Michael McCormack's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Jonceski, Mr Ljupco (Luch) | Condolences | House debates
Just think about this: condolence motions are usually reserved for royalty, for world leaders, for ministers of the Crown and now Luch. Luch! What a national icon he is in life and in death....
Just think about this: condolence motions are usually reserved for royalty, for world leaders, for ministers of the Crown and now Luch. Luch! What a national icon he is in life and in death. Ljupco 'Luch' Jonceski was 59 years young. Like the member for Fisher, I was shocked and saddened when I learnt of his death. I learnt it from Zoe McKenzie's Facebook page, actually. I was just stunned. I think we all were. He had such a wonderful life. He'd packed so much into those 59 years, and I'll say 'short years' because he left us all too soon, all too suddenly. There are thousands upon thousands of people who come to Parliament House to work every day. It doesn't matter whether the place is sitting or whether it's in recess. I can think of four who are universally loved and, moreover, universally known by all of us, and they are, in no particular order, Brigette Bull, who is the barista at Aussie's Cafe, and then Maria Ljubic and her sister, Anna, the cleaners—those well-known cleaners who always have a cheery smile and sometimes a cuddle and a kiss for the MPs. Aren't they fantastic? What an amazing duo! Then there was Luch, universally loved and respected and known. Now the parliament stops to honour his memory, a right usually only reserved for somebody really important. But, you know, Luch was important, and he was important to each and every one of us because he made our jobs easier; he made our lives better. He was a builder, and we know that he helped build this place. Later on, when his labouring days were over and he became a greencoat, he built relationships. He built relationships across the aisle. We didn't even know that he was doing it, but he did. The last time I saw Luch, I was dressed up as Elvis Presley. I was. We had our seventies and eighties dress-up theme night, as only the Nationals could do, and Luch spotted me in my powder-blue sequined suit, and he made a beeline for me because he wanted a picture with me. We did the old Elvis thing. I was a little bit tardy in sending him the picture—it took me about 10 minutes—and Luch was straight on the phone: 'I want that picture. I need that picture.' He was somebody whose smile, no matter how bad a day you were having—on some of your worst days in politics, Luch was there and he was always smiling. He was always wanting to gee you up and make you feel good about yourself and make you feel good about the fact that you were here in the people's house and you were here representing the nation and representing your electorate. Like the member for Cunningham, I too shared in Luch's want—his need—to know about your electorate and your people. I attended his Monday 12 January service, his funeral, at Queanbeyan's Macedonian Orthodox Church of the Prophet Ilija, and I got there early. I could not believe the throng of people. It's only a little church, but I was astounded by the number of people who turned up at that service. I was one of the lucky ones to be inside the church. I felt a bit guilty, but I was dragged in there by someone who felt that I should be in there. There were a few parliamentarians there, and I must admit I didn't understand the whole service; it was done in the native tongue. But the eulogies were very special. They were done in English as well, and they described a man who was a wonderful human being. We all saw him just as somebody who we thought we owned, but he was more than that. Out in his Macedonian community, he was a sports follower. He was somebody who, as here, had an infectious way about him. But he was a family man as well. He was a husband, he was a father and his family just adored him, as you can understand. But so did the entire community who turned up at that service—a bigger service than probably most of us will get, and deservedly so. He ran the green-coated attendants with good humour, with professionalism and with aplomb. Nothing was ever too hard for him to do. Nothing was too menial. He would do anything for you. He treated everyone the same, from the prime minister of the day to the newly minted backbencher, and everybody loved him for his trademark smile, his happy disposition and his wisdom. He didn't clean your office like the two sisters, and he didn't make your coffee like Brigette, but what he brought to this place and to each and every member was his love, his care, his support and his friendship. He was a stalwart. Hundreds upon hundreds of MPs have benefited from his more than 40 years of experience, his wisdom and him just being Luch. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, the member for Oxley, described Luch as his 'main man'. When Luch passed away, I contacted the Speaker. He said, 'Every time Luch saw me, each time we walked the mace or he opened the door, he always said, "Let's do this, Mr Speaker."' It was a little thing, but, as the Speaker said, it made him laugh. Milton Dick said, 'I saw how kind he was to every new member. What a hero.' Too true, Mr Speaker. He was such a generous soul. We mourn his loss. The place, as the member for Fisher said, will not be the same without him. It would be nice to think that we could do something for him—maybe name the attendants room in his honour—that would honour his memory. I did go into the attendants room just before question time on the first day back here, on Tuesday, for the parliamentary year—apart from the extraordinary January sittings we had—and I offered my condolences to the attendants, and I do so again now, because I know how each and every one of you would be feeling because he was a special person. It's like losing the mentor who you've known, loved and respected. I say, again, what an extraordinary human being—the fact that the Parliament of Australia can stop, can grind to a halt, and we can all as one rise in our places, offer him the respect he deserved and then give speeches for his passing. Who else would get that but Luch? He'd be looking down on us now and he'd be almost annoyed at the fuss. He'd be humbled by it, but, in his own special way, I think he'd quite enjoy the fact that he was being honoured in this way, because he was gregarious and he was a great people person. May he rest in peace. We love you, we honour you, and we miss you dearly. Vale, Luch.
