Monique Ryan's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Migration | Private Members' Business | House debates
Australia's success as a prosperous and successful democracy is inseparable from the contribution of migrants. Migrants strengthen our economy, enrich our social fabric and increase the...
Australia's success as a prosperous and successful democracy is inseparable from the contribution of migrants. Migrants strengthen our economy, enrich our social fabric and increase the resilience of our communities. In seconding the member for Warringah's motion, I recognise that migrants are not only central to our national identity; they are key to Australia's economic and cultural prosperity. Australians understand this. The Scanlon Foundation Research Institute's The 2024 mapping social cohesion report found that 85 per cent of Australians agreed that multiculturalism has been good for this country, with 82 per cent believing that immigrants improve Australian society. In recent years, real and urgent economic strain, a national housing shortage, international conflicts and an increasingly polarised public debate have rendered migrant communities more vulnerable to negative and harmful political narratives. Politicians like Pauline Hanson have repeatedly chosen the low road by politicising immigration for their own ends. The coalition has proposed to cut permanent and net migration but without a coherent plan for how we could do that without hurting our economy. Labor's approach has been to fail to specify migration targets while allowing others to imply that immigrants are at fault for the policy failures of successive governments. The reality is that net migration has fallen significantly in the last two years, after significant, albeit belated, tightening of student visa policies. But we do still have a significant issue with onshore backlogs for both permanent and temporary migration. For the first time, we have more than 400,000 individuals in this country on bridging visas. This is an issue which started when Peter Dutton and Mike Pezzullo oversaw Home Affairs. It worsened after COVID, when the coalition stomped on the immigration accelerator, and then it consolidated under the first term of the Albanese government. We need to discuss immigration levels in an open, honest and transparent way. Australia's birthrate is at a record low. Immigration is a major driver of population growth. Migration is playing an increasingly critical role in maintaining our quality of life and supporting Australia's long-term economic stability. Without ongoing migration, our workforce will shrink, threatening our capacity to deliver essential services like aged, child and health care. Jobs and Skills Australia data from 2025 shows ongoing unmet labour demand in key sectors such as health care, education, construction and utilities. These are shortages which can be resolved by careful, targeted migration intake. Migrants increase our economic productivity and resilience. They tend to be younger and more educated than the general population, contributing to productivity and to wage growth. They diversify our labour market, and they often demonstrate great entrepreneurship. They own about one-third of all Australian small businesses. These enterprises translate into job creation, community investment and new enterprise development. Our universities and TAFEs also develop clarity around overseas student numbers, which have a huge impact on institutions like Swinburne University of Technology, which is in my electorate of Kooyong. Some Australian media outlets, think tanks and politicians avoid honest debates and conversations about immigration. They prefer to mislead and to foster discord. Their narratives oversimplify complex issues, unfairly target migrant communities and risk undermining the mutual respect and shared identity that underpin Australia's multicultural success. They create division and they distract from the evidence based policy solutions needed for the real challenges that face all Australians. I'm very proud and honoured to represent an electorate in which a third of constituents were born overseas, having come from 150 countries of origin, and as many as one in six speak a language other than English at home. I celebrate each and every one of those nations and those cultures, and I thank those who have come from overseas and who choose to make Kooyong their home. That's why I'm pleased to second this motion calling for careful, responsible, evidence based immigration policy—policy that rejects rhetoric that inflames division and recognises that multiculturalism enriches our culture and our democracy and the richness and freedom of our society.
Health Care, Climate Change | Statements by Members | House debates
Two weeks ago, Australia's east coast was scorched by extreme heat, with temperatures in Kooyong soaring to 43 degrees and temperature records being broken across three states. This was the worst...
Two weeks ago, Australia's east coast was scorched by extreme heat, with temperatures in Kooyong soaring to 43 degrees and temperature records being broken across three states. This was the worst heatwave since Black Saturday 2009, when almost 400 Victorians died from heat and 173 died from bushfires. Experts warn that 50-degree summers have arrived, and these heatwaves are deadly. Extreme heat strains every system of the body, worsening heart disease, diabetes and respiratory illnesses. But, despite killing more Australians than floods, storms and bushfires combined, heatwaves remain a silent killer. That's why I'm urging the government to confront this danger head-on by naming heatwaves in the same way that we name cyclones. Doing so would increase public awareness of the immediate risk associated with extreme heat. It would also help trigger timely health responses in households, by local governments and by healthcare services. In a rapidly warming world, we can best protect people by slashing the carbon pollution that drives climate change. But, in the meanwhile, by recognising heatwaves as the lethal events that they are, and by acting decisively to prepare for them, we can protect vulnerable people and we can save lives.
Personal Explanation | Statements | House debates
In my remarks made to the House during debate on a motion moved by the member for Curtin on 3 February 2026, I said: Five months after this act of violence, we're still waiting on investigations...
In my remarks made to the House during debate on a motion moved by the member for Curtin on 3 February 2026, I said: Five months after this act of violence, we're still waiting on investigations to be completed and charges to be issued. While it is true that an investigation into the attack by a group of Neo-Nazis on Camp Sovereignty continues in Victoria, it is incorrect to state that charges have not been laid. I was made aware after I completed my speech that people have in fact been charged for offences relating to that incident, and I therefore wish to correct the record in that respect. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 11, page 9 (line 13), after "Commonwealth", insert "and student". This amendment to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary...
