Peta Murphy's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Housing Affordability | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. How will the Albanese Labor government's Help to Buy scheme help Australians get into their own home, and how does it fit into the...
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. How will the Albanese Labor government's Help to Buy scheme help Australians get into their own home, and how does it fit into the government's broader housing agenda?
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
People shouldn't bet with money they don't have. It's really as simple as that. But betting with money they don't have is exactly what happens to people who are experiencing gambling harm. At the...
People shouldn't bet with money they don't have. It's really as simple as that. But betting with money they don't have is exactly what happens to people who are experiencing gambling harm. At the very least, they bet with money they can't afford. This is an important piece of legislation to continue us down the track of harm minimisation by putting in place a prohibition on using credit cards for gambling—because that is the very definition of gambling with money that you don't have. As the Chair of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I had the privilege of chairing an inquiry which wrapped up in the middle of this year into harms from online gambling. We in this country have to acknowledge that gambling is a public health issue and that gambling is an addiction and start talking about it and treating it similarly to the way we treat other mental health issues and addiction problems, such as alcohol and drug abuse. We have to take away the stigma and let people know that they are suffering from an addiction but that they can talk about it and they can get help and they shouldn't feel ashamed that they need help to deal with the harms that they're experiencing from gambling or the harms that they're inflicting on others from their gambling. They shouldn't feel reluctant to speak out. This is Gambling Harm Awareness Week. On Tuesday, I was joined for a Facebook live session by Jesse Murphy—no relation—from my electorate, an incredibly courageous 29-year-old man who talked about his experience of becoming a gambling addict—what it did to him, how it made him feel, how it affected his relationships with his flatmates, his friends and, importantly, his family and his parents and how hard it was for him to overcome it. It was hard for him to overcome it in the face of the bombardment of ads on the television telling him to bet. He's a footy player, an AFL player. It was hard for him to overcome in the face of everything to do with the AFL—the AFL app and the AFL advertising online—talking about sports betting. It was hard for him to deal with it in the face of the fact that he'd been given a personal concierge. After he'd gone almost a year without betting, he was out one night and they rang him and offered him free tickets, matched bets—things that he just couldn't resist—and he went back down that rabbit hole. But he's courageous, because he was speaking to me on a Facebook Live in order to, as he said, maybe help just one person not to experience that themselves, maybe just help one person to understand that if you feel that you might have a problem then you've probably got a problem, that if you feel that it's something you need to get help for, you probably need to get help for it. This piece of legislation would have been very helpful for Jesse when he was in the grips of his addiction. Another reform brought in by the Albanese Labor government—BetStop, which is now live—has been really helpful to Jesse, and he spoke about that as well. BetStop is a way that people can basically exclude themselves from all online gambling bookmakers for periods of time from three to six months to life, which is what Jesse chose. He explained that once he'd banned himself he had this feeling of freedom, this feeling of safety, of letting go, but that it wasn't that easy to do it, even for someone who's been going to Gamblers Anonymous, who's been getting counselling from psychologists and who is being all he can be in building up his wellbeing and resilience. Jesse said the process of filling in that form to exclude himself for the rest of his life from being able to gamble and pressing that button was harder than he ever imagined it would be, because it represented a phase of his life and giving away something in his life. His gambling addiction was related to wanting to feel thrills and adventure. He said he'd spoken to a couple of other people with problems with gambling, and they said the same thing: once they excluded themselves there was this feeling of freedom and accomplishment and a sense of being able to get on with the next phase of their lives, but the steps getting to excluding themselves were harder than they thought they would be. So, BetStop is a game-changing reform, but perhaps we need to think about how we can better help people to get through the psychological barriers of accessing it. The two takeaways from my conversation with Jesse on Tuesday night in terms of reforms were how important BetStop is and how we have to get rid of ads for gambling. We have to get rid of them from our television screens, our radios and online, because they target people who are vulnerable, they target young people, and the harm from gambling is not worth retaining gambling ads in our advertising system. In Australia we are world-champion gamblers. We not only gamble more than any other country in the world; we lose more by gambling online than any other country in the world. And whilst I love the thought of Australians being world champions, that is not a title we want to retain. Per capita we lose more by gambling online than any other country in the world. So I'm really pleased at the positive response of the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Social Services to the report that the committee that I'm the chair of handed down: You win some, you lose more, on the harms from online gambling. I'm really looking forward to the government's formal response to the recommendations in that report, because I know they get it; I know those ministers understand that gambling is a public health issue, that it must be treated from a harm reduction perspective and that harm reduction starts at preventing people from suffering harm in the first place and goes along the spectrum to then helping people who are in the grips of an addiction. I know that as long as we have people like Jesse Murphy, who is courageous and who has taken the worst experiences of his life and decided to speak about them publicly to help others, we will get the reforms and the changes that we need. Those stories are incredibly powerful. My committee, when recommending that the government continue on the path we are now finalising, to ban the use of credit cards, also noted that the government should look at the use of payday loans. There seems to be emerging evidence—and Financial Counselling Australia talked about this in the inquiry—that gamblers are using payday loans to gamble. So we also have to make sure that compliance of payday loan lenders with their responsible gambling obligations is on the agenda. I congratulate the minister for this piece of legislation. It's going to make a lot of difference to a lot of people and their families and their communities. I reiterate that I'm right there beside the minister for reforms to address the other harms that continue to pervade our community from the scourge which is gambling.
Skills and Training | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to provide Australians with the skills they need for the careers and...
My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to provide Australians with the skills they need for the careers and opportunities of the future? What has been the response to the government's policies?
Morley, Ms Olivia, Invictus Games | Constituency Statements | House debates
Today I'd like to share the story of an impressive young woman from Frankston, Olivia Morley. Olivia is just 17-years-old and she recently competed with the Australian Dragon Boat Team, called...