Bolkus, Hon. Nick | Condolences | House debates
It's actually an honour to follow the member for Scullin. They were fine words, indeed. I'm sure Nick Bolkus's family will very much appreciate reading and hearing those words you've just uttered...
It's actually an honour to follow the member for Scullin. They were fine words, indeed. I'm sure Nick Bolkus's family will very much appreciate reading and hearing those words you've just uttered in your speech. You might find it perplexing to understand why a National Party member is standing to rise to speak on somebody he never met—somebody from the Labor Centre Left—but I was reminded when I walked into the chamber by the member for Adelaide, who is a very good friend of mine, about Nick Bolkus. Steve Georganas reminded me that he worked for Nick Bolkus for 10 years and said that but for Nick Bolkus he wouldn't actually be in this place. So Nick Bolkus does have a little bit to answer for! I say that with genuine warmth, and it is meant, because Steve and I are great mates. I know Nick Bolkus was great mates with people across the aisle in the parliament. He was also of Greek descent, just like the member for Adelaide and me. We've both, fortunately, made sure all the necessary arrangements with the citizenship test are in place such that we are very much Australian and have very much renounced any Greek descent status that would perhaps prevent us from taking our places here. As Steve reminded me as well, Nick Bolkus was a good friend of multicultural Australia. He was somebody who strove to make Australia a better place. Often, when Labor luminaries pass away, I refer to my predecessor Kay Hull to see what she thought of them and to get an understanding of the part they played in the parliament and in the life of Australia. I messaged Kay yesterday, and she said, 'He was a decent person.' She said, 'We did disagree on the South Australian water view.' I'm not quite sure how many members for Riverina would ever agree with a South Australian on the water situation; we always agree to disagree in that context. She said: 'To be honest, he was a decent backbench senator when I was there. He was so diplomatic and loyal to the Labor party.' She said, 'I always felt so much respect for how he accepted the fact that he had been overlooked towards the end of his political career in November 2001.' He'd served as the shadow Attorney-General; it's not an easy position. It really isn't. Shadow Attorney-General is one of the toughest jobs in parliament because you don't get all of the resources that a cabinet minister would get. You don't get all of the briefings, all the departmental help, the staff or the resources, but you are expected—as somebody who is making the first law officer of the land accountable—to be across every legal matter that comes before the parliament. He was also shadow minister for justice. Again, that's a complex, intricate and difficult role, but he filled that role with great aplomb. He filled that role with all of the fervour and gusto that you would expect of someone of Greek descent—where of course they invented democracy, didn't they, member for Adelaide? I'm looking for an interjection—yes. I'll just note for the Hansard that he nodded! Nick Bolkus took his role very, very seriously, according to Kay. As she said, he did not have a bad word to say about his party or about anyone. That, I think, is the measure of the man, as well. He was somebody who, as the member for Scullin quite eloquently described, saw a bigger picture. When he had the ability to change the country and make a difference, he took that with both hands and fulfilled that role admirably. From somebody whose parents came from—as the member for Adelaide reminded me—the Kastellorizo came somebody who entered this parliament and gave of his all from 1981 through to 2005. It's a long career. Not many parliamentarians get 20-plus years in the Senate, in the parliament, and he made use of every one of those 24 years to make a difference and to make this country a better place. To that end, I say, we say, thank you to the late senator Nick Bolkus. Thank you for your endeavours; thank you for your efforts. Very sincere, heartfelt and genuine condolences to your loved ones, to your family and to your wide circle of friends—particularly in the Greek community, who would be feeling your loss very appreciably. Vale, Nick Bolkus. Well done.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
When addressing the graduating class of the Australian Defence Force Academy last year, Governor-General Sam Mostyn AC said: You have prepared yourselves to live ADFA's motto: to lead, to excel....
