Anne Webster's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Jonceski, Mr Ljupco (Luch) | Condolences | House debates
Yes—impromptu. I do want to speak about Luch, because, when I first came to Parliament House in 2019, it was Luch, and his friendliness and his warmth, welcoming me as a new MP—Luch...
Yes—impromptu. I do want to speak about Luch, because, when I first came to Parliament House in 2019, it was Luch, and his friendliness and his warmth, welcoming me as a new MP—Luch just had that beautiful personality that was open to everyone and friendly towards everyone and just wanted to be helpful. I agree with the minister's characterisation of Luch but also of every attendant in this House and all those who serve us. You know, we, sometimes, get a little bit precious about how important we are. We're elected; that's true. But we couldn't do what we do without the support of the people who work in this House, and every one of them is valued. I always think about the culture that is developed here, and the fact that it doesn't matter whether we're from opposition parties, or whether we're walking beside someone, or someone's coming towards us who might the cleaner for the day—everyone is friendly; everyone treats one another with respect. It is a real delight, and it's an enormous privilege to work in this House, to represent the people of my electorate in Mallee, but also for every MP—and senator, to be fair—to work in this House, for the people of Australia. I think people don't understand, and I was very interested to hear the minister say just then, that this House is 38 years old. It's still kind of feels new to me, and that has to do with the upkeep and the care, and the fact that people do take their jobs very seriously here. Once again, I would just thank every person who serves in this House. They're not just doing a job; they are supporting the democracy of Australia. And it is a wonderful thing for us to be involved in and a true privilege.
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Aged Care | Statements by Members | House debates
This Labor government said they would put the care back into aged care, but instead they are blithely presiding over an aged-care crisis. Every week, I am contacted by Mallee locals who are worse...
This Labor government said they would put the care back into aged care, but instead they are blithely presiding over an aged-care crisis. Every week, I am contacted by Mallee locals who are worse off under the new aged-care system that commenced on 1 November 2025. Older people in my electorate in Mallee are paying more for services and getting less out of their packages. It's not only this; distressed Mallee constituents are reaching out to me appalled that their loved ones cannot get the home care they need and deserve. The wait time for an aged care assessment has doubled in the period from 2021 under the coalition to 2025 under this Labor government, with too many people waiting up to six months just to get an assessment. It's worse than that; older people are waiting up to two months for any form of reply from My Aged Care. It's like ringing up and not getting a call back. Amazingly, one residential aged-care provider in my electorate reports having empty beds due to the lack of assessments being done. Then we must talk about the time from approval, once the assessment has taken place, to access granted. It has doubled, increasing from four months in 2023-24 to almost eight months on average, with many waiting a year. One elderly resident from Murrayville waited for more than two years to be able to access the Commonwealth Home Support Services she was assessed as eligible for. This is a very unamusing joke on behalf of an inept Labor government. Service providers covering this lady's area have no capacity. Sadly, during that time, her husband passed away. This is not an uncommon story in the regions, where people are literally waiting years before accessing services. My constituents just can't understand why they are being left behind. COTA, the consumer group, and Ageing. Australia have come out swinging, saying that urgent action on home-care packages is required and that no-one should ever have to wait more than 30 days for the care they need. I wish that for my constituents. Under Labor, they are waiting six months for an assessment and eight months to access services, with many waiting longer—especially, where I live. Our older Australians have given so much and deserve the dignity of support in their own home and in a timely manner.
Sunraysia Softball Association | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise today to pay tribute to the Sunraysia Softball Association in my electorate of Mallee. It was a great privilege to attend this event on Saturday. The community gathered to honour dedicated...
I rise today to pay tribute to the Sunraysia Softball Association in my electorate of Mallee. It was a great privilege to attend this event on Saturday. The community gathered to honour dedicated volunteers and supporters, who contribute so much to our local communities. We remembered with deep respect late life member Peter Wade, whose legacy of service continues to inspire. His contribution to local sports are well known, and Judy, his wife, was present to share the tribute. He will not be forgotten. I was pleased to congratulate Megan Hammond, the current president, on her well-deserved induction as a life member for decades of outstanding commitment. To every sponsor and every volunteer who coaches, umpires, maintains the fields, organises and cheers, thank you. You are the backbone of this association. In our regional communities, sporting clubs like Sunraysia Softball do far more than teach the game. They keep families active and healthy, forge lifelong friendships, provide opportunities for young people and build the social capital that makes regional towns great places to live, work and raise a family. Community sport is the glue that binds us. I commend the Sunraysia Softball Association.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move: (1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add: 37 Application of amendments (1) The amendments made by this Schedule apply only if a declaration under subitem...
I move: (1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add: 37 Application of amendments (1) The amendments made by this Schedule apply only if a declaration under subitem (2) is in force. (2) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, declare that the amendments made by this Schedule apply on and after a day, or throughout a period, specified in the declaration. (3) However, the Minister may make a declaration under subitem (2) only if: (a) a trial of nurse prescriber treatments (within the meaning of the National Health Act 1953) is conducted in at least one State or Territory; and (b) after the end of the trial, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia conducts a review of the trial; and (c) the review demonstrates a suitably supportive evidence base for the safety and effectiveness of the amendments made by this Schedule. I rise to speak to the amendment circulated in my name to the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill seeks to enable eligibility for PBS rebates for medications prescribed by a new category of prescribers, 'authorised registered nurse prescribers'. It acknowledges the essential role nurses play in our health system, especially in the regions, and the important work they do. It also acknowledges that nurses are the largest component of the health system and the most well-distributed workforce in regional Australia. The Nationals want to see improved access to health care and progress for the nursing profession and for multidisciplinary care more generally. However, I am moving an amendment because implementation of new policy must have appropriate testing to ensure it is safe, effective and won't have unintended consequences. The Nationals have two key concerns. The bill is not evidence based, as it fails to follow normal processes where testing of any new model of care occurs in a state or territory in Australia prior to the application of PBS rebates, and this bill does not have a funding model to enable registered nurse prescribers to work in primary care as no funding model or structure has been developed. It is important to differentiate the new RN prescriber model from existing master's qualified nurse practitioners who are autonomous prescribers. My amendment is that this legislation should not be enacted until there has been a trial or pilot of this new model of nurse prescribing in a state or territory which is then reviewed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia to ensure suitability and a supportive evidence base for safety and effectiveness of the model. This is about following due process, ensuring accountability and transparency for Australian consumers and making good use of Commonwealth funds. There must be clear evidence that any new model of nurse prescribing will improve access to high-quality care, especially in the regions, and will not have negative unintended consequences for patient safety or continuity of care. RN nurse prescribers will still require an autonomous prescriber in primary care, such as a GP or a nurse practitioner, to oversee that prescriber. The problem is that there are not enough GPs or nurse practitioners in the regions now. How is this going to work? The process of a nurse practitioner gaining PBS access was debated in the late 2000s, and nurse practitioners had already been prescribing under state and territory law for many years from the mid- to late-1990s. Governments, therefore, had real world prescribing data, independent evaluations, patient outcome studies and safety audits. These formed the evidence base for Commonwealth reform which enabled PBS access to commence from 2010, though restricted. Major reforms to PBS access for nurse practitioners have occurred only very recently. PBS access for nurse practitioners was based on extensive safety and effectiveness evidence in states and territories. That evidence was synthesised nationally. It directly informed the Commonwealth's decision to grant PBS access in 2010. PBS access was therefore an evidence based policy decision, not simply a political concession. While it arguably took many years too long, PBS access for nurse practitioners was a thoroughly evidence based policy decision, and this amendment seeks that the same evidence base be produced before implementation of the bill currently under consideration. I urge the House to support this amendment.