Today I'd like to share the story of an impressive young woman from Frankston, Olivia Morley. Olivia is just 17-years-old and she recently competed with the Australian Dragon Boat Team, called the Auroras, at the World Dragon Boat Racing Championships in Thailand. At the championships Olivia and her team brought home seven bronze medals out of eight possible events, and Australia secured the fifth position amongst 22 competing countries. Olivia's journey into dragon boating is somewhat unique. She got into the sport because her grandmother started dragon boating, in an unfortunately not so unique story, after a breast cancer diagnosis. Her grandmother's involvement in dragon boating has led it to it becoming a bit of a family affair. Olivia's whole family is involved. Even her older cousin competes for Australia. Olivia trains once a week during the off-season and two to three times a week during competitions. In the lead-up to Thailand, she trained four times a week with her mum driving her from my electorate all the way to the city for all of the sessions. Olivia's proud mum and grandmother accompanied her to Thailand, where they say the smile did not leave her face. Olivia has made her family and Australia proud with her hard work. I also want to wish good luck to our Aussie athletes competing at the Invictus Games in Germany next week. The Invictus Games are an international adaptive sporting event for serving and former defence personnel. The games use the power of sport to inspire recovery and support rehabilitation. Importantly, they generate a wider understanding and respect for wounded, injured and ill service personnel. One of the athletes from my electorate who is going is Francine from Seaford. Francine is a former Australian Army medic who deals with chronic lower back pain. Despite her challenges, Francine focuses on how sport aids her rehabilitation. She says: 'Sport has been amazing for me and something I have done my whole life. It keeps me accountable and, more importantly, helps me form connections with other people.' Francine will be competing in powerlifting, rowing and sitting volleyball. So from all of us in Dunkley: Well done, Olivia, and good luck, Francine.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
What's that got to do with the motion?
Pensions and Benefits | Private Members' Business | House debates
I can help the member out as to when this was raised and spoken about. It was every question time and most 90-seconders. I was elected to this place in 2019. I spoke about robodebt so many times....
I can help the member out as to when this was raised and spoken about. It was every question time and most 90-seconders. I was elected to this place in 2019. I spoke about robodebt so many times. I spoke about Mel, a woman in my electorate who worked part time and who had a $5,000 debt raised against her—an unlawful robodebt that she didn't owe. I spoke about an email I received from Mel and her husband because they just couldn't get a review. They told me: We have so little faith in the Department that we believe there is a strong possibility: no review will take place, they will ignore the evidence and claim money is owed regardless, that Mel's maternity payments will be taken, or all of the above. As a young family in the electorate of Dunkley, those payments will directly support and provide for our child. This was raised over and over again in this parliament by the then opposition. It shouldn't have had to have been, but it was. As Commissioner Holmes said, the beginning of 2017 was the point when robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent. It should then have been abandoned or revised drastically. An enormous amount of hardship and misery, as well as the expense the government was so anxious to minimise, would have been averted. Instead, the path was taken to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. The government was, the DHS and DSS ministers maintained, acting righteously to recoup taxpayers' money from the undeserving. The member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, prosecuted robodebt vociferously in this parliament. And no-one who sat here could possibly not know that he did that. But he shouldn't have had to. From 2017 onwards, the then government knew what was happening and turned a blind eye. The member for Flinders gave a thoughtful speech, I would like to say, and acknowledged the problems with robodebt. One thing, though, that struck a bit of a chord with me was when she talked about the Liberal Party being the party of personal responsibility. I know that's something that the Liberal Party hold dear. But I just wonder how far that extends. It often seems to extend to the rhetoric about people receiving social security benefits who are unemployed and have issues in their lives. I think it extends to the member for Flinders. I think she does believe in personal responsibility and her speech showed that. But it certainly doesn't appear to extend to her colleagues who were in the cabinet of the former government when she wasn't here. Where's the personal responsibility having been taken by anyone in the cabinet who, from 2017 onwards, doubled down, went on the attack and continued robodebt? There has been none. The commissioner says at page 102 that she 'rejects as untrue' Mr Morrison's evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated in the executive minutes was an established practice and a foundational way in which DHS worked. Where is the personal responsibility of the member for Cook? Where is the personal responsibility of the then Minister for Human Services, Senator Payne, whose evidence was described by the commissioner as 'a series of disparate and unsatisfactory answers' that 'would have the making of a child's nursery rhyme if it were not so serious'. Where was the personal responsibility of Mr Tudge, of whom the commissioner said: Mr Tudge's use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme's problems represented an abuse of that power. Where was the personal responsibility of Christian Porter, who the commissioner said 'could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality' of the scheme, or of Stuart Robert, of whom the commissioner said it can't be accepted that the principles of cabinet solidarity required Mr Robert's to publicly support cabinet decisions whether he agreed with them or not because he knew they weren't true. There was no personal responsibility from anyone in that cabinet, including people who are still in this parliament today.
Cost of Living | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian families and small businesses, and what barriers are there to that...
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian families and small businesses, and what barriers are there to that support being delivered?
Gender Equality | Ministerial Statements | House debates
We do compared to the member for Macnamara—apart from basketball because you can just reach up and put the ball in the hoop! But we're skilled and we're tactical and we're strategic and we...
