-year-old system it's seeking to replace. This isn't their first attempt to. During their last term, the then environment minister, Minister Plibersek, promised time and again that Labor's full EPBC overhaul would be delivered by the end of 2023, but those deadlines came and went. The reform was deferred, delayed, watered down and, ultimately, shelved. Even Labor's own state premiers had lost faith. Of course I reference my home state of Western Australia. WA Labor Premier Roger Cook was so concerned with the economic impact of Minister Plibersek's so-called nature-positive laws that he called the Prime Minister to overrule her. He told the Prime Minister directly, apparently, that the reforms would destroy confidence in the resources sector. Well, they are true words. As a result, we saw an embarrassing series of headlines—the reforms would be introduced in the Senate, and then they wouldn't be introduced in the Senate—which eventually concluded with the plan being quietly abandoned. The Prime Minister decided these reforms should wait until after the election so as not to risk seats, particularly across Western Australia. Following the election he decided it was time for a new minister who might be able to deliver some sensible reform. Unfortunately, we struck out again, and this new minister has now sought to introduce a 1,500-page monstrosity that business, industry and stakeholders right across the board have described as unworkable. The Business Council of Australia, who I note got a good shout-out from the Prime Minister during question time yesterday, has warned that 'without significant changes to this bill we risk embedding a system that's even slower and more complex and lacks the clarity and certainty needed for investment'. That is a damning verdict, demonstrating that this legislation is riddled with problems. It paints a very grim picture for jobs, investment and productivity in our country. Let's start with the so-called 'unacceptable impact' provisions. There are eight pages outlining 37 separate definitions which would limit the number of projects that could proceed. Industry has been crystal clear: these definitions must be removed from the legislation and placed into the environmental standards. Then there is the net gain requirement—vague, undefined and open to endless litigation. The definition absolutely needs greater certainty, with guardrails to ensure certainty for industry and certainty for our environment. The government also wants project proponents to report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, duplicating the safeguard mechanism and creating a backdoor climate trigger that every resources investor fears. Let's not forget the proposed environmental protection agency. Labor promised the EPA for two elections. After four years, this is what they've come up with—a structure that is completely unworkable. The proposed EPA would assess, approve and enforce its own decisions. It would act as student, teacher and principal all at once, marking its own homework—completely unworkable. The CEO of this new agency would be a statutory officer who could not be dismissed by the minister, not even for failure to perform. There is no binding statement of expectations, no accountability to government and no mechanism to ensure the CEO acts in the national interest. That is not independence; it's unaccountable power. This is the system that the Labor government claims will 'speed up approvals' and 'boost productivity'. Australia is in the middle of a productivity crisis. That's not a talking point from the coalition whip's office; it's a fact. It's important those opposite know we are now ranked as second last in the OECD. Only Mexico performs worse than Australia. Yet Labor is pushing through reforms that will make it harder, slower and more expensive to get major projects approved. Let's not forget that, when Labor was re-elected in May, they quickly declared that productivity under them was actually in serious trouble, and so the Treasurer and the Prime Minister announced they would hold a productivity roundtable. Sounds good, doesn't it? This was then rebranded as an economic reform roundtable. I'm not sure that it amounted to much, except maybe the suggestion of spare bedrooms being taxed. Mining royalties, oil and gas exports, critical minerals, agriculture—these are the industries that pay for our hospitals, our schools and our roads. In 2023-24 alone, the mining industry paid $59.4 billion in taxes and royalties to Australian governments. Labor's reforms threaten that foundation. They will send investment offshore, cost Australian jobs and place a handbrake on regional economies. Labor's division over resources is now legendary. They delayed a decision on the very important decision in relation to a project in my electorate of Durack, that of course being the North West Shelf gas extension, until after the election, and then they sacked the minister responsible. Now a new minister has stepped in with preliminary approval while the Prime Minister recruits a Greens defector who's openly hostile to the project. Investors—whether in oil, gas or critical minerals—need confidence that Australia is a stable, reliable destination for capital. Right now, they're not getting that from Labor. While Labor ties industry up in knots with red and green tape, its record on actual environmental outcomes—well, that's appalling. Australia's just recorded its 39th extinction. The Christmas Island shrew was declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This comes after former environment minister Plibersek's public commitment that there would be 'no new extinctions' under the Albanese government. Then there's Labor's multimillion dollar handout to the far-left Environmental Defenders Office. The coalition warned from day one that this was a reckless decision. And guess what? We were right. The EDO has been condemned by the Federal Court for coaching witnesses and fabricating evidence in the Santos Barossa gas pipeline case. Despite this disgraceful record, the Albanese government has continued to fund them with not just the original $8.3 million grant but ongoing annual funding that will see the EDO receive around $15 million by the end of the decade. This is taxpayers' money being funnelled into an activist law firm that works to shut down projects, destroy jobs and strangle Australia's economic growth, and yet Labor claims to support productivity. If you want proof that this government is distracted and has all the wrong priorities, look no further than the algal bloom disaster along South Australia's coastline. For months, scientists warned the Albanese government to take some action. Eighteen months ago, they raised the alarm. Four months ago, when dead fish were washing up on the beaches, they raised it again. The government did nothing. Now over 14,000 marine animals have died. Local fishing and tourism businesses—well, they're suffering, and coastal ecosystems have been devastated. It's a misconception that the coalition does not care about the environment. As a former minister for the environment, I know that we do care. I often have colleagues discuss multiple environmental issues with me to ensure that we know what's happening with our environment. When we were in government, we sought to protect the environment while supporting the economy. It's not always easy to protect the environment and look after the economy. It takes hard work. Under the Morrison government, investment in renewable energy hit record highs, with renewables making up almost one-third of our energy mix. Australia had the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes having solar on their roof. Again, this demonstrates that we are not anti renewables. There are some places where it makes sense and some where it simply does not. It is completely different for an individual to choose to put solar panels on their roof than it is to force farmers to have transmission lines run across their properties. When we were in government, we also led the way on waste and recycling by establishing the $200 million Recycling Modernisation Fund that leveraged $1 billion in industry co-investment. We launched the ReMade in Australia trademark to ensure Australians could trust that products were recycled and manufactured here at home. We invested billions to improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef and delivered two dedicated threatened species strategies. We were a government that delivered environmental protection and economic growth together. It's possible, but it's hard work. Labor, by contrast, has delivered division, delay and dysfunction. In its current form, Labor's EPBC reform package is unworkable. It's bad for business, bad for investment and bad for Australia's future. It hands more power to bureaucrats and activists while stripping accountability from ministers. It risks green lawfare and constant litigation. It undermines the very industries that fund our prosperity. These bills represent a real test for the Prime Minister and the Labor government. Will they negotiate with the coalition to protect jobs, support industry and help enable the 'Future Made in Australia' that they always talk about? Or will they side with the extreme Greens political party, who don't believe in just about any project getting underway and whose policies, if enacted, could only result in a weaker and more dependent Australia? What will it be, Prime Minister?