Cost of Living | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
It's $7 in the Hunter. There you go. The member for Hunter probably knows. The fact is that people can't afford to go out to a cafe any more. If they want to purchase a meal at a pub, the price...
It's $7 in the Hunter. There you go. The member for Hunter probably knows. The fact is that people can't afford to go out to a cafe any more. If they want to purchase a meal at a pub, the price is through the roof. I know because I take my family to the pub. Then we go into all the subsidies. What drives this 13th rate increase? It comes because inflation is out of control. And guess what? It's on this Labor government's watch. It was not happening under the coalition. It is happening under this Labor government. They need to take responsibility for continually giving out subsidies. We've now got a new subsidy for EVs—another $50 million. 'That's not going to hurt anybody!' Yes it will, because it comes out of taxpayer pockets. The way this government spends money to make up for or to put a bandaid on what is a broken economy is appalling. It will only cost taxpayers more. It will only continue to see inflation rise. I actually feel a little sorry for the RBA and for its chair. These are the stories they have to keep coming out to tell the Australian people while trying not to annoy the current Labor government, which is where the responsibility needs to sit. Then we've got things like policies, great policies, like the gun buyback—$15 billion, Member for Hunter! Where's that going to come from? Oh, the Australian taxpayer. One more time: a terrible policy that was just simply a repeat of 1996, when John Howard was doing the right thing. Here we have a government and a Prime Minister who have made a decision for gun buybacks because he wanted to cover over a massacre that should never have happened on his watch. The fact is this government is responsible. It needs to take responsibility. We will continue to work to make it take that responsibility seriously.
This MPI is about the government's reckless agenda, which is driving up the cost of living for Australian families. It's not actually a question. It is a statement that the policies that this...
This MPI is about the government's reckless agenda, which is driving up the cost of living for Australian families. It's not actually a question. It is a statement that the policies that this government has brought in since 2022 are hurting Australian families. When families are paying, on a $500,000 mortgage, $23,000 more since Labor have come into office, that hurts. That hurts families. We have more families who cannot even think about purchasing a home because the housing market can't give them a home at a price they can afford. The policies that this government has implemented are hurting Australian families. When they go to the supermarket—I'm not going to say the names. When they go to any supermarket, the prices that they're paying for eggs and for bread and for milk and for all the ordinary daily needs of a family are through the roof. Sixteen per cent is the current figure. Then you add in the electricity costs. Electricity is something that people need. In our society, people need electricity. Costs are up 40 per cent—40 per cent! How is that reasonable? For the government—from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—to go on with the hubris and the arrogance that we've listened to today, it shows that they are all, every one of them, singing from the same hymn sheet: 'Not our fault. Not our fault. Don't look at us. It was actually those 10 years of waste and deficit.' It's 'the dog ate my homework'. This government needs to take responsibility. They've been in government for four years. When are they going to take responsibility? Australian families are hurting. Whether it's paying school fees, whether it's putting fuel into their cars, it doesn't matter which way they go. They can't afford to live. A cup of coffee in 2022 was $4. How much is it now? It's $6 for the average latte, and that's a small one.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The Prime Minister has been at pains to tell us repeatedly that the only card that we need take to a medical appointment is the Medicare card. He's told us that the Labor government's changes to...
The Prime Minister has been at pains to tell us repeatedly that the only card that we need take to a medical appointment is the Medicare card. He's told us that the Labor government's changes to incentivise bulk-billing would make primary health care free to all those who need it. But across Mallee my constituents are lucky if they can get an appointment with a GP at all, let alone not pay a gap fee. The average GP gap fee, or out-of-pocket cost, is now over $50. The national out-of-pocket GP costs have more than doubled, from $780 million in 2021-22 to $1.66 billion in 2023-24. Out-of-pocket costs have risen steadily across all socioeconomic areas according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Bulk-billing, under the coalition, was at 88.9 per cent in 2021. Despite Labor rhetoric, it has fallen. In 2024-25, the latest figures, it was 77.6 per cent. That's an 11 per cent drop in bulk-billing. The fact is remote, outer regional and inner regional areas have lower bulk-billing rates than major cities. So your Medicare card is not all that you need, Prime Minister. That is another fabrication from this arrogant and secretive Labor government. This is a government that is all about the headline or the catchy three-second hook on social media to halt the doomscroll but not so much about doing the hard yards and policy grunt work to make lasting change. The Nationals' perspective on health care, the Mallee experience—when I asked my electorate of Mallee late last year about their biggest concerns, I received more than 5,300 responses, with Mallee residents telling me their No. 1 priority was better hospitals and access to health care. When asked about primary health care, the top concern of my constituents was wait times to see a doctor, followed by out-of-pocket costs and then wait times to see allied health professionals. Health care access and affordability is front of mind for my constituents and regional Australians more broadly. But this Labor government is forever letting them down and putting their needs out of sight and out of mind. The Nationals want to rectify the poorer health status of regional Australians, a status driven in large part by poorer access to health services. Rural and remote Australians have higher morbidity and mortality rates than those in major cities. This is a known fact. In very remote areas potentially avoidable deaths are 2.8 times higher than in major cities. Rural Australians receive less service delivery per capita despite higher need and worse outcomes. How is this okay? This Labor government promised to govern for all Australians, but clearly they are not for rural Australians. The National Rural Health Alliance published a study in August last year which showed that less money is being spent per person in rural and remote regions than in the city. In 2021, the spend was $848 less per person than for city people. But it gets worse. The latest available data suggests that this underspend has blown out to over $1,000 per person in regional and remote areas. Poorer health access is driven in large part by the lack of health workforce in the regions. Here are the facts. In 2023, small rural towns had the lowest number of GPs and specialists per capita. But it's not just GPs and specialists. Small rural towns also have less than half the allied health workforce per capita that major cities have. The Nationals are committed to supporting regional communities and driving policies and programs that will improve the health status of regional Australians. In the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025, the Labor government says it is trying to address healthcare accessibility issues due to workforce challenges by expanding the scope of practice of registered nurses. Nurses are the largest component of the health workforce in Australia. There were 329,000 registered nurses in 2024 compared to 122,000 doctors, making up just over 44 per cent of the total health workforce. There are more nurses in small rural towns, remote areas and very remote areas than any other kind of practitioner. It is great to focus on and support nurses. I have a daughter who is a nurse. We know they do wonderful work and they are the bedrock of our health system. The problem with this bill is that having a new category of nurse, nurse prescribers, provide pharmaceutical benefit schedules is not evidence based. It's not evidence based policy making nor is it addressing the core issues driving poor access to health care and core health outcomes, particularly in regional Australia. This is lazy policy making, driven by this government's blind allegiance to Labor state governments with abysmal fiscal restraint and failing health systems who, no doubt, want to employ authorised nurse prescribers in urgent care clinics in cities and larger regional centres. Labor are seeking quick