We do compared to the member for Macnamara—apart from basketball because you can just reach up and put the ball in the hoop! But we're skilled and we're tactical and we're strategic and we do jump high and run fast and throw hard and kick far, and it's interesting to watch. The issue is not just that Australians are wrapped up in women's sport at the moment but how do we use that moving forward? Things have changed significantly since I was a young girl in the eighties, where the only time I got to see a woman in a sports magazine was when they had the bikini edition of Sports Illustrated. My dad always used to say to me, 'Write to the editor. If you don't like it, write to the editor and get it changed.' Things have changed, but they haven't changed enough, and we need to leverage this moment in time to support women to be involved in sport at all levels and in all ways. It's still the case in our country that when a dad who's never played basketball says, 'I'll step in and help coach my daughter's under-10 basketball team,' people say, 'Isn't that wonderful?' but when a mum who's never played soccer says, 'I'll step in and help coach my son's under-10 soccer team,' there's a bit of a, 'But do know what you're doing?' Men who have had a bit of a go at playing tennis when they were in high school are accepted to coach their kids' tennis teams, but women who have been professional tennis players aren't accepted to coach elite junior boys teams. We still have a fair way to go when sports like netball are actively embracing boys playing and men being on their committees but many football clubs have never had a female president, let alone a woman on their committee. We still have a fair way to go to say that gender equality actually means that men and women can be involved in boys', girls', men's and women's sports at all levels, doing all things. Coaching, being administrators, being physios, being commentators—it doesn't matter. They can do it. I know that the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Women are engaged in thinking about this issue, and I'm very keen to be part of that. Gender equality is not just about numbers and statistics. It's about outcomes and it's about culture. I think we still have a culture in Australia where, if you turn on a television, nine—if not 10—times out of 10, the ads for domestic cleaning products still have a woman who's depicted as the mother washing the kids' clothes, mopping the kitchen floor or cleaning the dishes. They still have the mother, nine if not 10 times out of 10, cooking cupcakes with the kids and cooking dinner. There is still an inherent gender bias in much of our popular culture that not only holds women back because it perpetuates the idea that that unpaid work, which is often the care component of being in a relationship, or being part of a family, is women's work. It also holds men back from having the sort of engagement with their families and children that can be and is fulfilling. During COVID one of the things that fathers, particularly fathers in their 20s, often said to me was that the thing they didn't expect, because they had to work from home or couldn't work for a period of time, was how much time they got to spend with their kids and how great that was. They said it made them realise how much time they hadn't been spending with their kids and what they had been missing out on. That's one of the consequences of gender inequality and gender stereotypes in this country when it comes to what we can do. It is no coincidence that feminised industries are the lowest paid industries and that feminised industries are, by and large, the care industries—that is, work that used to be unpaid domestic caring work. Again, that is a gender inequality that keeps women in low-paid industries and keeps them low paid but also tends to exclude a lot of men from things like early childhood education and care, aged care or nursing. These are occupations which are incredibly fulfilling, and which men are very good at, but a gender stereotype holds them back—let alone the pay. It's bad for women, it's bad for men and it's bad for the economy. These are the sorts of things that government can do something about, like the Albanese Labor government supporting the historic pay rise for aged-care workers. But government can't fix or change this completely. It's a cultural attitude. It needs the involvement of leaders from across business, the civic sphere and government. We need to be conscious of those sorts of things and conscious of the history that leads to today, where, yes, we have more women than men in the government, but we still have over 100 years of a parliament which hardly had any women in it for a very long time, has had one female prime minister and hasn't had women in leadership. One government with a lot of women in isn't going to change 100 years of built-up culture with conscious and unconscious bias. I was listening to the amazing June Oscar on the radio this morning and she was asked whether, when her term as commissioner is over, another woman should be appointed as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner, and she said: 'Absolutely, because, for 30 years, until I got this job, there'd never been a woman, and having one woman in the job isn't going to change that.' So, while the result that I started talking about is a terrific result and should be celebrated, and the Labor government which I'm proud to be a part of should be congratulated for all the measures that have been put in place to close the gender pay gap and encourage gender equality in this country, there is a lot more to do, and I look forward to being part of that work.
As others who have spoken to this before me have noted, in the latest World Economic Forum Global gender gap report, Australia has moved from 43rd place to 26th place. That's a pretty impressive...
As others who have spoken to this before me have noted, in the latest World Economic Forum Global gender gap report, Australia has moved from 43rd place to 26th place. That's a pretty impressive jump of 17 spots. It is the largest improvement in Australia's ranking in the report since the index started comparing nations in 2016. There is no doubt that that jump was contributed to significantly by the fact that, for the first time in history, we have a federal government which has more women than men in it—53 per cent are women—and we have a government that has spent the last 12 months starting to implement an agenda for gender equality that goes from workplaces to politics to schools to all aspects of society. The Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, is right when she says that better gender representation leads to better outcomes. It is almost obvious—although for hundreds of years people, men, didn't seem to realise it—that the more people you have around the table from different backgrounds bringing different experiences and different points of view to a discussion, the better the outcomes you will get and the more representative the outcomes will be. So it's a significant achievement, but there's no doubt that we still have a long way to go in Australia for gender equality. We're all pretty wrapped up in the Matildas at the moment. Seeing how those young women, who are strong and fierce and feminine and tough and just amazing athletes, are representing their country in a way that we would want anyone, male or female, to represent their country and the way that Australians are responding to that is amazing. More Australians watched their last match than watched the AFL grand final, which seems to be blowing some people's minds, although a lot of us would say that we've been telling you for a very long time that women's sport is exciting. It's different to men's sport in many ways. Sure we don't jump as high or run as fast—always; sometimes we do—or kick the ball quite as hard or throw it as far—
Commonwealth Procurement | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What new information has been brought to the attention of the government in relation to deficient procurements identified by the Watt...
My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What new information has been brought to the attention of the government in relation to deficient procurements identified by the Watt review and by other reviews of government services procurement?
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
URPHY () (): As speakers before me have noted, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is the first of...