When addressing the graduating class of the Australian Defence Force Academy last year, Governor-General Sam Mostyn AC said: You have prepared yourselves to live ADFA's motto: to lead, to excel. You have learned to be leaders who will work for peace and stability, who will make ethical and helpful decisions, who will prioritise human life and dignity and always act with compassion and care. You embody the ADF values of service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. I believe these values will guide you throughout your careers—not as abstract ideals, but as the foundation of trust, teamwork, service, loyalty and duty. I attended this particularly wonderful function at Duntroon to see Inigo Bardos, son of David and Jane from Wagga Wagga, graduate. Those who graduated on that day will one day be veterans. Those who graduated on that day will one day need our help. Those who graduated will look to the Department of Veterans Affairs. They will come through their military careers. There will be ups and downs, but we wish them every success. We know that they will uphold that bond of courage, unity and teamwork. So we must ensure that, when they do finish their military careers, we are there for them. That's why this veterans legislation is important.
Riverina Electorate: Australia Day | Constituency Statements | House debates
We all have them in our electorates—those selfless volunteers who are the very glue that binds our communities together. On Australia Day we recognise them, acknowledge them and honour...
We all have them in our electorates—those selfless volunteers who are the very glue that binds our communities together. On Australia Day we recognise them, acknowledge them and honour them. Here is a roll call of community champions for the Riverina electorate. They are citizens of the year—volunteers who have done so much to make our towns and Wagga Wagga a better place in which to live. In Coolamon there was Guy Purcell. In the Cootamundra-Gundagai local government area, there were Maureen Simpfendorfer and Sister Kathy Hodge in Cootamundra and Wendy Anderson in Gundagai. In Cowra, there was Jenny Friend. In the Hilltops local government area there were: in Boorowa, Angus Clements, who won Citizen of the Year; in Harden-Murrumburrah, Sarah and Andrew Jones; in Wombat, the Wombatian Citizen of the Year Cathy Simpson; and in Young, Ted Webber. In Junee, it was Natalie Phillips. In Lockhart, it was Keith Fraser. In the Snowy Valleys there were Shane Walsh in Adelong, Glenn Lavis in Tumbarumba, and Jane Dean and Adam Farquharson in Tumut. In Temora, there was Frances Dwyer. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 10:26 The Upper Lachlan Shire's Shire Citizen of the Year was Melinda Medway. In Crookwell it was Louise Gibbs. In Taralga it was Robert Handley. In Wagga Wagga Aunty Mary Atkinson deservedly was honoured with Citizen of the Year. In Weddin which is Grenfell, John Gorman got the gong. In Yass Valley it was Phil Gaden. We thank each and every one of them. Congratulations to past and present Riverina constituents who were awarded an Order of Australia for their contributions: John Killick OAM of Galong; Thomas Moss OAM of Khancoban; Stephen Sullivan OAM of Taralga; and Brett Murray, with whom I worked at the Daily Advertiser in the 1980s, who received an OAM for services to motor sports and journalism. I'm also very pleased that Gerard Kearns, the Kapooka commandant, the leader of 1st Recruit Training Battalion, Blamey Barracks, also was honoured in the Australia Day list. Nedd Brockmann of Forbes is the Young Australian of the Year. Now, he's not in my electorate anymore—Forbes is now in the division of Parkes—but his inspirational regional work and national work is something to behold. I eagerly look forward to seeing where Nedd's efforts take him into the future. To each and every one of those community champions, I say thank you. I say thank you on behalf of your communities, because your communities are better places in which to live, work and play because of the selflessness that you have shown not just in the past 12 months but for many years besides. Without those sorts of people, we couldn't have a nation that is as great as Australia is. So well done. Happy Australia Day to each and every one of them. Thank you for your efforts.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
We should thank our nurses each and every day—not only our nurses but our pharmacists and our doctors. Anyone who puts on scrubs and goes into a theatre ward and anyone who serves our...