I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 11, page 9 (line 13), after "Commonwealth", insert "and student". This amendment to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 is about one thing: it's about ensuring fairness for students in our higher education system. Today, for many young Australians, university education has become a narrow and expensive pathway. Students are being burdened with rising fees, growing debts and a funding structure that fails to reflect the realities that they face. My amendment takes steps towards recognising those issues. The government says that it wants a tertiary education commission able to drive long-term reform, but the bill before the House creates a commission that cannot speak for or investigate the plight of students unless it's politically convenient to the government of the day. Under this bill, the commission is empowered to examine what the Commonwealth contributes to higher education, but it's prevented from looking at what students themselves are charged. It's extraordinary that the government has drafted a bill that gives the future steward of Australia's tertiary education sector the power to review and advise on what comes out of the Commonwealth purse but pays no mind to the financial burden on students. The government's omission is not accidental; it's deliberate. That omission significantly weakens the commission's ability to provide the honest and robust advice that the government needs to hear. Many submissions on this bill from higher education experts and from within the university sector have raised the alarm that the legislation fails in this respect. I know that the minister has heard these calls, but he continues to ignore them. After years of expensive university degrees, it's irresponsible, in my view, to legislate a new national steward that is deliberately blind to the significant policy failure of the job-ready graduates scheme. The reality is that, because of this scheme, students are paying more than $17,000 a year for studies in disciplines like arts, the law and business. That's over $50,000 for a basic three-year degree and upwards of $80,000 for combined programs like arts/law. This is a pricing system with no coherent policy background or logic. It's neither fair nor efficient. It is simply punitive. The universities accord reported that student contributions need to be fixed urgently. That was in 2024. We're now in 2026, and nothing has changed. In fact, the maximum student contributions for cluster 1 degrees, including law, accounting, economics and business are almost seven per cent higher in 2026 than they were in 2024. If the government were to tackle this issue today, it could consider reforming section 93.10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003—this division sets the maximum student contribution price per place for disciplines as well as their indexation under the act—but the government has declined to consider this simple reform for over two years. All we have now before us is an act to establish a commission that cannot address this issue. My amendment to this legislation is a simple one. It's only two words—two words which mean a huge amount to the students whose lives it would transform. The amendment seeks to remedy the ongoing and worsening burden of student debt by expanding the commission's remit to consider student contributions—two words. The sector wants it, Australian students deserve it, and our parliament should insist upon it.
Aged Care | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is for the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. The government's new single assessment scheme is failing older Australians. I'm hearing from many constituents about the long wait times...
My question is for the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. The government's new single assessment scheme is failing older Australians. I'm hearing from many constituents about the long wait times for assessments and that experienced clinicians are unable to override algorithmic decision-making. It's been reported that more than 120,000 Australians are still waiting for one of these automated assessments. Minister, are these once-in-a-generation reforms just 'robo aged care'?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Health Care | Constituency Statements | House debates
Australia's dream of universal health coverage has been lost. Australians now face an impossible choice, as they cannot access or afford to see medical specialists in this country. We know that...
Australia's dream of universal health coverage has been lost. Australians now face an impossible choice, as they cannot access or afford to see medical specialists in this country. We know that one in three Australians are postponing medical care because of cost, and that increases to one in two Australians in the regions, where markets are impossibly thin. Recent figures from RedBridge suggest that 75 per cent of gen Xers in the regions are deciding not to seek the medical care that they need, because they cannot find or access an affordable specialist. In a cost-of-living crisis, healthcare costs are increasing disproportionately to those of other parts of the economy. I hear constantly from constituents who tell me that they've had private hospital and extras cover for years. They've paid thousands of dollars every year for what they thought would guarantee timely access to care, choice of practitioner and protection from large, unexpected medical bills. Instead, they're encountering extreme out-of-pocket fees to receive specialist care, including costs sometimes multiple amounts more than the Medicare schedule fee. They're getting bills for surgery a day or two before. I heard this morning from a constituent who, as they entered the car park of a private hospital, had been contacted by the surgeon's assistant with a demand for a fee that they didn't anticipate they were going to have to deal with. They're being asked to pay full fees upfront, even those portions that will attract later reimbursement. Since 2010, private specialist fees have increased by 73 per cent. Over the last five years, out-of-pocket costs for common procedures have increased by 300 per cent. People who are vulnerable and seeking urgent medical care for sometimes life-threatening conditions should not be expected to deal with unexpected costs through the private healthcare system. They need to be able to put themselves in the hands of medical professionals they can trust, and it is heartbreaking when they realise that they cannot afford to do that. I'm asking the government to urgently commission a health committee inquiry into the cost of specialist care in this country. All Australians need to be able to access medical specialists, whether they live in the city or in the regions. They shouldn't have to wait three or four years to see a paediatrician or for a hip replacement or to see a cardiologist. All of us should be able to afford affordable care through the private healthcare system. It's a matter of urgency and something that this government needs to address immediately.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
In 1974, Gough Whitlam made university in Australia free. In 1989, when Bob Hawke introduced our HECS-HELP system, Australia's higher education sector remained, even then, among the most...