URPHY () (): As speakers before me have noted, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is the first of the government's responses to the Stevens review and, of course, it's a very important response. The 2020 Stevens review was released by this government in March of this year. I was really pleased to see the minister make a number of commitments on behalf of the Australian government—expanding options for industry to self-classify content, providing exemption from classification for foreign-language films distributed by public libraries and routine exhibitions hosted by cultural institutions, and removing the need to reclassify content that has already been classified for television We see that commitment come to fruition in this bill. The government also committed to consulting with industry and other key stakeholders on broader classification reforms, and that consultation is something that the minister and the minister's office have been very diligent about doing. The third announcement, which is something I wanted to briefly speak about, is to seek agreement of state and territory attorneys-general as co-partners in the scheme to introduce a mandatory minimum classification of R 18+ for games which contain simulated gambling, and M for computer games containing paid loot boxes. I'm the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. We recently finished quite a long inquiry into the regulatory regime and harm reduction for online gambling, and it included looking at loot boxes and simulated gambling. As we concluded in the report that we recently handed down, the evidence was clear that young Australians—children—are increasingly exposed to gambling-like activities. They're widely available and marketed to them on all digital platforms. There is a problem with the regulation and age gating. One only has to speak to parents to know that that is the case. My friends talk about their nine-, 10- and 11-year-old children using loot boxes and simulated gambling in online gaming; they didn't realise they were using it until they really stopped and interrogated the game. Mind you, one of my friend's children was smart enough to know how to use her credit card to pay. And you don't need anecdotes like that. The research presented to the committee suggests that simulated gambling in interactive games normalises gambling for children and young people and carries risks for lifelong addictive behaviours and the range of harms that online gambling causes. There is still some debate within the evidence about whether there is a causal link or simply a correlation between the harms of loot box features and young people gambling with real money and experiencing harm from gambling in adulthood. But it's the committee's view and my view that we shouldn't be waiting. We shouldn't be waiting for another generation to be exposed to something that we know is, at the very least, associated with—and some of the evidence suggests it's causal—significant harms when we know the significant harms that online gambling is already causing adults in our community. That is why the committee was very pleased with the government's commitment to dealing with this, in part, through changes to the classification scheme. The world has changed so significantly since most of us were children that sometimes it's hard to understand the changes. I had no idea what a loot box was before I started this inquiry, which we recently finished. It's yet another way that technology has improved lives but also has the potential and the reality to cause harm. It raises again that it is incumbent on governments to be alert to this, regulate, and work with industry, and not just always be playing catch up. That is why the government has committed to implementing important reforms in this bill. We've reached a point where most people understand that it's not viable just to sit back and say, 'Let's see how this piece of technology evolves' or 'Let's see what happens with this and then we can work out what to do with it.' At times, that has been an appropriate way to regulate and to legislate. But things are changing so fast that the harms can sometimes not be predicted. We need to review where we're at and what sort of framework we can put in place that has the capacity to deal with the known and the unknown changes that are coming. It may well have to be tweaked and changed as we go, but at least we'll have a framework to deal with these things. The classification system's framework hasn't been updated for so long that it hasn't been able to do that. I want to return briefly to loot boxes and simulated gaming. There is no doubt that the government's commitment is a good first step in ensuring that consumers can make more informed purchasing decisions and is consistent with the evidence we received in the inquiry about the harm of these types of games. Some games contain loot boxes more closely resembling gambling than others and, therefore, have a greater risk of harm. As the government is conducting its consultation, it's worth considering a granular approach to determining the classification of games with loot boxes through the National Classification Scheme. Games containing loot boxes that can be purchased and closely resemble gambling should be given a higher classification. There is also an issue with online app stores. They vary in their age-rating systems—for example, Steam, a popular computer game storefront, doesn't require game developers to classify games at all. There is some work to be done there as well so that ratings are uniform across all platforms and consumers can have clear and consistent information to help them make safer choices. The social policy and legal affairs committee also received submissions about a number of consumer protections that the government could consider to complement changes to the National Classification Scheme when we're talking about loot boxes and simulated gambling. They include things like public information campaigns to educate consumers, parents, caregivers, teachers and young people on elements of simulated gambling, and the need to make sure that warning labels that come with online gambling tools are effective and that people, particularly parents, understand that such warnings mean there's a risk element in the game. We need to consider incorporating effective simulated-gambling warning labels into the National Classification Scheme, and we need to look at what minimum consumer protections for interactive games should be and whether any of them need legislative mechanisms—for example, spending controls, transparent odds and drop rates for items, and algorithmic loot box figures disabled as a default setting, allowing players to opt in. A number of international jurisdictions have looked at banning loot boxes and simulated gambling. The committee didn't feel that we had enough evidence to say whether that's an effective way to address the issue or whether, in fact, it would have more positive than negative consequences. There are examples out there that the government can also monitor to see the outcome of different approaches in different jurisdictions. I'm confident that the minister will look at all of these issues in her consultations. I know that this government is committed to making the classification scheme fit for purpose for the modern time, but it's also committed to putting harm reduction at the heart of how we look at issues like gambling and simulated gambling, which, as I started off, is often a gateway—if I can put it like that—to actual gambling. I'm very pleased that we have a government that's acting on the Stevens review and will be taking classification seriously and working with industry to make sure it works. I commend this piece of legislation and congratulate the government and the minister for their commitment to continuing with this process.
Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay | Condolences | House debates
My husband, Rod Glover, and I both first met Simon Crean when we were what seems now to be very young federal Labor staffers from 1999 to 2001. That was the first time that I got to see what sort...