wins with little effort to address policy complexity. What will this bill seek to do? It seeks to grant eligibility for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme rebates on medications prescribed by a new category of prescribers—authorised nurse prescribers. The government's proposed authorised nurse prescribers will be registered nurses with additional training who work in a collaborative arrangement with an autonomous prescriber, a professional who can already prescribe independently. Now, that means GPs and nurse practitioners. Our position as the Nationals on this bill is cautious. We are cautious about the legislation due to the lack of real world testing of this model in Australia and, therefore, the lack of robust evidence. Applications for registered nurses to become endorsed for prescribing were only declared open last month via the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia under national law. The first prescribers are anticipated under this new arrangement from mid-2026—so we're talking July onwards—but require additional changes to state and territory laws. I want to point out, though, that the usual process is that states or territories run a trial or a pilot first on a new prescribing model without PBS eligibility, to ensure the model is tested and safe. A state or territory trial has not happened. Therefore, the clinical governance, safety and responsibility framework of this new system is untested. It needs to be tested before it is supported by Commonwealth taxpayer funds. I also want to highlight that the time difference between endorsement for prescribing and PBS rebate access has generally been lengthy for other prescriber groups, so who knows when nurse prescribers will be able to prescribe with PBS rebates. A pilot program should occur within a state or territory without PBS rebates before national rollout of PBS rebates. That is a responsible approach that this government just has not looked at. Secondly, there is currently no funding mechanism to adequately remunerate these authorised nurse prescribers in primary care settings, which is where they are actually needed. Medicare does not currently fund this approach, and the Workforce Incentive Program, commonly known as WIP, and the Practice Incentive program, PIP, are not adequate or appropriate to fund this model of care. If registered nurses who have engaged in additional study to gain endorsement for prescribing cannot be appropriately remunerated, they will not work in primary health settings. If the services of authorised nurse prescribers are not affordable—in other words, if people have to pay out of pocket—patients simply won't seek them out. Funding mechanisms for this proposed model need to be determined and tested before PBS eligibility is rolled out. This bill is putting the horse before the cart. Who would have thought? Thirdly, the Nationals are sceptical because this bill does not address key drivers of poor access to health care and health status in the regions, including the lack of a primary healthcare workforce with the ability to prescribe autonomously—that is, GPs and nurse practitioners who will oversee the work of authorised nurse prescribers. If you don't have enough GPs and you don't have enough nurse practitioners out in the regions, how is this program actually going to benefit the regions? I would argue it won't. The funding models do not adequately meet the financial pressures of primary health care in the regions or facilitate the provision of multidisciplinary care. We're talking about block funding. ACCHOs and NACCHOs have block funding. The only way that this government can ensure that this rollout will work is under a state funded basis, under public health. I don't think Australians want to have their choice removed. And so the funding mechanism itself must be sorted out, along with the governance of this program. Fourthly, this legislation risks adding to the workload of the limited primary healthcare workforce in regional Australia, adding strain rather than bringing in and training up a workforce who can autonomously assess, diagnose and treat with medications on its own. This negative unintended consequence has not been considered. The Albanese Labor government has made repeated decisions that disadvantage regional Australians when it comes to health care, especially primary health care, including changing the Distribution Priority Area rules that govern where overseas doctors have to work when they come to Australia, making it possible for them to choose to work in metropolitan areas and large regional centres at the expense of rural and remote areas. This was the very first decision that the Minister for Health made, funnelling excessive amounts of money into inefficient and costly urgent care centres in metropolitan areas and large regional centres but unwilling to address the specific needs of rural towns and remote areas, who are rarely served by these clinics. It is a metro-centric approach—make no mistake. The Labor government has also failed to tackle the desperate need for complex funding change in primary health care in regional Australia that would incentivise the provision of multidisciplinary health care in small rural towns and remote areas and appropriately address the higher cost of providing care in these regions. They are failing to address a need and evidence base for end-to-end training of medical and other health professionals in the regions to grow our own workforce. In conclusion, the Nationals are all for positive changes in our health system that will improve access to high-quality care when and where people need it. I acknowledge the essential role nurses play in our health system, especially in our regions, and the very, very important work that they do. But I will always advocate for evidence based policy that is set up to succeed and to address the core issues that my constituents are concerned about. This bill is lazy. It is politically driven policy that does not address the root causes of the problems in our health system. It has not been tested and is being set up to fail.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I do note the Prime Minister's comments that, as people around Australia raise a glass in a pub, the price won't go up for the next two years. If it were only dependent on this excise freezing,...
I do note the Prime Minister's comments that, as people around Australia raise a glass in a pub, the price won't go up for the next two years. If it were only dependent on this excise freezing, that would be one thing, but we know that wages have gone up. We know that electricity has gone up. We know that the cost of living continues to rise under this government, so beer will go up. It's just the excise that will be frozen for the next two years. We commend this bill. We support this bill, but we think it should go further. We think it should actually include—and I endorse the member for Cowper's amendments that will be asking for or recommending that we also freeze the excise on spirits in pubs, hotels and clubs. Our pubs and our clubs do incredible work in our community. They really become the beehive, if you like, of social connection for so many people. Whether it's sporting clubs or whether it's families wanting to go out for a cheap meal, it's no longer cheap. I'm just stating the facts. When I take my family out, I can assure you, it costs me well over a hundred and something dollars—sometimes $200—just to go to a pub meal. To pretend that this excise freeze for the next two years is going to solve all the problems is complete and utter rubbish, and every Australian knows it. I think about the cost of coffee. When Labor came to government in 2022, the cost of a cup of coffee or a latte at your favourite cafe, which we all enjoy, was around $4. Now, we're paying $6 for a cup of coffee. 'Nothing to see here,' says the Labor government. 'Nothing to see here,' says the Prime Minister. Let's just talk about freezing the excise on pouring beer in pubs. Don't get me wrong, I support absolutely that our pubs and clubs need this support. They need more support than that though, and this government is absolutely not supplying it. I don't want to talk about every pub in my electorate, because, believe you me, there are far too many. I'm bound to leave out about, I don't know, 250 or 300, so I'm not going to name any, but I certainly have my and my family's favourite places to go. They are very, very valuable small businesses. Largely, they are small businesses, who are doing it so tough. Whether it's red tape, whether it is the cost of producing anything thanks to energy price rises or whether it's wage increases or regulation more generally, it is tougher to run a small business now. Who do we thank for that? The government of the day. I support this bill and I support the amendments that the member for Cowper is going to make, and I'm going to leave it there.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
It's with profound sorrow that I rise today to speak about the horrific events of 15 December at Bondi Beach and to acknowledge the grieving family members who have been in this House. Bondi...