In 1974, Gough Whitlam made university in Australia free. In 1989, when Bob Hawke introduced our HECS-HELP system, Australia's higher education sector remained, even then, among the most accessible in the world. It produced generations of Australians with the skills to strengthen our economy, to enrich our communities and to deepen our democracy. Effectively, those who aspired to go to university to study tertiary education could do so affordably. Today, the promise of fair and accessible higher education in Australia has become a mirage. Australians are being priced out of opportunity. Our higher education system that once opened doors is closing them. The bill before us today takes some commendable steps towards reforming our higher education sector and implementing recommendations of the 2024 universities accord. Establishing an Australian Tertiary Education Commission is a welcome reform and a step towards coherence and independent stewardship. Setting a national tertiary education objective will provide much needed clarity for our universities. Those reforms hold a promise, a promise to improve our higher education sector, and I support them. But I'm disappointed that this legislation fails to recognise and act on the structural failures that have created the current HECS crisis. Right now, three million Australians carry, on average, more than $27,000 in HECS debts. Student contributions for courses like commerce and law are nine times higher than they were when Hawke introduced the HECS system in 1989—a time when many members of this parliament were graduating. Graduate salaries have increased by about 2½ times since 1996. In that time, student contributions have increased sixfold. The average HECS debt for someone in their 20s is more than double what it was in 2006. How did this happen? Well, much of it can be traced back to the disastrous job-ready graduates scheme, which the Morrison government introduced in 2021. What was sold then as a way to channel students into priority fields instead delivered a HECS debt crisis—a crisis for a generation of many young Australians. Under the job-ready graduates scheme, students in disciplines like law, accounting, business, banking, finance, economics, communications and politics are contributing up to $17,000 a year in 2026. That means that those young Australians are graduating with $50,000 of debt for basic three-year degree and more than $80,000 if they undertake postgraduate study. They're then taking at least 10 years to pay it off. In popular disciplines like communications, humanities, society and culture, and human movement, student fees have more than doubled as a result of the job-ready graduates scheme. Two in three MPs in this parliament hold degrees in arts, humanities, law or business. These are not fringe pursuits. They're foundational pursuits, disciplines that we need for our economy, our public institutions and our civil life. In a world as fragile as today's, skills from those degrees matter more than ever. But the students who pursue those disciplines are being punished with often insurmountable student loan debts. The number of students affected is enormous. As of 2024, management, commerce, society and culture degrees accounted for nearly half of all enrolments at Australian universities. Right now, there are nearly 700,000 students enrolled in those courses, Nearly half of all university students in Australia, and a large proportion of them are women, First Nations students and students living with a disability. These are the Australians who are being unfairly and disproportionately penalised by the job-ready graduates scheme and who are bearing the burden of serial government policy failures, like those from my friend from the Right. Unfortunately, the effect of the job-ready graduates scheme has been magnified by the means of indexation of HECS. Repayments on HECS aren't deducted until after the loan has been indexed for the financial year, which means that the debt on already expensive degrees can grow further, while people are waiting for the impact of those payments to be reflected in their HECS accounts. Increasing student debt is a drag. It's a drag on the lives of graduates. It's contributing to our record-low birth rate and to the 20 per cent fall in rates of homeownership in 20- to 35-year-old Australians over the last 30 years. Young Australians who are struggling already with their increasing cost of rent and of groceries are finding themselves unable to buy a home, unable to start a family. In a country with an ageing population and a decreasing tax base, this is a demographic time bomb. It's not just an educational equity issue, it's a cost-of-living and a societal wellbeing issue. The universities accord report, which was received by this government two years ago, found that the job-ready graduates scheme and the expensive degrees it creates does not work. The accord recommended 'urgent remediation'—that's its words—to ease the rising and punitive student contributions. The government has publicly, on many occasions, conceded these issues with the job-ready graduates scheme. In 2023, the education minister said that job-ready graduates scheme needs to be redesigned before it causes long-term and entrenched damage to the Australian higher education system. I couldn't agree more. Professor Bruce Chapman, the architect of HECS, has said on many occasions that the job-ready graduates scheme is the No. 1 issue with our HECS system. But, two years on from the accord, students are paying more than ever before. This is no longer just a Morrison era issue. This bad policy was introduced under the previous government, but the job-ready graduate scheme has now been in place for longer under Labor than it was under the coalition. The government could have fixed this problem at any time in the last four years. Instead, it has delayed. It tasked the universities accord with looking into student contributions back in 2022. By February 2024 the accord's final report called for urgent action, and the minister said then that ATEC would look at the scheme and what change can happen. Now, we have legislation for the ATEC before us, but there is nothing in this bill that recognises the urgent need to ease student fees. Student contributions are not mentioned in this bill, not once. In 2025, I was pleased to successfully advocate for a 20 per cent reduction in existing student HECS debts, and I also supported the government's measures to reduce indexation and to increase the payment thresholds on student loans. Those measures have helped to decrease student debt, but they've only reduced debts back to pre-COVID levels, which, following an unprecedented inflationary surge, has done nothing to help those students who are now at university. The legislation does grant the Tertiary Education Commission the function of advising on Commonwealth contributions to the cost of degrees, but Commonwealth contributions represent only a part of the higher education pricing equation. It's alarming that the Commission has not been tasked with considering student contributions or even just considering the impacts of HECS debts on young Australians. It's important that the commission has the power to provide the government with independent and impartial advice on whether the current maximum student contributions are too high. A note to the commission: they are! This function, which is absent in the legislation, is important. It will help begin to reverse the damage that the job-ready graduates scheme has inflicted. The reality is that the government could act today. It could reduce the maximum student contribution amount under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 today, but the government has not put that legislation on the table in Canberra this week. What we can do is ensure that the independent statutory commission can give and will give impartial advice on the biggest cost-of-living factor affecting young Australians. The final report of the Universities Accord called for the ATEC to be an independent statutory authority 'to enable it to provide robust advice and support evidence based decision-making and planning'. It said the ATEC 'needs to be agile and responsive to immediate issues, while remaining future focused overall'. This was echoed in the minister's explanatory memorandum, which states that formal independence is a foundational element of the ATEC's design. However, there have been concerns from stakeholders and from experts about the ATEC's proximity to the minister. Many of the commission's advisory functions can only be performed at the request of the minister. This limits any policy agenda that the commission might want to promote independently of the minister's wishes, including, for example, escalating the question of the job-ready graduates scheme. So, while I support the establishment of an independent higher education commission to steward the sector, I would suggest very strongly that we need to ensure that the commission is sufficiently independent to be able to promote meaningful reform of our higher education sector. If we are serious about securing the future of Australian tertiary education, then we have to ensure that the systems that we build are coherent, transparent and generally capable of restoring public trust. Establishing an Australian Tertiary Education Commission is a step towards that goal. It offers the possibility of a sector guided by evidence rather than short-term policies by careful long-term planning, not piecemeal fixes. This bill will move us towards the implementation of the Universities Accord, but I urge the House and the minister to ensure that the commission is fully equipped to reform the higher education sector and to better tackle the cost-of-education crisis which faces Australian students.