My husband, Rod Glover, and I both first met Simon Crean when we were what seems now to be very young federal Labor staffers from 1999 to 2001. That was the first time that I got to see what sort of person Simon was. I was a junior staffer who didn't work for Simon and had some but not a huge amount of interaction with him. Every time he saw me, including after 2001, he remembered my name, he knew why he knew me, he asked me how I was going and he asked me how Rod was because we had started our relationship by then. He didn't need to do that, and, every single time, I thought to myself, 'Wow, Simon Crean knows who I am.' Rod went on to be one of many people, like the member for Chisholm, who spoke earlier today, who worked for Simon Crean. Of course, that's how we got to know Simon quite well over the last 25 years. As Rod has said to me, when you talk to people who have worked for Simon, many of whom Rod and I count as very close friends, you realise that you become part of the Crean family, a family with a rich Labor tradition, with its Middle Park base over many decades. Simon's passion and generosity invoked in his staff a fierce sense of loyalty, and I've also seen the love that it invoked from his staff to him. This is what Rod remembers: that Simon worked hard and loved life. He was a champion of Australia's soft-power engagement with our region, where he saw the transformative power of international education and cultural and sporting exchange. He valued relationships with our region and beyond. He was also passionate about these things at home, as those at Monash University, the Tamworth Country Music Festival or his beloved North Melbourne Football Club would attest. Can I say, that going to the Tamworth Country Music Festival with Simon Crean would have to be, I think, one of the highlights of Rod's life. Were you to ask him to list the favourite things that he has done in his life, I'm pretty confident that Tamworth with Simon would come before our wedding! I'm pretty confident! Rod is now a professor of political leadership, and one of the things he does is talk and lecture about different styles of leaders—the difference between leaders who think and act incrementally and those who think bigger and bolder. And Rod is the first to say that Simon's instincts were very rarely, if ever, incremental. He was always hungry to debate the biggest ideas and tackle the hardest issues. He was always prepared to hear a different view and respect it, and I know that Simon and Rod had some ding-dong battles and conversations in Simon's office—because that's what he wanted: he wanted a robust contest of ideas. He was also prepared to take a position, as many have talked about, even when it was not popular. My great friend Dr Pradeep Philip, who is also one of Simon Crean's alumni, says this about Simon: His moral courage is a real lesson for us in leadership roles in both public and private sectors. It goes to duty of public life and the living of a good and ethic life as an individual. But moral stance is not abstract it is real and tangible and this is why his Iraq war position is so resounding—the position was moral and how he conveyed it was practical. That's a great exemplar of public life. Pradeep remembers in particular two things about Simon that he wanted mentioned. One was attitude, and we've heard people talk about this: every problem has a solution. That was Simon's attitude. You just have to work hard at it, and you need to get the right people around the table to pick it apart and then to solve it. The second thing was Simon Crean's approach: if you aren't at the table, you can't negotiate an outcome, so find a way to get yourself at the table. As a boss he always let everyone have their say, because if you are heard then you feel included, even if the final decision is not what you had advocated. As Pradeep has said, this is why Simon attracted people around him who stuck with him for a long time, people who worked for him but also well after—because they were part of the Crean family. These were his enduring human and leadership characteristics. Simon didn't represent Dunkley, as we know. But, after he left politics, he joined my community as the chair of the McClelland Sculpture Park and Gallery, which is in Langwarrin. It's hard to remember exactly when, because, as Carole said to me when I spoke to her on Monday, time has changed shape with everything to do with Simon since his sudden passing. But I think it was this weekend or certainly not long, in the weeks to come, that Rod and I were supposed to be having lunch with Simon to talk about McClelland Sculpture Park and Gallery—to talk about its future and its sustainability, and to join the dots, to strategise, about how we could make sure that this jewel in my community's crown remains. The board and the staff of McClelland gallery want to express their great sadness at the passing of Simon Crean. He joined the board in May 2021 and assumed the chairmanship in April 2022. He made an enormous contribution during his service to McClelland through his wisdom, energy and experience. He was a leading figure in the political, industrial and cultural life of Australia for many decades, and as a former federal arts minister be brought to the McClelland board an unparalleled mix of expertise in industry, politics and the arts. I know as the local member I quite enjoyed being able to say to the board, 'You've got the expert as your chair. I don't know if I've got the solution for you, but I'm sure Simon Crean will.' He was instrumental in the development of the Creative Nation policy, which informed the new Creative Australia policy, and, in his own words: I've long held a passion for the arts. It's not just the enjoyment they bring, I see the artist as central to us a nation and to securing its future. The board and staff of McClelland and the people of Dunkley extend deepest condolences to Carole, family and friends, and mourn the loss of Simon Crean. And, on behalf of Rod and Pradeep and all of our friends who admired and loved and worked with Simon, I know that we're going to miss that crinkled smile and the twinkle in his eye, and the 'let's talk about how we can get this done' conversation; and feel truly privileged to have shared a small part of the life of the legend and the man that was Simon Crean. Vale.
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee; Reference to Federation Chamber | Committees | House debates
I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to.
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee; Report | Committees | House debates
I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled You win some, you lose more: online gambling and its impacts on those...
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled You win some, you lose more: online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). by leave—'You win some, you lose more,' the government's tagline on gambling advertising, adopted recently as part of the National Consumer Protection Framework, aptly sums up the evidence received during the inquiry of this committee of which I'm very proud to be the chair. The evidence was clear. If the status quo on online gambling regulation, including but certainly not limited to advertising, is to continue, Australians will continue to lose more—more money, more relationships, more love of sport for the game rather than for the odds. It is clear from the 31 bipartisan recommendations contained in this report that the committee's view is that we cannot accept that. What we heard from submitters, ranging from people with lived experience to researchers, academics and even people in the industry, is that tinkering around the edges isn't going to cut it either. This inquiry considered whether the current regulatory framework for online gaming and gambling advertising in Australia is fit for purpose and meeting community expectations. We received powerful evidence from people with lived experience, peak bodies, community organisations and concerned individuals about the harm that online gambling is causing to everyday Australians, to the people that they love and to their communities. We like to be the best in the world in Australia. Australians outspend the citizens of every other country on online gambling. In many of our communities and in many of our families, it is wreaking havoc. We heard over and over again, as members of this committee and as members of this chamber, that families believe saturation advertising is ensuring their children's future losses. It is absolutely unarguable that there are three organisations at the moment which are gaining from the status quo: online wagering service providers, the advertising