We should thank our nurses each and every day—not only our nurses but our pharmacists and our doctors. Anyone who puts on scrubs and goes into a theatre ward and anyone who serves our hospital system or our medical system needs the applause and the gratitude of this place and of Australians right across the nation. I'm one who listens very carefully in question time. This government is now nearly four years old. For four years, the Labor government has been blaming the Morrison-McCormack government in particular and previous coalition governments per se for the financial stresses it claims it's under. They exaggerate the figure. Yes, we did have a debt, that debt born out of a global pandemic the likes of which we had not seen since just after World War I—which, of course, ended in 1918. We did what we could. We spent the money that was needed to keep people in jobs and, more importantly, to keep Australians alive—not just Australians but our Pacific neighbours and friends as well. Through those Morrison years, there were more than 94 million telehealth consultations through Medicare, with 16 million patients, and that was a significant achievement. Speaking as one who comes from rural and regional Australia, we don't ever want to see telehealth replace hands-on medical professional care. It was necessary during the COVID years and it's necessary at any time, but, particularly in remote Australia and in Indigenous communities, we don't want to see telehealth replace a person who can give a consult. During the Morrison years, from 2019, 857 new medicines were listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—another significant achievement. There were 1,400 additional nurse placements for the regions, and that is something that we should also be very proud of as a former coalition government. The Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 is about empowering nurses. The bill worries me as one who comes from the regions and as one who wants to see nurses being the best they can be, just like pharmacists were, and we empowered those during the COVID crisis, when it seemed that the AMA, the Australian Medical Association, wanted only doctors to issue vaccinations when we knew that in some rural communities the only health professional in town was a chemist. That chemist needed to be able to issue vaccines as well. It just made good sense. And the member for Barton, in her contribution, talked about the fact that in some regional communities a nurse is the only health professional in town, and she's right. Sadly, she's very accurate. But, as the member for Mallee quite correctly pointed out in her earlier speech, the first order of business of this federal Labor government in the medical field was to change the distribution priority areas. That saw doctors operating in some regional communities take their shingle from the wall and move to Newcastle or Wollongong or the Gold Coast or anywhere but regional and remote Australia, and this was wrong. They were making money. They were providing a level of health care second to none, but they saw the opportunity to move to the coast and did so, and good luck to them. But as the national rural health reporter Steven Schubert of the ABC wrote in an article from 15 December 2022 headlined 'Rural doctors say they are losing staff to big cities due to policy change': Annette Pham thought she had recruited two doctors to work in her GP clinics, but a policy change in Canberra resulted in both of them pulling out almost overnight. Ms Pham and her husband own four GP clinics on the New South Wales south coast, all within a few hours' drive from Sydney and on some of Australia's best beaches— no question there. The article continues: "We had two that pulled out officially after signing contracts," she said. "Then we've had probably a further three that looked at our practice, they looked at other practices and they inevitably decided in the end that they would stay in the city." That is a problem. The article also says: Rural Doctors' Association of Australia (RDAA) chief executive Peta Rutherford said the organisation was getting reports the policy— this is the distribution priority areas policy moving the boundaries such that it takes in those areas I mentioned before, Newcastle and Wollongong and the Gold Coast et cetera— was going to have an impact on rural communities before it had even been implemented. Well, if that was the fear before, it certainly ended up being a reality afterwards. And it is true that doctors took their practices and took themselves and moved to other areas of Australia, more populated areas of Australia, areas of Australia where there are more doctors. Unfortunately—and I don't blame them; I blame the government—what this policy meant was that regional areas and some particularly remote areas then got left high and dry as far as doctors were concerned. I also will recall the health minister talking about bulk-billing rates, which we know, because it was quoted so many times in the House of Representatives last year, dropped by 11 per cent under Labor to 77 per cent from the previous 88 per cent under the coalition. He was talking about rural people, and he said that if they can't get a doctor's appointment, they could pick up the phone and try another doctor. That might all be well and good in Adelaide, but it doesn't cut the mustard out in country towns because you're lucky to get a doctor bulk billing or otherwise. You're certainly lucky