It's with profound sorrow that I rise today to speak about the horrific events of 15 December at Bondi Beach and to acknowledge the grieving family members who have been in this House. Bondi Beach is an iconic Australian landmark that should symbolise joy, freedom and unity. Instead, it became the scene of unimaginable tragedy. Fifteen innocent lives were stolen by Islamic extremists driven by hatred and intent on inflicting maximum harm. This was not just an attack on Jews; it was an attack on every Australian and our way of life. It was the worst terrorist atrocity in Australia's history, and it has shaken every one of us to the core. What happened that day is utterly unthinkable. Families who had gathered to celebrate Hanukkah, a festival of light and hope, were gunned down in cold blood—children, parents and grandparents all targeted simply because of who they are: Jewish Australians. We watched in horror as the news unfolded, moving from disbelief to grief and then to haunting questions. How could this happen here? Why such hatred? Who could commit such evil? This is not Australia. This is not the nation I grew up in and that we cherish. Since 7 October 2023 antisemitism has surged alarmingly across our country. We have seen Jewish Australians harassed, threatened and vilified; homes graffitied; cars and synagogues firebombed; and businesses coerced into closure. Synagogues and schools and childcare centres have been forced to tighten security as fear grips the community. Our fellow Australians, our neighbours, our friends, now feel like strangers in their own home. It is disgraceful, it is unacceptable and it must stop. Equally disturbing are the scenes of aggressive mobs in our streets, celebrating violence, chanting hatred. This is not free speech. This is incitement. It corrodes the very fabric of our society. When any group is targeted, whether for their faith, ethnicity or identity, it is an attack on all Australians. We cannot and must not stand by, because the standard we walk by is the standard we accept. Islamic extremism must stop. Neo-Nazism must stop. Antisemitism must be eradicated. We owe it to every Australian to ensure that our country is a place of safety, acceptance and peace. To every Jewish Australian and to every family shattered by the Bondi Beach attack, I extend my deepest condolences. Your grief is our grief. Your fear is fear. Australia is your home. You belong here. You deserve to live free from terror, free from hatred and free from fear. As Australians we are bound together by our shared humanity and our commitment to justice. Let us say with one voice: never again, not here, not anywhere.
Mallee Electorate: Energy | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise to express my great pride in the farmers of Mallee. They are facing an uphill battle right now. They have the Victorian government and their tentacle subgroup TCV, Transmission Company...
I rise to express my great pride in the farmers of Mallee. They are facing an uphill battle right now. They have the Victorian government and their tentacle subgroup TCV, Transmission Company Victoria, coming onto farms. Well, that's what they want to do; they want to enter farms. Instead we have farmers standing inside the fence saying, 'Access denied.' Access is denied to TCV and to the Victorian government for seeking to railroad my communities. These farmers are on the edge of harvest. They are literally about to start harvest. We also hear in this space that we have Chinese made brake pads with asbestos in them. Asbestos is illegal. It is illegal to bring it into Australia. But here we have companies all over Australia who are bringing in wind turbines with asbestos as part of the works of each turbine, creating biosecurity hazards, I would suggest. I'm not an engineer, but, if a wind turbine goes on fire, what happens with that asbestos? There is food growing under these turbines. It is an absolute disgrace that the Labor government has allowed these turbines to come into Australia with no checks and balances. What is going on is that these products are all over Australia now, by the thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands. Renewables absolutely cost farmers. I have farmers in my electorate, and I'll name a few of them: Andrew Weidemann, Ross Johns, Julie Weir, Marcia McIntyre, Ben Duxson and Gerald Feeny. All of these farmers and the myriad that are coming to support them are standing at the gate, stopping TCV coming in. Now, TCV don't actually have court orders to be able to enter the properties. They have no right. But, I tell you what, they're intimidating and they're bullying our farmers. It is outrageous—at the beginning of harvest. We hear today that the Victorian government have put out a consultation about the five new RESes—I think there are six now—doubling the gigawatt hours that they require to put on farmland. Seriously? That's a consultation over a harvest period right through to February, when farmers are at their busiest and they are tired, and now they have to do what we know already is a sham consultation. It is a disgrace. Both the federal Labor government and the Victorian Labor government should be held to account, and that's what we are doing on this side of the House.
Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise this afternoon to speak about the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. As the member for Mallee and the shadow minister for regional development, I emphasise...