revenue for media and—there is some argument about whether this is a gain or not—the money that major sporting organisations receive not just from sponsorship but also from product use agreements with online gambling providers. Our inquiry heard from gamblers who not only lost more than they could afford but who were encouraged by wagering service providers to gamble more, even after they incurred serious losses. We also heard from those who won and were prevented from gambling further. Any business model which encourages harm deserves to be closely scrutinised and that's what this inquiry did. The evidence is overwhelming that Australians don't like being flooded by messages and inducements to gamble online and they worry about the effect this is having on children and young people. Most believe that gambling is harmful for society and that it has become too easy to gamble in Australia. Almost half of Australians surveyed last year placed a bet on sports or racing and about two-thirds of those people are at risk of harm. It's not about safe gambling; it's about the risk and the reality of harm. Online gambling is of course a form of entertainment, and many people can talk about how they indulge in it without experiencing harm or causing harm to others. But it is different to other forms of entertainment because, as we heard from the experts, it has the potential to cause psychological, health, relationship, legal and financial harm to both the individuals engaging in it and those around them. We heard, tragically, about gambling being a key risk factor for suicide. We heard from experts who talked about gambling progressing to a behavioural addiction of gambling disorder which has the same effect on the brain as addiction to substances and some of the same treatments. The recommendations show that it's the view of the committee that there aren't enough safeguards to protect people from gambling disorder from online gambling harm and that too many people find it difficult to ask for help because the stigma associated with harm from gambling is silencing. Those who do seek help, find it difficult to access appropriate treatment and support. Australia's fragmented regulatory framework, in many places, is too weak. What it does at the moment—and the approach across jurisdictions, but the Commonwealth, which we were looking at, does at the moment—is place the onus for reducing harm on the person who gambles. Despite gambling harm being a major public health issue we don't treat it like one. And by 'public health issue' we don't necessarily mean something that has to be dealt with by a department of health, but a 'public health issue' is something that causes health consequences and something that we should be looking at in terms of prevention, early intervention and treatment. Our policies and regulation at the moment encourage responsible gambling. That was one of the things that the taglines I started off with has moved away from. Responsible gambling focus absolves online wagering service providers of much of the responsibility for the harm their products cause. This inquiry heard about inconsistency across states and territories on how online gambling is regulated, and little incentive being placed on states and territories to impose tougher regulations or licensing fees. The Northern Territory Racing Commissioner is in many ways Australia's de facto online gambling regulator. I'm proud to say that this committee delivered a unanimous report. Labor, National, Liberal and Independent members of the parliament came together and delivered a unanimous report without any additional comments. Thirty-one recommendations apply that new lens—often called a 'public health lens'—to online gambling where we say, 'How can we not blame the individual but work to make sure these harms don't happen?' We have recommended: a single Australian government minister be responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive national strategy—which must be done with states and territories—on online-gambling harm reduction, supported by national regulation; an online-gambling ombudsman; a harm-reduction levy on online wagering service providers; a public education campaign; more independent research; and improved data collection. We've recommended a crackdown on illegal gambling operators, including online casinos and skins, and e-sports betting websites. We've recommended a range of measures to improve the availability and adequacy of the support and treatment available to those experiencing gambling harm, and to reduce stigma. We have recommended that the states and territories work with the Australian government so the Australian government could be responsible for regulation and licensing of online gambling while states and territories could retain the capacity to levy point-of-consumption taxes. We've recommended stronger consumer protections for online gambling, including a requirement for wagering service providers to verify their customers' identities before accepting bets from them. We've recommended a ban on inducements, a ban on the practice of going to people who are vulnerable—in particular those who have taken time out from gambling—and saying: 'Welcome back, here's some free money. Here's some match bets. Keep gambling.' We've also recommended a legislated duty of care on wagering service providers. We know that online gambling companies advertise so much in Australia because advertising works. Online gambling has been deliberately and strategically marketed alongside sport. It has normalised gambling with sport as a fun, harmless and social activity that is part of a favourite pastime. It portrays gambling as perhaps making sport more enjoyable. But we heard evidence about the way gambling advertising also grooms children and young people to gamble and encourages riskier behaviour. The experiences of parents is that the torrent of advertising is inescapable. Their fears are that it's manipulating an impressionable and vulnerable audience to gamble online. We heard in this inquiry from Australia's largest professional sporting codes, and the broadcast media, in step with their advertising and sponsorship partners in the gambling industry, broadly opposing further restrictions. We do understand that sponsorship and partnership with sporting organisations from gambling industry is significant money, and that advertising for free-to-air is significant money, but as the chair said, a time has to come when these organisations also think about their social licenses and their moral obligations. Although it may be difficult, they need to work out a way in cooperation with governments to wean themselves off that money if it's money that comes largely from people experiencing harm. The committee shares the concerns of many witnesses and the community that the status quo is leading to a generation of young Australians who view gambling and sport as inextricably linked. It's concerning not only because of the potential increase in Australians experiencing gambling harm but also because of changes to the culture of sport that it has and can bring about. Australia would be diminished if sport was to be so captured by gambling revenue that providing an opportunity for betting came to be seen as its primary purpose. Sport is so much more than content for gambling, and surely the way the Matildas have inspired girls and boys and men and women alike over the last few weeks is evidence enough of this. The committee has recommended a phased comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising of online gambling services on all media—broadcast and online. It leaves no room for circumvention. Partial bans haven't worked. Well-intended changes in 2017 and 2018 only led to the number of ads on television increasing. Industries will identify and capitalise on gaps in marketing restrictions and take advantage of the less regulated online environment. Targeted advertising online is causing harm and will continue to cause harm. The committee recommended that it be banned. The highest-risk harm should be addressed immediately. Sporting bodies and broadcasters will need adequate time to locate alternative sources of broadcasting revenue and to comply with concurrent contractual obligations. That's why the committee recommended a comprehensive ban be phased in. The number of Australians who want to control their gambling is staggering. Half a million Australians have asked their banks to put temporary or permanent gambling blocks on their bank accounts. While most Australian banks have introduced measures to assist their customers in managing their gambling, there is inconsistency in the approaches taken by individual banks and other payment methods. The