if you can get a bulk-billing doctor. I know Labor will pat themselves on the back and say: 'Bulk-billing rates are something that is a priority. The GP aftercare clinics, the urgent care clinics—we're rolling them out across the country.' Yes, they are but in Labor electorates and in electorates that they want to win. We heard the member for Lyne talking about Taree, and I do hope Taree gets one of those care clinics because it's needed and not just in Taree but in many other regional communities as well. They are needed and they are good. I will acknowledge that they do fill the gaps of the state public health system and the overall medical system where people often do need, particularly after hours, to take babies and children when there is no other doctor available, and that is saving lives. I acknowledge that. But what we are talking about here is nurses being given more scope to provide medicines to do what sometimes ordinarily would be the job of the local general practitioner. I do wonder what the AMA thinks of this. I know that a lot of the legislation that Labor is bringing to this place and has done since May 2022 is often rushed. There's often not the stakeholder engagement that you would expect in important nation-changing legislation, and that is something that truly troubles me. I know that the member for Mallee, who happens to be married to a doctor, said that the Nationals—indeed, the Liberals too—want to rectify the poorer health status of regional Australians. I know that would be a goal as well of Labor members. Surely that's something that would be across the board. It's a status driven in large part by poor access to health services in the bush. Sadly, we people in country Australia don't live as long as those who live in metropolitan Australia who have closer, better and more diverse access to health services than those who live a long way from the city lights. We as a party, and I will say as parties of coalition, are committed to supporting regional communities and driving policies and programs to improve the health status of regional Australians. Again, I say that I know that would be a goal of Labor too. It would be silly to say it's not, but health has to come above politics. It truly does. I know when I entered this place in 2010, I was told by more than one person that if you get the health of your community right, it provides that happiness factor, that satisfaction factor, and everything else will seem to take care of itself. Indeed, that is the truth. This bill seeks to grant eligibility for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme rebates on medications prescribed by a new category of prescribers, and they're called authorised nurse prescribers. As I understand, there will be training for those authorised nurse prescribers. Whether the training for six months is sufficient—I'm certainly not in any way, shape or form denigrating those nurses and the work that those nurses perform, whether they are young, freshly out of the system and straight into the hospitals, the practices or the clinics or whether they have been there for decades. I certainly do not in any way put criticism on what they do because the care of their patients is first and foremost. The government's proposed authorised nurse prescribers will be registered nurses with additional training who work in a collaborative arrangement with an autonomous prescriber professional who can already prescribe independently, expanding the scope of practice for a registered nurse. Labor is proposing this new model of prescribing in Australia. Nurses who meet these criteria are not expected to be qualified to prescribe until the middle of 2026, but that's only less than six months away. That's not far away in the scheme of things. So I do wonder and I do question, as with much of what Labor introduces, whether it's policy on the run, whether it masks a more serious situation—and that is the lack of doctors practising in Australia. I would like to think that Labor would not be using this as a trojan horse to not then provide the necessary funding, ongoing support, for such things as the medical schools. I will say that the Murray-Darling Medical School Network is going tremendously well. I know that in Wagga Wagga, in Bendigo, in Mildura, in Shepparton, in Dubbo and in Orange it is actually answering and fulfilling a need that was there. I'm so glad that I was able to, with former health minister Greg Hunt, fund that vital network of services which are provided in just about every town and city. The former minister for education is now taking the credit, and he played a part too, so I do thank the member for Wannon. It was a coalition initiative. Indeed, every one of those facilities, in every one of those centres I mentioned, is producing 20 to 30 new doctors—well, they will be when the doctors graduate; of course we know that takes some years. It certainly started under the coalition government. I know that Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, came and opened the one at Wagga Wagga late last year and gave some generous words. He knows that we need to be more bipartisan when it comes to health, because health is everything. There are some conditions and there are some parts of this legislation which do worry me. I know the member for Mallee has set out her concerns, and I know that each and every regional member would also, understandably, share some of those issues that this legislation has in it.