I rise this afternoon to speak about the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. As the member for Mallee and the shadow minister for regional development, I emphasise how agriculture—particularly horticulture in Mallee—relies on migrant workers. Workforce shortages are a fact of life in regional Australia, and Mallee is no exception. Businesses in Sunraysia—in Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill—and even further south in the Wimmera, in Horsham and beyond, need migrant workers, especially during seasonal peaks in workload. Without these migrant workers, our region would not be the productive powerhouse that it is. Speaking of which, tonight, at the Australian Export Awards, Select Harvests from Wemen are up for the Regional Exporter award for 2025. They are a finalist, and I will be there cheering them on. They are a local success story, with a $116 million turnaround last year and record sales—the best almond prices they have ever received. I come to this debate familiar with the migration portfolio area, having been the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the 47th Parliament. I worked closely, in a healthy and bipartisan way, with the then-chair and now retired Labor member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou. I was proud to take the migration committee for a public hearing in Robinvale, in my electorate, in May 2023 to contribute to the committee's report, Migration, pathway to nation building. We met with the council for the Robinvale area, the Swan Hill Rural City Council, and with horticultural businesses and associations. Key themes we heard in that hearing were the following. Workforce shortages were structural, not temporary, and regional industries—including agriculture, horticulture, food processing, health, aged care, transport and hospitality—were facing acute labour shortages. Employers consistently reported they could not fill roles locally, even after advertising widely. Labour shortages were a constraint on business viability, productivity and regional economic growth. In many regions, migration wasn't optional but essential. Regional communities were increasingly reliant on migrant labour to sustain essential industries. Witnesses emphasised that many sectors could not operate without migrant workers. Migrants were not only filling low skilled seasonal jobs; they were also filling critical skilled roles as nurses, doctors, mechanics, food processing specialists and farm supervisors. The migration system was not well designed for regional labour realities. Employers described the system as slow, complex, costly and highly bureaucratic. Small and regional businesses were especially disadvantaged compared to large city employers. Existing safeguards were failing too many workers. Attraction without retention is a revolving door, and reform should prioritise transparency, fairness, regional needs and long-term settlement. Key findings of the 2024 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration,Migration, pathway to nation building, showed that migration is a nation-building tool that needs a long-term, long-range strategy, not a piecemeal policy. Migration should strengthen Australia's skills base and economic capacity. Migration policy must help sustain regional population and workforce needs. The current system is too complex, slow and difficult to navigate. Temporary migration should feed into stable and permanent nation-building outcomes. A fair system must protect vulnerable workers while maintaining integrity. Migration success depends on integration, not just arrival. Policy should be grounded in measurable outcomes and future workforce planning. There are other issues across Mallee related to the migrant workforce. I note that the United Workers Union, the UWU, has a vested interest in trying to recruit migrant workers. There are stories of the UWU travelling to neighbouring Pacific countries and hauling people in to their unions before they even arrive in the country. The ABS has an inability to devise a way to count the seasonal workforce and the population of visa overstayers in the census in Robinvale. This results in a significant underestimation of the demands on local services and infrastructure and makes local planning and obtaining adequate funding incredibly difficult. The background to that story is that, in the ABS, Robinvale has a population of around 4,000. In real terms, through other research, we know that the population is around 11,000. That creates a phenomenal problem, in terms of the health workforce, health workforce needs and health needs generally—health services. It also creates a problem in terms of education. You can imagine that the infrastructure demands on that small community are extremely stretched because the workforce population is not counted. I know of one school in Robinvale where, when I went to visit them—this is a couple of years ago now—I asked what percentage of the students were from undocumented workers. They said that it was 25 per cent of the school. That's a problem in terms of meeting the needs of the students, the parents and the community itself. Across Mallee, and particularly in Sunraysia, there is an issue with some labour hire operators. It's fair to say that this bill will, if passed, provide the data to enable states and territories, who are responsible for regulating labour hire companies, to pick up bad and exploitative behaviour by rogue labour hire companies. Under this bill, labour hire companies will be the published sponsors. However, the limits of federal jurisdiction might come into play if there are labour hire subcontractors that actually contract out the workers. This is not to say that every labour hire contracting company is bad. I know of some excellent ones who, phenomenally, have a data platform, a technological platform, where workers can be matched so that farmers know that the person who is standing in front of them is actually the person who has the correct visa and that it is appropriate for them to be on that farm. I personally think investment should be made into these kinds of features—using our technology wisely. Let me explain why we as the coalition have problems with this bill and currently stand to oppose it. This bill fulfils the government's December 2023 pledge to improve transparency of approved sponsors, although it arrives nearly two years after the announcement. Time and again, we tend to grapple with whether the net is being cast so wide as to create red tape and disincentive for law-abiding people while trying to catch a particular undesirable species in the ecosystem. We do not want to deter small businesses from sponsoring for fear of their activities being disclosed on the register and therefore becoming targets. There are surely more bespoke, smarter ways to sort the wheat from the chaff. This is where the government would do well to publish draft regulations promptly and commit to disallowable legislative instruments in this space. There might be scope for regulation to target the real problems in this sector and not put the good apples in with the bad. The coalition is concerned about a number of holders of temporary visas that might be disclosed as sponsored by a particular employer. We have little information to tell us that the additional disclosure here will, within the Commonwealth's sphere of power, offer much by way of additional protection for migrant workers. Having said that, we acknowledge this legislation is intended to respond to well documented instances of wage theft and coercion in parts of the temporary skilled visa program. Again, I would state that this is not across the board. The coalition has long insisted on integrity and employer sponsorship of migrants. However, we believe this bill goes too far. The Department of Home Affairs already has robust monitoring and compliance measures in place and extensive information about sponsors' businesses. We are not yet convinced that this extra step is actually necessary. We need assurances that the Department of Home Affairs will maintain an efficient error-correction process to protect reputable firms. The register is only one element of an antiexploitation agenda. Stronger enforcement powers and whistleblower visa arrangements remain undelivered. We need an entire ecosystem change. But we in the Nationals know from regional Australia that, under Labor, farmers are increasingly demonised and talked about as rogue businesspeople. Whether it is the insinuation they exploit workers or the claim that their opposition to the renewables rollout is insincere and farmers are obstacles in the way, Labor is trying to divide city and country people like never before. Three times a day, Australians should thank a farmer for the food on their table if not also the shirt on their back. We see in this portfolio, energy and other portfolios a mentality that farmers are the enemy when they are the absolute foundation of our food security and our nation. That's one reason why I'm open-minded to how we ensure bills like this one adequately target the rogue elements like rogue labour-hire companies who bring industries into disrepute. In closing, it is clear that the challenges facing regional Australia are real and immediate. In electorates like mine, industries such as agriculture, horticulture, food processing, health, aged care, transport and hospitality are battling chronic workforce shortages that are structural, not seasonal or fleeting. Employers have told us time and time again that even after exhausting recruitment efforts they simply cannot secure the workers they need. Migrant labour is not an optional extra for regions like Mallee. It is fundamental to our productivity, economic strength and the continued viability of the communities that feed our nation and the world. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration's work in the 47th Parliament underscored the current migration system is not fit for purpose when it comes to regional realities. It is slow, complex and costly, particular for smaller employers who lack the resources of large metropolitan businesses. At the same time, some migrant workers remain vulnerable to exploitation, with insufficient flexibility and pathways to permanency. Our nation-building migration system must do better. It must strengthen Australia's skills base, support population sustainability in the regions, protect vulnerable workers and prioritise long-term settlement and integration, not just temporary arrivals. Migration policy should be strategic, coordinated and grounded in workforce planning, not piecemeal. Against that backdrop, the coalition cannot support this bill. While we are steadfast in our commitment to integrity and employer sponsorship, and acknowledge the need to combat wage theft and coercion, the government has failed to justify the public disclosure measures proposed here—particularly the publication of employer-level data on temporary visa numbers. Such disclosure risks exposing compliant employers to pressure and intimidation while offering little additional protection to workers beyond what existing monitoring powers already provide. Too much is left to regulation with no clarity on the safeguards or correction processes that reputable firms deserve. If the government is serious about protecting migrant workers, it should focus on delivering the stronger enforcement powers and whistleblower protections it has promised rather than imposing unnecessary and unproven public reporting requirements. For these reasons, the coalition opposes this bill.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert: (1A) To the extent that the report...