committee has recommended the Australian government develop a set of minimum gambling harm prevention standards to be implemented by all Australian banks and for a ban on payment methods for online gambling that do not minimise the risk of criminal activity and gambling harm. The recent announcement by the government of the ban on the use of credit cards for online gambling is recognition that people should not be gambling with money they don't have, and it's welcome. The committee is also concerned about payday loans and the need to ensure the compliance of the payday lending sector with their responsible lending obligations. The committee also heard evidence of children and young people being exposed to gambling through interactive games, like social casinos, which simulate real gambling and include gambling-like features such as loot boxes. Often, they're provided on platforms without appropriate classification guidance. The committee has supported the government's proposed changes to the classification system to reduce the risk of harm for social casinos and loot box features and interactive games, and we look forward to that occurring soon. We have recommended that the classification scheme be consistently applied across online app stores, that a simulated gambling warning label be developed, minimum consumer protections on games, and that there be better education for young people, parents, caregivers and teachers about simulated gambling. We have heard that the National Self-Exclusion Register BetStop will be launched on the 21 August this year. Crucially, the government will also introduce a customer pre-verification requirement, meaning that individuals will not be able to place a bet until their identity has been verified. This is a very speedy implementation of an important recommendation of the committee and will both strengthen BetStop's protections for highest-risk gamblers and remove an opportunity for minors to gamble. In conclusion, I wish to extend my sincere thanks and that of every member of the committee to the many people who contributed their time and expertise to this inquiry, particularly those who shared their personal experience of gambling harm. We know that it took incredible courage and strength for you to come forward, and members of the committee were very moved and impacted by the evidence that we received. It's your experiences, described in your own words, that have provided the foundation for this report and its recommendations. I want to thank every member of the committee for their dedication and collegiality and emphasise that this committee listened to the evidence and provided a comprehensive and implementable recommendation base, based on the evidence we received. The members of this committee didn't take partisan positions or adopt any attention-grabbing recommendations or go for what was easy. Instead, everyone on the committee sought to grapple with the issues from all sides and to balance the choice of Australians to engage in betting as an entertainment with the financial implications for broadcasters and sporting organisations and the unarguable harms that are occurring across the industry. I believe as chair that we have provided a road map for the government, and I've been heartened by the comments of the ministers about their approach to working through these recommendations and road map. I believe that the work of this committee, in particular, was an example of parliament at its best. The other example of parliament at its best is the secretariat. They are sitting here today. Their work was second to none. Without the secretariat, I could not have chaired this inquiry and we could not have handed down such a significant and comprehensive report. I thank you all very much—John, Joel, Miriam and the team—for all of your hard work. We couldn't have done it without you.
Pensions and Benefits | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to provide support for some of Australia's most vulnerable people rather than punishing them?
Women In Sport | Statements by Members | House debates
When women play sport we are tough, strong, daring, determined, graceful, athletic, skilled, tactical and leaders. When Australian women play sport on the world stage we are winners. Last week...
When women play sport we are tough, strong, daring, determined, graceful, athletic, skilled, tactical and leaders. When Australian women play sport on the world stage we are winners. Last week the Australian women's cricket team, ranked No. 1 in the world, retained the Ashes. Last night the Matildas gave a masterclass in soccer resilience, teamwork, skills and tactics to progress to round 16 of the World Cup. Today in England the Diamonds are undoubtedly going to continue their undefeated run at the Netball World Cup. These victories are nothing new for Australian sportswomen. They have dominated courts, pools, pitches, gymnasiums, tracks, ovals and diamonds for all the time that Australia has played sport. But we haven't always received the attention, funding and support that female athletes deserve. We can feel that changing, but there is much more to do. We need equal pay and support for women to be coaches, managers, umpires, referees, CEOs, chairs and presidents not only of their own clubs but of their sons' and husbands' clubs as well. We need women's sport to be on free-to-air TV to inspire boys, girls, men and women alike. But, for today, let's celebrate what we have achieved and what our soccer and netball legends are about to achieve, making us all proud on the world stage.
Workforce Australia Employment Services Select Committee; Report | Committees | House debates
I'm really pleased to speak on this thorough and considered report of the committee chaired by the member for Bruce because, like many people in this chamber, I have constituents whose experience...
I'm really pleased to speak on this thorough and considered report of the committee chaired by the member for Bruce because, like many people in this chamber, I have constituents whose experience with ParentsNext was terrible—not just unsatisfactory but terrible. I want to start by quoting from the foreword by the member for Bruce, where he says: The Australian Government has a responsibility to support and empower parents to achieve full social and economic participation. This is not merely a moral imperative, but an economic priority. ParentsNext grew out of earlier efforts to help young teenage parents, and then highly disadvantaged single mums with positive net outcomes. The Committee's conclusion is that the continuation of a 'program' (we say pre-vocational service) to support vulnerable parents is essential. ParentsNext, however, is now locked into a punitive frame and does too much harm for the good it also does. Unfortunately, the positive experiences were overshadowed by evidence of harms caused by onerous participation requirements and a harsh compliance regime. The Committee also heard that the program has an undue focus on paid employment, which may not be appropriate for many parents who have made the reasonable choice to focus on caring for their young children. I read out those two paragraphs because I couldn't agree with them more. In my opinion, they sum up the problems with the ParentsNext program, although I would add to that last sentence, where it says, 'the undue focus on paid employment … may not be appropriate for many parents who have made the reasonable choice to focus on caring for their young children', that it's also not appropriate for young parents who made the decision to focus on their education. In my electorate of Dunkley, we're very proud of a program that I've previously spoken about in this place, called the Young Parents Program, which started in February 2013. It started as a community partnership co-funded by Anglicare's Communities for Children and Chisholm Institute, and it now also has federal funding. It's delivered by the Frankston Mornington Peninsula Local Learning & Employment Network as the lead agency, which is where the federal funding comes from. The Young Parents Program is tailored to meet the needs of young parents, young mothers and young women between 15 and 25 years of age who have disengaged from secondary education and have done so not entirely because but predominantly because they've got pregnant and had a child, often at the tender age of 15 or 16. The young people who are involved either have a child up to four years of age or are expecting a child. I've been there many times. Some of them have two children. But what the Young Parents Program does is allow the parents and the children to share the same space—it has child care there—with the support of three program