Last night, at the Australian War Memorial, the shrine of remembrance, that remarkable Australian place where the memory of 103,000 fallen is sacrosanct and they are honoured, immortalised and...
Last night, at the Australian War Memorial, the shrine of remembrance, that remarkable Australian place where the memory of 103,000 fallen is sacrosanct and they are honoured, immortalised and memorialised, we had a service, a last post ceremony, for Major Cyril Herbert Dodson Lane. He was killed at Gallipoli, aged just 27. He was killed at Hill 60 on 29 August in that fateful year 1915. He was born at Bondi and, whether by design or by chance, it was rather interesting, given what happened there on 14 December last year, that somebody with such a connection to that eastern suburbs beach—that eastern suburb in Sydney—should be honoured at the Australian War Memorial at the last post ceremony commemorating the start of the parliamentary year. I think it's nice, and it's appropriate, that, at the start of each parliamentary year, MPs and senators go across the lake from the front doors of parliament and up that straight line to the Australian War Memorial to honour those who gave us the unique, rare and great privilege of being able to serve a free and fair democracy, because it is the service and sacrifice of those men and women that enables us to do our jobs for and on behalf of Australian people. Whether it be Major Lane or any one of the other 103,000 men and women on the Roll of Honour—bronzed Aussies all, heroes all; any of them—we are able to do our jobs because of them. I'm very proud that I come from Wagga Wagga, a garrison city, a military town, a defence town. There are 1,576 people, or 2.9 per cent of the population, aged 15 and over who have past Australian Defence Force service. There are 1,489 people, or 2.7 per cent of the population, aged 15 and over who are currently serving in the Australian Defence Force. The proportion of veterans in Wagga Wagga, 2.9 per cent, is higher than the average for regional New South Wales. We've had the Air Force there since 29 July 1940. The 1 Recruit Training Unit is one of the primary defence strategic establishments at RAAF Wagga, where air power in Australia begins. It says so on one of the hangars. In Kapooka is the 'home of the soldier', Blamey Barracks, honouring Sir Thomas Blamey, General Blamey— An honourable member: Field Marshal. Field Marshal, indeed. He ensured that we are not speaking a different language, with the work that he did in the Pacific theatre of war in World War II. He was born at Lake Albert. Kapooka has been there since 1951. Since 1993, we've had a very strong naval presence. Personnel from the Royal Australian Navy have undertaken aviation technical training at the RAAF School of Technical Training at the Forest Hill base. So we are very much indebted and wedded to our military. Veterans are important. Not only do we have an obligation as parliamentarians to ensure that we have the right parameters, the right equipment and everything else for our current serving defence personnel but, when they leave the uniform, when they finish their military careers, we have to be there for them. Many of them are broken; many of them are not. It annoys me constantly that there is this perception that anybody who has served is broken; they are not. Yes, some of them suffer from the wears and tears of their service, and we have to be there for them. That's why the royal commission was so important. If we break them, we must fix them. We must mend them. We must provide the wraparound services, the support, the love and the care to ensure that they can live full and wholesome lives after their service has ended. Many of them are doing some fine things, in small business, private enterprise and many other endeavours. I will give a shout-out here to former prime minister Turnbull for the role that he played in ensuring that many of them are job-ready and the emphasis he placed on ensuring that that there is a pathway there to civilian employment for our ex-service personnel—fine men and women. I commend him for that. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 is important legislation, as any veterans legislation is. I remember, when I was for a brief moment the veterans affairs minister in late 2017, early 2018, we put through the parliament at that time veteran-centric legislation such that it provided avenues and supports for veterans that weren't there previously. It was good legislation. Every piece of legislation should have a veterans lens placed over it, just like every piece of legislation should have a regional focus on it as well. I know that the Liberals and Nationals are supportive of this bill, while noting from the Chief of the Defence Force notifications that they want to ensure that veterans are able to access treatment, particularly mental health care, providing and prioritising safe access to care. I know the CDF places this as one of the most important obligations of their duty as well. It's not just the current serving personnel under their care; it's also those who have finished their time. Noting importantly, too, that—and this is a bipartisan thing—these days, if you spend one hour in uniform, one hour with the various tri services, you are eligible and entitled to receive proper and adequate mental health care for the rest of your life, and that is entirely appropriate. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 makes a series of amendments to veterans legislation to support the implementation of the government's harmonisation and simplification reforms. To that end, I say to the government thank you, because simplifying and harmonising very complicated legislation in the veteran space is so vital. The bill primarily makes technical, clarifying and consequential changes to facilitate the transition to a single ongoing compensation and rehabilitation framework under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act of 2004, the MRCA, from 1 July this year, when the Veterans' Entitlements Act of 1986 and the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, the DRCA, are closed to new claims. I've spoken a number of times to a great friend of mine, former deputy commandant at Kapooka, Bert Hoebee, in relation to ensuring that veterans are looked after. I also note the work that is done in my electorate by a number of organisations. There's Pro Patria at Ashmont. The RSL sub-branch has a very good facility on Bayliss Street, the main street in Wagga Wagga. It's a drop-in centre for veterans. I want to commend the work of the Baks at Bethungra for the work that they do for veterans. I also want to acknowledge the work being done in Cootamundra. On Parker Street, in the main street of Cootamundra, is a drop-in centre that is proving so very worthwhile. On Saturday, Cootamundra's Jacqui Vincent OAM was acknowledged for her 37 years of service with the sub-branch and with veterans. Her legacy will be that drop-in centre. Jacqui has done a power of work. She's unwell at the moment. This luncheon drew veterans and sub-branches from right throughout the Riverina region and was so well attended. They were there to honour the work that she has done. It's people like Jacqui Vincent in Cootamundra, Jason Frost in Wagga Wagga, and Gordon Saggers and Alan Lane at Pro Patria and the work that they're doing through the RSL sub-branch and the drop-in centre at Bayliss Street. It makes such a difference. The coalition supported the royal commission interim report recommendations to simplify and harmonise veterans' compensation arrangements because the current multi-act system is difficult. It's complicated, it's hard to navigate and it's often very confusing for veterans and their families. We shouldn't make things hard for those veterans who've made life easier for us, which they have, by their very service, made life better for us. We should ensure that—and the coalition does support this; the Liberals and the Nationals support this—the primary reform legislation continues in the objective of a single ongoing framework under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the MRCA. This will hopefully reduce duplication. It will provide better consistency in administration. It will make entitlements, claims and reviews easier for veterans and families to understand, navigate and access. Surely that is something that we all should very much applaud. Why hasn't this been done in the past? I appreciate the complexities of it. I appreciate that the royal commission had to come first. I know the harrowing evidence so bravely and courageously given by so many at those hearings, including Wagga Wagga. It must have been difficult for them to speak from the heart about the wrongdoing that was done to them and the need for us as a parliament to stand up and acknowledge and recognise the hurt and the healing that now must take place. So that was obviously a priority. I thank the government for now making this a priority, as well as working on those important recommendations and reforms that must come as a result of the royal commission. That's an absolute must. We do have some reservations about— Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30
Copyright Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Whilst the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is largely a technical bill, it is, as the member for Griffith quite correctly points out, an important one. It's not going to grab headlines, but...