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert: (1A) To the extent that the report relates to the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the year of the report, the report must provide information about where that expenditure was incurred by reference to the following: (a) major cities of Australia; (b) inner regional Australia; (c) outer regional Australia; (d) remote Australia; (e) very remote Australia. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), after section 121FZO, insert: 121FZOA Publication of annual report (1) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection 121FZO(1), the ACMA must give a copy of the report to the Minister. (2) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report, upon which time it must be published on the ACMA website. This parliament is being asked to set the rules for a new era in Australian storytelling. For the first time, global streaming giants will have obligations to invest meaningfully in Australian content. This is welcome. But unless this parliament insists on proper transparency, we will never know whether those investments are genuinely supporting the breadth of Australia—not just the big cities, not just the same postcodes but all Australians wherever they live. My amendments are simple, practical and vital—transparency on where money is actually spent. My first amendment inserts subsection 121FZO(1)(1A). It requires streaming services, when they report their annual Australian program expenditure, to tell us where in Australia that money was spent—not vaguely, not selectively, but clearly and consistently—across the ABS remoteness categories, firstly major cities and then inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote Australia. This matters. Right now, we have no line of sight into whether Netflix, Stan, Disney +, Amazon and others are genuinely investing across the nation. We do not know whether regional creators, actors, crews and production companies, from Mildura to Mount Isa, from Shepparton to Alice Springs, are being given the opportunity to be part of this industry. Without transparency, there is no accountability. Regional Australians contribute to our culture, our creativity and our economy. They deserve to see themselves represented not just on-screen but in the opportunities created behind the camera. This amendment ensures that, when platforms spend their Australian content dollars, we will finally know whether regional Australians are included. My second amendment creates section 121FZOA, which requires ACMA to publish each annual expenditure report and requires the minister to table those reports in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. If streaming platforms are meeting their obligations, good—let the country see it. If they are not, then parliament, industry and the public should know. Transparency should not be optional. It should not be hidden behind bureaucracy. When companies operate in Australia, earn revenue in Australia and benefit from Australian audiences, they should be accountable to all Australians. And I emphasise that this is not red tape. This is not imposing any new financial burden on platforms. They already track expenditure. My amendment simply requires them to share where it is spent and requires the regulator and the minister to ensure those reports see the light of day. Australian content is more than entertainment; it is how we see ourselves, how our children understand their place in the world and how we preserve our unique culture in the face of overwhelming global media dominance. But, if Australian content is to be truly national, genuinely reflective of who we are, then regional and remote Australians must not be left behind. Creativity does not stop at the edge of a capital city. We have world-class talent right across this country. We have breathtaking landscapes, vibrant communities and compelling stories that deserve a platform. Transparency ensures that that opportunity is spread, not concentrated. These are commonsense amendments. They strengthen accountability, ensure transparency, empower regional Australians and improve this bill without adding unnecessary burden on industry. I commend the amendments to the House and urge the members to support clear, open reporting so that all Australians, from the cities to the bush, benefit from the streaming and screen industries of the future—and I certainly hope that the Leader of the House supports these amendments.
Disability Services | Statements by Members | House debates
I highlight an urgent situation for the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to address concerning specialist disability accommodation potentially ceasing to exist by 31...
I highlight an urgent situation for the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to address concerning specialist disability accommodation potentially ceasing to exist by 31 December, leaving vulnerable Australians homeless. Noreen is a constituent in my electorate of Mallee and is in her mid-80s. Noreen's son lives in a specialist disability accommodation service within my electorate. Noreen's son faces eviction from his specialist accommodation from 1 January due to the Commonwealth squabbling with the Victorian government, whose transitional funding ends this year for those like Noreen's son, who will soon rely exclusively on the NDIS for funding for their home—funding that doesn't go far enough for specialist homes. This feels like the government's aged-care bungling all over again. The Age reported in early September: Thousands of Victorians with profound disabilities face the prospect of eviction from their group homes and the loss of carers they have relied on for years due to a funding stand-off between private providers, the state and the federal government. Where is the minister responsible for this failed handover of accommodation and arrangements? This needs urgent attention.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise as the first shadow minister for regional communications in Australia—yet another principled position the Nationals took to ensure that, in the 21st century, there is a continuous...
I rise as the first shadow minister for regional communications in Australia—yet another principled position the Nationals took to ensure that, in the 21st century, there is a continuous focus on regional connectivity. This bill mandates the production of Australian content, and nothing is more Australian than regional Australia. From The Flying Doctors, filmed in my electorate of Mallee at Minyip, to Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, the star of the show has been the people and the landscapes of regional Australia. As we see the capital cities grow at breakneck pace under Labor governments—federal and state—I come to this debate with an unashamed and strong emphasis on regional Australians. That is why—and I foreshadow—I will be moving an amendment to ensure transparency on how much of the Australian production proposed through this bill will actually occur in regional Australia. Let's remember the regulatory space we have here. Our media regulations were made during the 20th century of television towers and antennas on roofs. Now, builders do not even put antennas on house builds. This is the 21st century, and regulation has not caught up to the reality where many Australians—if not the majority—are digesting the bulk of their news and entertainment over the internet through the NBN broadband internet, 5G, 4G or whatever else they use. Critically, regulation hasn't caught up to the fact that we have strictly regulated the Australian broadcasters while regulation does not effectively touch the international broadcasters such as those this bill seeks to regulate. Australia's media is not a free market. This is a failed market, and the Nationals know about interventions in market failure situations all too well, as we see the need for it time and time again in regional Australia. Free-to-air television broadcasters face many barriers. There are laws and rules that apply to our commercial broadcasters that do not apply to offshore based, streaming, video-on-demand providers. SBODs, or streamers, are free to use the digital airwaves—so to speak—as they wish with no barriers. The bill is an opening step in changing that. How can we, Australian parliamentarians, in good conscience say to Australian broadcasters, 'We'll keep you under red tape but not apply the same or similar red tape to others who broadcast in Australia'? These international broadcasters are swallowing up advertising revenue that keeps Australian broadcasters on air. For example, international broadcasters can run gambling advertising that Australian broadcasters cannot, particularly at times of match play. As I said earlier, we Nationals know all too well about market failure and the need for government to intervene, as we see it all too often in regional Australia. I publicly stated in August that we have a declining regional media and lack of journalists. I don't have one single television journalist based in Mallee—which, I might remind viewers, is Victoria's largest land electorate, a third the size of Victoria. We need to see ourselves on screen and in our news services, but in