staff: an educator, an early childhood educator and a family support worker. The participants are funded for two years of attendance in the program, where they are able to complete their VCE with a vocational major, the qualification at either year 11 or year 12 level. That is a commitment to their future and their children's future by re-engaging in education. We know that there's almost nothing more important for a young person's future than engagement in education, and that's the same if you're a young person who also happens to be a mother. I know a number of the young women who are part of this program and who have graduated, and it has given them confidence. It has empowered them to know that they can be good mothers as well as learn, get jobs, and succeed in their own right. Just a few weeks ago, I went to the open day. A number of the young women there have become nurses. They have finished TAFE courses to become enrolled nurses, which, when you think of where they were when they were 15 or 16, is an extraordinary achievement. What I've also had to do, though, for some of the young women in that program is negotiate with ParentsNext on their behalf. There was a particular young woman who was exited from the ParentsNext program—and exited from all of her support payments—because she was at the Young Parents Program getting her education and missed appointments with ParentsNext. So, as a result of taking the decision to further her education and further herself and the life of her young child, she was exited from ParentsNext. It was extraordinary. Finally, she had to come to my office with the help of the Young Parents Program because she was desperate for that financial support that had been taken away from her in a completely punitive way. How was she to survive? For me, that is an example of what the committee chair talked about in his foreword to the interim report, in which he said that ParentsNext is 'locked into a punitive frame and does too much harm for the good it also does'. Undoubtedly, there have been participants for whom ParentsNext has been a godsend, and there is no doubt that programs to assist young parents, particularly young mothers, to get education or training and to be in the workforce are important. It's just about how they're designed and how they're implemented. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that not only did the parliamentary committee recommend getting rid of ParentsNext and replacing it but that the economic inclusion committee also recommended that the government abolish the ParentsNext program and send its resources 'to a co-designed set of voluntary support programs for vulnerable families, particularly low-income parents with young children who want to re-enter the workforce or access more financially secure employment'. It further recommended that voluntary support programs 'should be designed with a fully funded evaluation strategy, to inform ongoing service improvements'. Those recommendations are pretty redolent of the recommendations in the committee's report. The women's equality task force also recommended abolishing the ParentsNext program. I'm very pleased to say that that is absolutely what the Albanese Labor government—through Senator Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women, and Tony Burke, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—have committed to do. That's because women around the country have stories similar to the one that I've just told about the program being punitive, counterproductive and causing harm. I'm very proud to be part of a government that committed to listening to women's experiences, committed to making decisions that make women's lives better and fairer and that empower women to have opportunities—a government that is not only listening but is then taking the next step and introducing policies to allow that to happen and getting rid of programs that stop it. From 1 July 2024, ParentsNext will be no longer, and, from 5 May this year, all compulsory requirements for participants in ParentsNext were paused. This is a government that listens, cares and acts, and I'm confident that, with a properly designed replacement for ParentsNext and with a government that listens, cares and acts, never again will a young woman who is doing all that she can to get her education, while also looking after her young child, be exited from support programs that should help her do that.
Education | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to close the education gap, which has worsened over the last decade, and why is closing that gap...
My question is to the Minister for Education. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to close the education gap, which has worsened over the last decade, and why is closing that gap so important?
National Cultural Policy | Private Members' Business | House debates
Last weekend, I went to the matinee performance of the Mount Eliza Community Pantomime's Cinderella. It was extraordinary. It has to be said that I don't think I'll ever look at Reverend Cameron...
Last weekend, I went to the matinee performance of the Mount Eliza Community Pantomime's Cinderella. It was extraordinary. It has to be said that I don't think I'll ever look at Reverend Cameron McAdam the same way again, having seen his performance in the pantomime! What was extraordinary was not just the talent of people from Dunkley and further down the peninsula who were performing in the pantomime; it was the level of interaction and sheer joy from the children and the adults that were in the crowd. It took one instance of a character looking out into the crowd and saying, 'Yes, I am,' for the kids to work out that they had to say, 'No, you're not,' in response. It took one slightly ribald innuendo for the parents and other the people, like me and my husband, to work out that there was going to be enough in the performance to keep the adults entertained as well. What it all added up to was a feeling of community—a feeling of engagement, belonging and people being there to be part of something together. To me, that's what the arts and culture mean. Sure, sometimes they mean going to a gallery or a performance in the city at the arts centre. But more often than not arts and culture mean being part of a joyous exhibition, pantomime, play or live music performance in your local community with others who are either indulging in their hobby or performing in their profession in a way that makes you feel connected to the rest of the community. To me, that's why our new national cultural policy, Revive, is so important. It acknowledges the different roles for the arts and culture. It recognises that portfolios other than the arts are intrinsically involved and use the arts and culture to benefit communities. When last month the Department of Social Services announced more than a million dollars in funding for arts projects, one might have thought, 'Why?' It was because these arts projects serve policy objectives in that portfolio. It's funding for projects to support young people aged 12 to 18 years, people with disability and mental health issues, vulnerable women or unemployed people to express themselves and to get capabilities, confidence and engagement. One of the grants went to Big hART for a First Nations program for youth aged 12 to 18 in outback Western Australia—a long way from Dunkley. But in Dunkley Big hART have run Project O, which was a project for young women in Frankston North to understand that they could be leaders and change not just their lives but the lives of others around them and their community. It's a program about resilience, strength and leadership, and it's an arts program. That's the sort of funding that will come under Revive, which is so important for communities. The terrific Special Envoy for the Arts spoke about visiting services for people with disability and how the arts have the power to fundamentally change people's lives and build a stronger, more inclusive society. We see that with BAM Arts in my electorate. More than once I've tried to keep up with the dance moves of Buster and other adults with intellectual disabilities and have failed—as the video, which my staff may have put up online, would show. It's just sheer joy and engagement from the parents and the adults who perform at BAM. Recently, BAM graciously invited the minister to come and talk to locals about the value of the arts. One of the things that came out of a roundtable I held was the need for better community theatres and facilities in my electorate so that community groups could put on performances like Strictly Ballroom, which is coming up. I will be working with the community to get those facilities as fast as we can.