Health, Aged Care and Disability Committee; Report | Committees | House debates
by leave—The NDIS is simply not sustainable in its current form and at its current rate of growth. The uncomfortable truth for those of us who care deeply about the NDIS is that it has to...
by leave—The NDIS is simply not sustainable in its current form and at its current rate of growth. The uncomfortable truth for those of us who care deeply about the NDIS is that it has to undergo reform or we risk losing it altogether. It wasn't designed to support all disabled Australians, but in recent years the loss of community based block funded supports has left a void for those with mild developmental delay and disability. Many participants can't find the help they need, particularly in rural and regional settings. In the absence of alternatives, everyone has had to fight for an NDIS package. We've got an unsustainable situation where 11 per cent of Australia's five- to seven-year-old boys now have individual packages. We have a demand driven scheme with no means testing and no limits on spending, which is projected to cost as much as $100 billion a year by 2032. That's a scheme for 700,000 people which will cost more than Medicare for 30 million. This is unsustainable, inefficient and inequitable, especially when we're still leaving many people with a disability without the support that they need. So it does make sense that, rather than limiting services to individual packages, we should create a system with defined packages for those people who have a more significant disability and community based programs for younger children with developmental delay and neurodivergence. Increasing community supports for children with emerging developmental delays should be more cost effective. It should increase capacity, and it should promote inclusion. The Thriving Kids initiative marks a commitment to a new system of evidence based early intervention services, which should provide equity of access for all young Australian children with emerging developmental delay and disability. We have to acknowledge that there has been very justifiable anxiety within the disability community about these changes. For Thriving Kids to be accepted by the community, it will only win social licence by demonstrating effectiveness, and that includes a real commitment from the states. It cannot be seen as a cost-cutting exercise which will decrease the scope and the quality of the services that are provided. At this point, the state and territory governments are not ready to roll out foundational supports, and so I support last week's announced delay in the launch of Thriving Kids. This was a short inquiry, and it has not been able to address all of the issues and questions around Thriving Kids, but some things remain clear. We have to make it easier for parents to navigate a system which has often proven hostile and defensive. Many parents told us in this inquiry that their caring responsibilities increased when the family member entered the NDIS. That's a fail. We have to collect better data about participants' experiences and outcomes and the quality, safety and effectiveness of their treatment. We heard repeatedly that the record keeping by the NDIS is inadequate. We have to ensure that the services are co-designed with peak bodies and with all stakeholder groups and that they reflect the needs of the child not the eloquence of their advocates. We have to determine that these services can physically be provided and we have to improve access to online health services as well. We have to improve the registration policy and compliance and funding system for the NDIS. We have to help providers to decrease red tape. We have to get them to improve their record keeping and we have to cut down on the fraud, which is unfortunately but inevitably a significant issue at this point in time. The Thriving Kids program has to be subjected to regular review when it's rolled out, and it should have an independent inspector-general. We need better workforce planning. We heard again and again about the deserts where people can't access the supports that they need, particularly in regional, rural and remote settings. It's inequitable and it's unfair. We have to have some better data about where the allied health and other healthcare professionals that we need are, and we have to support them. It's not acceptable that people are waiting years to see a paediatrician in our major cities and that they're paying a large amount of money to do that. We should help more young people join the healthcare workforce by immediately increasing financial support for practical placements for all healthcare students. The Thriving Kids program needs us to resile from the premise that disabled people should have to self-manage their care and that all should receive support individually. Some things are better done together for efficiency, for economy and even for enjoyment. Success of the Thriving Kids model demands that, as a society, we are able to and will accept our responsibility to include and support all children and to create a system responsive to their capacities and their needs and that we commit to creating and supporting the workforce and the infrastructure which are required to maximise those children's independence and inclusion. I'll finish by thanking the chair of the health committee. It's been a great privilege to work with Dr Mike Freelander on this inquiry. Mike brings decades of experience to this parliament. He worked incredibly hard with all of the committee and the secretariat, and the report that we have put together summarises very well the generous and considered contributions of almost 500 groups or individuals who made submissions or who came to the public hearings. I echo Mike in thanking our other committee members who worked hard with dedication, with interest, with maturity and with bipartisanship—a rare bipartisanship in this place. I thank the secretariat as well and commend our report to the House.
Ovarian Cancer | Statements by Members | House debates
Today is World Cancer Day, and February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Today, five Australian women will be told that they have ovarian cancer, a devastating condition with a survival rate of...
Today is World Cancer Day, and February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Today, five Australian women will be told that they have ovarian cancer, a devastating condition with a survival rate of only 49 per cent. Ovarian Cancer Australia's national awareness campaign is shining a much-needed light onto one of Australia's most challenging forms of cancer. Every year in Australia, 1,900 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer. In most cases, detection occurs at an advanced stage, rendering treatment much more difficult. Raising awareness is therefore essential to improving early recognition, timely care and survival outcomes. One of Ovarian Cancer Australia's primary priorities this month is to secure more research funding. The Medical Research Future Fund has allocated only $21 million to ovarian cancer since 2015. The NHMRC has allocated $64 million since 2012. It is, quite simply, not enough. Minister Butler could double that allocation today with the stroke of a pen. So, today, I call on the Albanese government to save Australian women's lives by releasing the money put aside for that purpose—funding life-saving research into ovarian cancer—in the Medical Research Future Fund.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 will enable qualified registered nurses to prescribe pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits...
The Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 will enable qualified registered nurses to prescribe pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It seeks to implement reforms identified as necessary by the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce and the subsequent scope-of-practice review. The amendments will empower nurses to work to their full scope of practice in primary care. It does make sense that we should do everything possible to ease chronic workforce pressures and provide more equitable access to treatment for people living in rural and remote areas of Australia, in particular. The prescribing of medications has, in the past, generally been limited to authorised health practitioners, primarily doctors but also some others, including dentists, optometrists, nurse practitioners and midwives, who have been given the ability to prescribe within their defined scope of practice. We have chronic workforce shortages across Australia in a range of healthcare craft groups, and these are generally more pronounced in regional, rural and remote areas. Factors contributing to these workforce shortages include the increasing demand associated with an ageing population, rising levels of chronic disease and barriers to education and training, including the financial barriers associated with the absence of paid practical placements for students taking undertaking training in all healthcare professions in this country. Nurses play a critical role in providing essential care for Australians. They manage chronic and complex health conditions and keep people out of hospitals. Nurse prescribing is a cost effective intervention which will offer continuity of care, can reduce the workload for other healthcare team members and improve patient satisfaction. Nurses are highly trusted. Australians trust them and consistently rank them as the most trusted profession in health, which I have a small problem with personally but which I get. And they are the single largest health profession in Australia, accounting for more than half of the Australian health workforce and registered nurses working in Australia—in particular, remote area nurses and rural and isolated practice registered nurses are commonly particularly experienced and skilled. Without access to the PBS, nurse prescribed medications would only be available to those patients who can pay for them privately, and that raises significant questions of equity as well as best practice health care. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce report from December 2022 was supportive of altering regulatory arrangements to enable all parts of our primary care workforce to work to their full scope of practice. The subsequent review undertaken by the Albanese government proposed recommendations aimed at enabling healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, dental hygienists, nurse practitioners and allied health workers, to work at their full scope of practice. But it's important to note that we're not actually doing that with the legislation in front of the House. Key recommendations of the scope of practice review included the establishment of a national skills and capability framework for consistent legislation across jurisdictions and new funding models to support multidisciplinary and patient centred care. A major finding of that review is the fact that we have ridiculous but ongoing legislative inconsistencies across Australian states and territories which limit the scope of practice for professionals, such as pharmacists and Aboriginal health practitioners. For example, while pharmacists in some regions can administer vaccines, in others, they are prohibited by law from doing so. Similarly, Aboriginal health practitioners in Queensland are banned from undertaking immunisations even though they've had the necessary training. These sorts of discrepancies contribute to inequities in healthcare access. They increase strain on our workforce, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities, and they really make no sense. Basically, we need a commitment from the federal, state and territory governments to removing barriers, to streamline care across all Australian jurisdictions. I do note that this legislation expands the ability of registered nurses to prescribe schedule 2, 3, 4 and 8 medications under supervision. Under the new standards for nurse prescribing which came into effect in September 2025, designated RNs who are prescribers will have to have 5,000 hours of post-registration clinical experience and to have completed specific training. They have to prescribe in partnership with an authorised health practitioner and complete a six-month period of clinical membership after accreditation. A model in which a suitably qualified RN works closely with a doctor to try to titrate a medication to meet patient needs does seem reasonable, but it would be appropriate to limit authorisations for that sort of oversight to professionals who are free of commercial conflicts of interest. And it makes sense that nurses are given access to prescribable medications which have been carefully selected such as to secure that they're safe and appropriate. It is disappointing that this legislation extends prescribing capacity only to registered nurses. I note that the podiatry endorsement for scheduled medicines registration standard has been in place for years, but we still haven't given podiatrists the ability to be authorised prescribers under the PBS. There's no rationale for this anomaly. In order to optimise scope of practice for health professionals, we could act today to expand authorised prescribers under the PBS to include all professions which are currently endorsed to prescribe. It would be reasonable to expect that, if we did so, in addition to immediately enabling podiatrists to act independently, we could in short order allow optometrists to prescribe oral medications and potentially increase access to prescribing for physiotherapists and for other craft groups. There are some potential pitfalls to expanding the ability to prescribe to healthcare professionals who have not traditionally been given that remit. These include the danger of fragmented care, duplication of services, increased complexity, role confusion and poorer health outcomes. If the professionals who are prescribing don't have adequate diagnostic and clinical experience, of course there's a risk of inappropriate prescribing such as unnecessary antibiotic use and a greater chance of drug side effects in the context of multimorbidities and polypharmacy. This is particularly relevant for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who often experience multiple health conditions earlier in life, and for older Australians, who are often on multiple medications. Other recent concerns include the increasing use of telehealth and emerging online business models often focused on prescribing specific substances like medicinal cannabis or weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic. In that context, prescribing is often based on a single phone or video consultation, so it carries much greater risks than those associated with typical face-to-face consultations with a GP who knows their patient. Concerns have also been raised by stakeholders regarding the types of medications that can be prescribed by RNs. Specifically, the AMA and RCGP have expressed appropriate concerns around the prescribing of schedule 8 medications such as morphine and other opiates. Schedule 8 medications carry a significant risk of abuse, dependency and harm. It's my belief that prescribing of these should remain the role of the clinician ultimately responsible for patient care and management. There are real concerns not only for patients but also for prescribers with allowing nurses to prescribe schedule 8 medications without putting in place the appropriate legislative guardrails. For example, such designated RN practitioner prescribers will not necessarily have access to real-time monitoring programs, which is a real concern given the significant risk of misuse by some individuals of schedule 8 opiates. The expansion of scope of practice should empower our healthcare professionals. It should improve accessibility and efficiency in health care. Our first priority should always be patient safety and the protection of patient care. Given the increasing complexity of medical care in this country, particularly for older Australians and for those with multiple medical problems, the best model of care is that provided in a multidisciplinary team. I support this bill as I support increasing the scope of practice of all competent healthcare professionals in Australia, but I call on the government to ensure that these changes are appropriately scrutinised and monitored and then not instituted in a kind of band-aid solution in response to the—at this point—unaddressed issue of our chronic healthcare workforce deficiencies. Having said that, I commend the bill to the House.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite". (3)...