streaming services as well. Of course, the investment this bill refers to is not for news or sport but for Australian creative content, including documentaries and movies. Having said that, I give a shout-out to the WIN network who, as of Monday this week, resumed news bulletins in Sunraysia, my hometown of Mildura and in Griffith in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. It is wonderful to see ourselves on TV news again. I spoke on WIN News across regional Australia last night, including—I am excited to say again—in Mildura, about streaming platforms, how they minimise their tax in Australia and how commercial broadcasters are not on a level playing field. I'll repeat what I said in August 2024 for the benefit of the House. I haven't had time to update the figures, but this is the tilted playing field we operate in—this blurred online media market space. Apple, who have streaming platform Apple TV, who earned $9.3 billion on Australian shores in the most recent reporting year I have to hand, paid just $137.3 million in tax, which was only 1.5 per cent of their Australian revenues. In 2018, Netflix reportedly had an effective tax rate of 0.05 per cent in Australia, despite $1 billion in revenue, and paid just $342,000 in tax. That figure rose to $868,000 in 2022 but is still far short of its revenue and impact on Australian society. Netflix's tax avoidance smarts aren't limited to Australia. In the USA, during the life of the Trump administration, Netflix paid US$81 million in corporate tax, despite earning $10.5 billion over that period. We've seen the news in the last 24 hours of US officials warning the Commonwealth we could be hit with more tariffs if we keep pushing on the media bargaining incentive—what was the media bargaining code under the coalition government—on the social media bans for under 16s, on this initiative to require Australian content and on more. As elected representatives of Australians as the Australian parliament, it is now our sovereign right and duty to act in the national interest. Let me tell you a few Australian stories streaming platforms might want to look into to fill their Australian content quotas. Regions are out of sight, out of mind for the Albanese Labor government. The radical pursuit of net zero at all costs railroading regional communities—Victorian Labor government said, without offshore wind, 70 per cent of Victorian farmland would be needed. Can you imagine the documentary—the headline? It would play potentially all over the world—railroading of farmers without social licence. On Monday 24 November, the Victorian government issued a draft renewable energy zone order for five onshore renewable energy zones, including several in my electorate. What we know is that, under Victorian Labor, the word 'draft' actually means 'final'. Even though there is apparently a consultation until February, we know that, in Victoria, it means nothing. VicGrid attempted, earlier this month, to access properties at Greens Creek and Bunguluke, in my electorate, using powers the Victorian Labor government energy minister Lily D'Ambrosio gave them. Farmers are starting harvest very shortly. They don't have time to be protesting, but they are because this means so much to them—farmers like Rod Reading and Greg Bladwin, who spoke with Wimmera Mallee News earlier this week about how they face compulsory access from VicGrid in the near future. This is about Australian stories, and all of Australia needs to hear Australian stories—whether it's documentaries, whether it's creative films—and streaming platforms need to invest in Australian stories. That is what this bill is about, and I will be moving amendments to ensure this happens.
Aviation Industry | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) under the Government two regional airlines have collapsed and the domestic aviation sector has become more concentrated with just two airline groups...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) under the Government two regional airlines have collapsed and the domestic aviation sector has become more concentrated with just two airline groups representing 98.3 per cent of the market; (b) major airlines have centralised activities, withdrawing staff, service provision and investment from the regions, closing bases and maintenance facilities in Mildura, Tamworth, Hobart and Canberra; (c) the Government has committed up to $160 million to extend the Regional Express airline in administration but remains unable to guarantee regional services or affordability, nor whether regional creditors will be paid; (d) programs to support regional airlines investing in capital upgrades and security screening services have been withdrawn; and (e) the Government has botched the transition of air services for Australia's island territories; and (2) calls upon the Government to ensure regional Australians retain access to competitive, affordable, sustainable and safe aviation services. Air travel is part and parcel of life in regional Australia. My home town of Mildura is the most remote regional centre in Victoria. It is more than six hours drive from Melbourne and almost 4½ hours drive from Adelaide. Sunraysia's geographical isolation means that there are many instances where road travel takes far too long, is just not appropriate and, can I say, dangerous. Air travel is essential not least to access health care and to visit family and friends but also as a connector and driver for our regional businesses and economies. Under this Labor government, two regional airlines, Bonza and Regional Express, have collapsed, leaving the domestic aviation sector more concentrated than ever. Nationally, just two airline groups, Qantas and Virgin, now represent 98.3 per cent of the market, according to the latest data. This duopoly strangles competition, drives up fares and abandons regional routes to the whims of big city boardrooms. Not only this; also under Labor's watch, major airlines have ruthlessly centralised activities, withdrawing staff, service provision and investment from the regions. Qantas is closing bases and maintenance facilities in Mildura, Tamworth, Hobart and Canberra. In Mildura, Qantas confirmed on 1 October 2025 that it would shut its longstanding pilot and cabin crew base, forcing dozens of loyal local workers, many with decades of service, to relocate to Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane or lose their jobs. This is not progress. It is the deliberate hollowing out of regional Australia. As I said directly to Qantas Link, this decision is a profound insult to the Sunraysia community that has supported Qantas for generations. The government has committed up to $160 million to prop up Rex in administration, yet it remains utterly unable to guarantee ongoing regional services, affordability for passengers or even whether regional creditors, including airports like Mildura, will ever be paid. Instead, we have a Commonwealth grant program, where creditors might hope to be paid. Under Labor, programs designed to support regional airlines with capital upgrades and security screening have been withdrawn without any explanation. And let us not forget how this Labor government has botched the transition of air services for Australia's island territories, including the handover from Virgin Australia to Qantas for Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which commenced only on 3 November 2025 after Virgin services ended on 31 October. This chaotic switchover risked stranding remote communities, disrupted essential freight and passenger links and has had financial implications for small island businesses who have contacted me. One stakeholder told me recently about events on Monday 17 November: … weather stopped Qantas departing, but then all the passengers were effectively left without accommodation. They used to get sent to the ABF accommodation on the island, but this time.. nothing. … sadly- large groups of people, who just experienced a world event of the crab spawning, nature's greatest migration, will only talk about Christmas Island and being delayed, no food at the airport (as Commonwealth won't sign a lease with a supplier) with no accommodation, transport and pouring rain. One of the tour operators ferried people to a restaurant and another purchased food for 30 people! … and the next morning provided a tea and coffee urn. Labor's mismanagement of the flight arrangements to these remote islands yet again highlights this government's inability to manage critical aviation lifelines for our most isolated Australians. The ACCC has repeatedly warned of the dangers of our concentrated airline market—sky-high fares on regional routes, frequent cancellations and reduced reliability. The human cost is devastating: Mildura's patients missing critical medical appointments in Melbourne, businesses struggling to attract staff and families separated by unaffordable flights. These services are not a luxury. They are essential. (Time expired)
Communications, the Arts and Sport Committee; Reference | Committees | House debates
(): I second the motion. I spoke recently in this House about Christine from Cumnock in New South Wales, who had to travel an additional kilometre after a car accident to call triple 0...