by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite". (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 to 19), omit subsection 6L(1), substitute: (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies in relation to each CPI indexed draught beer rate as if the indexation factor were 1 for 1 August 2025 or a later indexation day. Note: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged indefinitely. I propose amendments to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. The rising cost of living has challenged millions of Australian families for several years now, with inflation rising sharply since our economy bounced back after COVID. The government has a hand in setting the price of relatively few grocery items, but one of them is the cost of beer. The average price of draught beer has gone up by over 30 per cent in the last three years, an increase which is considerably higher than the rate of inflation. This has, at least in part, been driven by the automatic indexation of the beer excise every six months which has forced price increases above their annual CPI. This indexation is yet another typical anomaly in our unnecessarily complex tax system. It's pleasing to see the government's commitment to freezing indexation on draught beer for two years, but indexation of the excise over recent years has left those draught beer prices already too high. Indexation of the beer excise needs to stop, and that's why I'm moving that this freeze should be permanent. A permanent cap on the draught beer excise would help millions of Australians with cost-of-living pressures. It would also help support Australia's emerging craft beer industry. Despite rapid growth of small independent brewers, 85 per cent of Australia's beer market is controlled by two foreign owned multinationals. Our craft beer industry supports local workers and economies. The independent beer sector employs over 8,000 people directly, with many brewers also contributing to local hospitality and to tourism. Independent brewers face challenges with the rising cost of ingredients and energy, softening consumer demand and stiff competition from large retailers like Coles which are increasingly selling home brand beers and mimicking craft styles. Many small brewers deferred excise increases during COVID and are now struggling with that debt in a persistently tough economic climate. Alcohol taxation in Australia does not make a whole lot of sense. The wine equalisation tax taxes wine and other fruit based alcohol products based on their wholesale price, not their alcohol content. That has led to an oversupply of cheap wine products in Australia. It's decreased tax income, but it's also increased consumption of fruit based alcoholic products, flavoured ciders and cleanskins. The WET should be abolished. We should tax all alcohol products consistently with a volume metric tax based upon their alcohol content. That has been recommended by several independent reviews. There is a lot more that we could and should do to responsibly tax the alcohol industry. In fact, there is plenty that we could do and should do to reform our tax system overall. We could derive fairer income from fossil fuel and mineral exports by more effectively taxing resources that are owned by all Australians. We could get reasonable income from our digital services. We could stop subsidising fossil fuels by means of the diesel fuel rebate for mining companies. We could tax labour less and income from passive sources such as rent, interest, super and capital gains more. We could take a good hard look at every part of our tax system, and we could have the courage to tackle housing affordability as well as the significant challenges associated with the funding of health, education and aged care. But to do that, we would need to have a government which had both courage and vision. For the moment, those of us who do care about tax reform in this country have to push this government—bit by bit, issue by issue—to make things fairer and more equitable, and to restore some sense to a system which really does not make a whole lot of sense. And so I've moved this amendment to permanently freeze indexation of the draft beer excise to help thousands of Australian craft brew workers and to offer some cost-of-living relief to the millions of Australians who simply want to be able to afford one of the simpler pleasures of life. Question negatived.
This motion confronts us with a truth that should unsettle every person in this chamber. Racial violence against First Nations people in Australia is not hypothetical, it is not historical and it...
This motion confronts us with a truth that should unsettle every person in this chamber. Racial violence against First Nations people in Australia is not hypothetical, it is not historical and it is not isolated. It remains a real and present threat. The attempted bombing in Boorloo/Perth on 26 January was not just an attack on a peaceful protest; it was an attack on First People who were asserting their identity, their history and their right to gather on a day that to them marks a day of dispossession. That this incident is now being investigated as a possible act of terrorism is appropriate but also deeply alarming. It speaks to the seriousness of the threat that we are now all confronting. Violence motivated by racial hate has no place in Australia. Many of us spoke to this fact, and we tried to legislate to that effect in this place last month. But words of condemnation, while necessary, are insufficient. When acts of racial violence occur and are not met with immediate, visible, decisive action by police forces and by government, they don't fade; they metastasise. An attack against First Nations people is an attack on all Australians. This is not a political slogan; it is a statement of fact. Our country and our culture rest on the principle that no group should live in fear because of who they are. When that principle is breached for one community, it is weakened for all of us. For many First Nations people, 26 January is a day of mourning. As a country, we should have the heart and the maturity to respect that fact. To target a non-violent Invasion Day rally with an act of violence represents a deliberate attempt to intimidate and to silence. That's why this motion matters and why the response to it must be more than just the sum of the words that we speak here today. What happened in Perth on 26 January didn't happen in isolation. Months earlier, after the March for Australia rally in September, Neo-Nazi protesters in Melbourne openly attacked a camp which was asserting Indigenous sovereignty. These were not covert acts. They were carried out in public in broad daylight with symbols and chants that left no ambiguity about their intent. But the response from authorities from both Victoria Police and from the AFP has been slow and opaque. Five months after this act of violence, we're still waiting on investigations to be completed and charges to be issued. For First Nations people from Victoria and their allies, the message has been unmistakeable: expressions of white supremacist intimidation can occur in the open in the heart of our city without immediate consequence. That perception is corrosive. It emboldens extremists. It deepens fears in people who have already been subjected to entrenched racism for generations. The federal government has a duty to protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence. That duty doesn't end in statements. It requires coordination with the states. It requires the enforcement of policing standards. It requires the disruption of organised extremist networks and a willingness to name Neo-Nazism for what it is: an ideology of racism and violence. First Peoples in Australia continue to face entrenched racism, threats and intimidation. This motion appropriately calls for urgent action in response. Urgent means now. It means ensuring that camps asserting sovereignty are protected, not ignored. It means ensuring that those who organise, incite or carry out racially motivated violence face consequences proportionate to the harm that they cause. This parliament has recently and rightly condemned racially motivated hatred and extremism. That condemnation has to unambiguously include the incitement of hatred and violence towards First Nations people. So I thank the member for Curtin for moving this motion, and I join my colleagues here today in acknowledging the significance of this event and expressing solidarity with all those impacted by it.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 42 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 8 — Reporting Criminal Code Act 1995 65 At the end of Subdivision...
I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 42 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 8 — Reporting Criminal Code Act 1995 65 At the end of Subdivision C of Division of the Criminal Code Add: 80.2DA Annual report (1) The AFP Minister must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, cause to be prepared a report about the operation of this Subdivision, and the rest of this Part to the extent that it relates to this Subdivision, during the financial year. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following matters: (a) the types and number of alleged offences reported to police; (b) the types and number of alleged offences referred to a prosecutorial agency; (c) of the alleged offences referred to a prosecutorial authority, the types and number that were finalised without court proceedings; (d) of the alleged offences referred to a prosecutorial authority, the types and number that were finalised by a court, including whether a conviction was recorded; (e) in relation to matters finalised by a court, details of any sentence imposed. It's clear that the Australian community has insufficient evidence based information in relation to existing hate speech offences. There has been a lot of misinformation about these offences, how they operate and whether they're successful in the prosecution of serious instances of hatred within our communities. To have respectful, fact driven conversations about hate crimes and about how well we are addressing them, we need clear and regular reporting about the incidents, nature and outcomes of those crimes in this country. That data can then guide assessment of the effectiveness of interventions such as the legislation that we are debating today. At the eleventh hour, earlier today the government agreed with the opposition to include reporting on new aggravated offences for hate preachers and listings of prohibited hate groups within this legislation. Those additions are welcome. But they relate to only two new hate provisions. They are too limited in scope, and they won't take effect for two years. The amendment I put in front of the House now requires the government to provide annual reporting on the effectiveness of existing hate offences under the Criminal Code—those reported to the police, those referred to prosecutorial agencies, those finalised with and without court proceedings—and the details of any sentences imposed. With this I call for anonymised reporting on the substance of those alleged or prosecuted offences and the reasons why some may fail to result in a prosecution. To date, the convictions, prosecutions and sentencing of crimes committed under the hate regime of the Criminal Code have not reflected the broader community's view on the seriousness of these crimes. I expressed this concern in this place in February 2025. Since that time the laws have been invoked to charge only a handful of people in the face of a very significant number of hate crimes that we know are ongoing within our communities. This is just disproportionate to the seriousness and prevalence of hate crimes in our communities. The reports that would be generated as a result of this amendment will provide a clear and accurate picture of whether a hate crime regime is effective or whether its threshold remains too high to enable meaningful outcomes. The amendment is based on recommendations of expert groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the office of Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. We need a better understanding of the effectiveness of this critical piece of legislation. This amendment would represent a constructive contribution to that effect.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The terrorist attack in Bondi on 14 December 2025 shocked our country, and it utterly traumatised the Australian Jewish community. In its wake, our country needed our leaders to stand together...
The terrorist attack in Bondi on 14 December 2025 shocked our country, and it utterly traumatised the Australian Jewish community. In its wake, our country needed our leaders to stand together with resolution and unity. Instead, our leaders have largely failed us in the last four weeks. The immediate politicisation of a mass murder, by the opposition, which attacked the Prime Minister and which immediately chose to punch down on immigrants, disgusted many people in the community that I represent. The opposition's strident calls for the immediate return of parliament, followed very soon after by complaints about the early return of parliament, were confounding. The government initially vacillated on the need for a royal commission and then proposed broad, sweeping legislation on critical areas—the Criminal Code, migration law and gun control—without the judicious consultation and review that would ensure the confidence and support of our constituents. Civil liberty and community groups were given 48 hours to provide, to the parliamentary committee, submissions on a 144-page bill, with the final report being released just this morning. While I consulted constituents on the bill last week, the government decided to fold to pressure over the weekend, announcing wholesale changes without including our communities. The legislation now before the House was first seen by us less than an hour ago. We have been given five minutes to speak to it. This is unacceptable. Australians want us to get this right. Poor policymaking will not reassure our electorates. It won't make our constituents safer. Terrorism is not just an attack on our lives; it is an attack on our confidence, on our idea that the democracy we live in can remain both secure and free. Legislation on the run will never engender confidence in our processes or our government. In the last week, I've heard from many constituents who are rightly concerned that this legislation has been introduced and moved too quickly, with insufficient opportunity for community consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. They want us to undertake careful, rights based, non-reactive lawmaking. They want clear definitions, robust scrutiny and protections for democratic freedoms, including those for protest and advocacy. The concern from many in our community, and in the findings of the parliamentary report that was released this morning, is that the speed with which this bill has been drafted and the potential broad application of many of its provisions could have a chilling effect on legitimate debate on political, social and religious issues. The speed with which this legislation has been developed means that legal inconsistencies and unintended consequences seem inevitable. The bill does include measures that I and my community support. I support the government's move to include tougher penalties for hate crimes. I commend the government on taking action to constrain the radical hate groups that divide and harm us. I welcome new aggravated offences for community leaders who choose to incite violence. This morning I supported measures to improve the control of firearms in this country. But there are things that we're not debating today that we should be talking about. We're not protecting all Australians from serious vilification based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics. Hatred doesn't discriminate based on those characteristics, and neither should the law. The need for these protections was agreed on by the Jewish community, the Australian Human Rights Commission and Equality Australia, but the government has caved on this issue to a coalition that is in ethical and political freefall. The removal of racial vilification elements from this legislation renders it less likely to be effective in its aim of banning hate groups. The government has further watered down the bill overnight to ensure it can be passed today, but we don't have to pass this law today. We could consult with our communities, faith groups and human rights and legal experts and get this right. The government is letting politics be the enemy of policy. If the legacy of Bondi is a memory of division and inadequacy, then we will have failed this country. Yesterday so many of us spoke in this House of our great sadness at the tragic loss of 15 Australian lives. We have a unique opportunity with this legislation to make the greatest of differences on their behalf. If we don't do that, it will be a moment of darkness for this country, and it will reflect poorly on us all.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
The terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025 changed our country. What should have been an evening of sunlight and laughter, of faith and community, became a moment of national trauma. We...
The terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025 changed our country. What should have been an evening of sunlight and laughter, of faith and community, became a moment of national trauma. We lost 15 of our own to acts of senseless violence, and we lost some of the confidence we had as a country in our safety, our freedom and our generous diversity. In this place today we honour those lost by saying their names, and we say them with love, with respect and with grief: rabbi Eli Schlanger, Boris Tetleroyd, Boris and Sofia Gurman, Reuven Morrison, Edith Brutman, Marika Pogany, rabbi Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Tibor Weitzen, Alexander Kleytman, Dan Elkayam, Adam Smyth, Tania Tretiak and Matilda, the 10-year-old girl who broke Australia's heart. A central promise of our liberal democracy has always been that Australians should never have to live in fear of violence or intimidation because of who we are. In our most challenging hours as a nation Australians have drawn together. We've always been united against hate, against terror and against division. In moments as dark as these we are confronted by how much our society has changed in recent years. Antisemitism has accelerated. Racism and bigotry have become more virulent, their proponents more vocal and more violent. For many Jewish members of the Kooyong community the events of 14 December exacerbated their increasing fears that they're not safe here, they are not valued here and they do not belong here. I've heard from many of their devastation and their anger. Many are the children or grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. Their families crossed the world to find safety and security but now find themselves vilified in our streets, their schools defaced and their synagogues and cars torched. I've also heard from dozens of constituents who are not Jewish but who want me to convey on their behalf in this place their profound grief at what happened at Bondi. They've asked me to acknowledge on their behalf the pain and tragedy of the lives lost, to express shame that this happened to our own on our own beach and on our own shores. They want their leaders to express their grief and sympathy without qualification and without partisanship, and they want us in this place to demonstrate sensitivity and respect for all as we seek to heal our communities and our country. Together we thank those who had the extraordinary courage to protect others, sometimes at their own cost—those who thought not of race or religion, not of themselves, but only of the humans around them. We thank the police officers, first responders, surf lifesavers and healthcare workers who saved lives while risking their own. We know that no-one who was there at Bondi on 14 December will ever be quite the same again. If we are divided by these acts of terrorists, the terrorists have won. We can't let them close our hearts against each other. We have to stand together—arm in arm, hand in hand—to mark our loss, to express our grief and our desire to protect all Australians from acts of hate, and to support all members of our communities so that they will always know that they are respected, valuable and equal. Acts of senseless destruction will never overcome our determination to defend the strength, beauty and generosity of Australia's democracy. Our unity as a country is our greatest strength. We mourn those lost at Bondi because they are our own, and we mourn the loss of innocence that we've all experienced because extremism and terrorists have brought hatred to our home. Let the memory of the 15 lives lost at Bondi be a blessing. Let our home again be the Australia that they chose to live in and to immigrate to, and let their light shine brightly in this hour of darkness.