(): I second the motion. I spoke recently in this House about Christine from Cumnock in New South Wales, who had to travel an additional kilometre after a car accident to call triple 0 on a landline at a nearby house because she didn't have mobile phone reception. I also mentioned Joe from Meckering in Western Australia, who called in while I was on a Perth radio station, saying he has regular visitors at his home on the transcontinental highway asking to use his landline because, contrary to network indications, there is no mobile phone reception on his section of the highway. Like it or not, landline services remain essential to connectivity in regional Australia. They enable people to access emergency services in times of need. They give people the ability to work or run a business, access health care and essential government services, and maintain social connection. Affordable fixed-line voice services—in other words, landline services—may no longer rely on the copper wiring, but the fixed voice services remain critically important. Mobile connectivity remains sketchy at best in large swathes of regional Australia, and it has been made worse by this Labor government's abysmal failure to manage the 3G network shutdown effectively. While the country has been rightly shocked at the devastatingly tragic outcomes of Optus's recent triple 0 outage—and I hear there has been another one this afternoon—I feel compelled to highlight the fact that large parts of our vast country have no access to triple 0 at all on their mobile phones. That is because they don't have any mobile phone service. The point is often overlooked, but it is not lost on people who live in the regions. Thankfully, redundancy has been built into the telecommunications system for the most part, due to legislative provisions like the universal service obligation and the statutory infrastructure provider regime, to ensure minimum service levels for fixed voice and high-speed broadband. The Nationals are acutely aware of the urgent need to update the USO and the SIP for this day and age, and landlines currently remain vital for regional connectivity. I turn now to the text of the motion that my colleague has brought and to the ACCC's draft determination on declared voice interconnection services, including the fixed terminating access service, FTAS; the fixed originating access service, FOAS; and the mobile terminating access service, MTAS. As explained by the shadow minister for communications, the ACCC's determination varies the fees charged when a customer on one telecommunications network calls a customer on another for the handover of that call. Stakeholders, including fixed-only providers, have expressed concern that the ACCC's proposed reductions could undermine service continuity, competition and investment in these essential networks. Communities that are most at risk of being impacted by the ACCC's draft proposal are—and I know this will shock the House!—those in regional and remote areas— An honourable member: There's a theme there. there is theme—where there is limited redundancy in the system. I am concerned about what this ruling could mean for competition. While the ruling theoretically entices new market entrants, it jeopardises the viability of existing smaller operators that have footprints and staff in Australia already. Australia has, arguably, the most concentrated telecommunications market in the developed world. Given that the ACCC's remit is to promote competition, protect consumers, support fair trading and regulate national infrastructure to make markets work for everyone, why propose changes to network charges that hinge on a hypothetical rather than reality and potentially reduce competition? It makes no sense to me. Two submissions to the inquiry—Aussie Broadband and Venture Insights—model that the draft determination equates to a 75.6 per cent reduction in the fixed termination rate, which they say would disproportionately hit fixed-only providers and erode competition. The size of the proposed fee reduction and the speed at which it would be implemented poses a significant threat—a threat large enough to compromise business viability and trigger flight from the market. I highlight that these recommendations— (Time expired)
Regional Australia | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
That's right, everybody knows what I'm talking about. They're going back to those because they haven't got connectivity. This is a huge problem and it's on this government's watch. What are they...
That's right, everybody knows what I'm talking about. They're going back to those because they haven't got connectivity. This is a huge problem and it's on this government's watch. What are they doing about it? They've got Accenture doing a report and a review with some mapping using Australia Post trucks. That'll be excellent! The report will come out in 2027. Thank you for that. In the meantime, three years will go by and people won't have connectivity and will have to find other means and ways to call their loved ones or call 000 when they need it. It is seriously and absolutely not good enough, and it is completely on this government's watch that these failures have taken place. Lastly, I want to briefly reference the hopelessness of the 'reckless renewable rollout'. Brett Hosking of the VFF, whose farm is in the line of TCV, is featured in theWeekly Times. I don't have time to quote him, but I tell you what: Labor should look his story up.
It has been highly entertaining, listening to the minister—my counterpart, in point of fact. I first want to address how this government is devastating regional...
It has been highly entertaining, listening to the minister—my counterpart, in point of fact. I first want to address how this government is devastating regional communities—effectively, abandoning regional communities. I particularly want to point out that the minister's statement regarding the lowering of default speed limits is actually not accurate. I have in front of me the department of infrastructure consultation that we are referring to, which clearly says that—as to this consultation on potentially lowering the default speed limit on sealed and unsealed regional roads which are unmarked—one of the benefits is to reduce fatalities. Nobody is going to dispute that we all want to see fatalities reduced. Also it's to reduce fuel consumption costs. I didn't know they cared! And, thirdly, it's so that emissions from fuel consumption will be lower. Now, seriously! I've heard them say, 'This is not a climate change issue at all.' I'm sorry—as I have said several times this week, this has the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's fingerprints all over it. What this consultation actually shows is that the cost to those who live in the regions is going to be about slower travel time. Really? Is that actually accurate? Yes. Parents will take longer to get their kids to school. Parents will take longer to get their kids to sport. Parents will take longer to take their children to the doctor. This is the cost of this ridiculous notion. Now, I have spoken to the member for Riverina about this very consultation, which, I would like to clearly say, we did not implement, because it is so foolish. I will be very interested to see what the consultation paper—and we called for it to be extended, because it was brought out under the cover of darkness; nobody knew that this consultation was taking place until this last week. It is an incredibly ridiculous notion—to make people in the regions just simply drive slower, rather than expending money on roads. On that point, I would speak to the minister again, although she has left the chamber, and say that, while Labor continually say that they have doubled the dollars to Roads to Recovery, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't happened yet. Like everything, we have a great announcement, but where's the follow-through? The money has not happened. The roads are still broken. And everybody in regional Australia knows it. In terms of how this government has betrayed those who live in the regions, I have to talk about the 3G shutdown. What a debacle! Twelve months ago, on this government's watch, the 3G shutdown occurred. Telstra, Optus, TPG—everybody was involved, but the minister approved the shutdown. The problem was that the promise was made that there would be no harm done and everybody would be fine. The reality is that many, many people—we don't know how many—have no service. They cannot connect. Forget about calling triple 0. That is absolutely not available. People are now putting Starlink on their roofs and finding other ways. They're going back to ham radios—is that what we call the ones truckies use, ham radios? You know what I'm talking about.
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the member for Solomon there will be a 20 per cent decrease in power bills over the next decade?