Asylum Seekers | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. In the last three months the government has signed a secret MOU to pay Nauru at least $2.5 billion to house an undisclosed number of asylum...
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. In the last three months the government has signed a secret MOU to pay Nauru at least $2.5 billion to house an undisclosed number of asylum seekers. Allegations of corruption have been made against multiple members of the Nauruan government, and it's been reported that Australian bikie gangs have won contracts to manage security on Nauru. Minister, is it your position that the opacity, wastefulness and cruelty of these arrangements reflect well on this country?
Science | Statements by Members | House debates
Australian scientists invented medical ultrasound, wi-fi, Aerogard and the cochlear implant. Our medical researchers developed penicillin, spray-on skin, cardiac pacemakers and vaccines against...
Australian scientists invented medical ultrasound, wi-fi, Aerogard and the cochlear implant. Our medical researchers developed penicillin, spray-on skin, cardiac pacemakers and vaccines against HPV. But in 2025, the Albanese government lacks the vision and commitment required to maximise yield from Australia's remarkable science, technology and medical research sectors. As inflation and the cost of computational requirements and cybersecurity rise, we are undersupporting science and medical research, and our institutes and research organisations are suffocating. While we await the government's strategic examination of research and development, the CSIRO is cutting jobs and programs; ANSTO is losing facilities and staff; the Medical Research Future Fund is underspent, while the financial capability of one in five medical research institutes is on the line; and grants from the Australian Research Council and the NHMRC have declined by 27 per cent over the last decade. Australian research and development is at risk of being stifled in the present and sidelined in the future, while we lose the talent and infrastructure that drive jobs, national security and technological strength. We have a choice: vision and transformation, or failure and loss. A defining decision awaits this government, and I urge it to choose wisely.
Commonwealth Prac Payment | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
The cost of tertiary education shouldn't hang over Australians' heads for the whole of their working lives, and, while they're studying, they shouldn't be anxious about where they're going to...
The cost of tertiary education shouldn't hang over Australians' heads for the whole of their working lives, and, while they're studying, they shouldn't be anxious about where they're going to sleep and what they're going to be able to eat because they can't cover the cost of their practical placements. Earlier this year, I welcomed the introduction of the Commonwealth prac placements for nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work students, but my position has always been—as the member for Indi's has, and I thank her for moving this motion—that this payment should apply to all courses in the care sector. When I was a medical student, accommodation was free. Caffs were cheap, but those days are gone. Medical students now have to cover the cost of professional registration, working-with-children checks, police checks, travel and accommodation, all while they are strictly limited in their ability to work to support their living expenses. Cost-of-living pressures mean that the proportion of students who have to support full-time study with full-time work has doubled, from one in 14 students in the 1990s to one in seven in 2023. In expecting students to undertake unpaid prac placements, we're therefore asking some of them to effectively work three full-time jobs. Medical students are required to undertake 2,000 hours of unpaid clinical placements, often well away from home in rural and regional settings. Occupational therapy students are required to undertake 1,000 hours of unpaid placement, including regional rotations with no travel support and no accommodation support. It's similar for podiatry students, who undertake up to 1,200 hours. The Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy recently found that placement poverty, which they define as experiencing significant financial hardship while on tertiary placements, affects 75 per cent of medical imaging students during their 56 weeks of placement. Nearly a quarter say that they cannot support themselves. Many consider dropping out. Others have already left their courses because the financial strain is just too great, especially for those students who are juggling work, study and care responsibilities. When Australia faces significant and ongoing shortages of GPs, medical specialists and virtually all allied health disciplines and mental health supports, it is inexplicable that the government is not doing everything possible to help all students complete their training. Education and training should be an opportunity available to every Australian. It shouldn't be a financial burden, but, for too many of our students, prac placements mean stress and anxiety more than they mean engagement, fulfilment, skills development and learning. Every time I raise this issue on social media, my DMs and my email inbox are flooded with stories from students from around Australia, which reinforces that prac-placement poverty is real and it is hurting our future workforce. I've heard from young women who are being forced to sleep in their cars, to skip meals and to then defer their studies so that they can save for a year so they can complete their prac placements. Some give up because of the stress and the financial burden; they never go back to study. Those young people will be left with debt and regret, but no diplomas or degrees. That is a failure of policy and it's a failure of government. Prac placements are also a question of gender equity because more students in the care sector are female than male, and it's a question of intergenerational equity. The young people who are now undertaking tertiary studies are the generation which in the middle of a compounding cost-of-living crisis, housing crisis and climate crisis are being burdened with unprecedented levels of personal debt simply through their desire to train and to equip themselves with the skillsets that they need for their adult lives. This is a generation which understands that Australian university students contribute more to government revenue than the oil and gas industry do in resources tax. What does that say about our government, what does that say about its principles, and what does that say about its priorities? I call on the government to recognise this education crisis for what it is. We owe it to the next generation to do better for these students. If we invest in them now, we invest in the future wellbeing of every Australian.