Whilst the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is largely a technical bill, it is, as the member for Griffith quite correctly points out, an important one. It's not going to grab headlines, but headlines are what it's all about because we live in a digital media age. We live in the information age. When I was a newspaper journalist, indeed a newspaper editor for more than a decade, I was fortunate to have some of the experience imparted upon me by Bruce Burke. Bruce Burke is a very good defamation lawyer, particularly specialising in the media. He won the Australian Press Council Press Freedom Award in 2022 for his work. He was very good at the traditional print media, and the media landscape has changed vastly. I refer to the book, More or Less: Democracy and New Media, edited by Helen Sykes. Far be it from me to start quoting Labor members of parliament or former members of parliament, but I note that in the chapter titled 'Free Speech, Responsible Media, Law and Liberal Democracy', by former Attorney-General from 1993 to 1996, Michael Lavarch, he writes—and quite correctly too—about the role of media in a democracy. He notes: 'The media plays a central role in our lives, even more so now that we can access a range of media sources through the gadgets we all carry around. I do not just mean social media but also more traditional forms, such as television, radio and newspapers. We have an abundance of information and opinion at our fingertips, all jostling for our attention.' He says: 'In order for democracy to flourish, it is vital that the citizen has various sources of information and access to proper forums for open and fair debate. The media plays a critical role in stimulating debate about important issues, presenting facts and reporting news, uncovering corruption and misconduct, and providing a vehicle for diverse perspectives.' And he's very right. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject. Further on in the book there is a chapter by no less than former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, a journalist of some note—and I think once a journalist always a journalist. He writes about what he calls 'at least two big questions': Will enough readers pay enough money to view online news to offset the loss of advertising revenues from the printed medium? What is the best paywall model that will hit the sweet spot of subscription revenue and at the same time ensure there are enough readers to maintain advertising yields? He says that the jury is out on both—and, indeed, it is. Our media is under pressure like never before. We need to help and support it, and encourage any moves of the government. I know that the government has done something in this regard, and I encourage that. This bill is important because it puts some framework around copyright, and, while it's a complicated matter, it's a very important matter. I know that the—I won't say the coalition's position; I'll just say that the Liberals' and the Nationals' position is to support the legislation. I appreciate that it has gone before the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and inquiry thereof, but it is important and noteworthy. There are several schedules to the bill, which I'll refer to in a moment or two. I also want to acknowledge the work that the previous coalition government did in relation to supporting publishers against the big meta companies. Yesterday's edition of the Daily Advertiser, which I once edited, was just 16 pages. I cannot recall in all my time as the editor of that publication it being so thin. Their advertising has fallen off the cliff. It is so hard for them to make a buck, but they're still investing in journalism; they're still investing in writing and photography and local news. Whilstever they're prepared to do that, we should protect them and help them by way of government advertising, but certainly with legislation that does protect their copyright—legislation that protects the work that they create and the work that the people they invest in create. I know that former treasurer Josh Frydenberg—may he come back soon—in 2021 did a lot of good to strengthen the companies in Australia that do invest in Australian content and Australian journalism. At the time, he flexed his muscle and bent the arm of these big companies that, if you let them ride roughshod, will just take the content and plonk it in their own publications with no copyright paid. There's no dues paid or compensation paid for the work that has been created here in Australia—here in regional Australia. We do need to protect the ACMs of the world, because what we don't want to see is a landscape where there are no printed editions being lobbed on front driveways and lawns. Yes, everybody has one of these—a mobile phone—and a lot of people use them for their news, and that's great, but there are still people, particularly in regional Australia, who love their little local newspaper—the Tumut and Adelong Times, the Temora Independentand they're really successful newspapers because they're doing the parish-pump stuff. That parish-pump stuff is copyrighted to those people producing it, and so it should be. I had a conversation earlier this afternoon with Michelle Grattan, somebody who I've got the utmost respect for. She runs the Conversation. We all know the fine journalism work that she has done for decades, and long may that continue. The Conversation, which I recommend people read, has really investigated this copyright angle—particularly, as the member for Griffith pointed out, in this changing and emerging world of ChatGPT and the information age in which we live. In one article, author Wellett Potter, lecturer in law at University of New England, writes, 'If ChatGPT wrote it, who owns the copyright?'—it's a good question—'It depends on where you live, but in Australia it's complicated.' That's why we're here today. That's why we're discussing this. It's a shame there's not more speakers on the bill. I note the member for Nicholls holding up the lines for the Nationals. We're in there; we're fighting the good fight for and on behalf of those people who understand and appreciate what copyright means in this changing world. The Conversation also had a very good article by Agata Mrva-Montoya: 'An AI startup has agreed to a $2.2 billion copyright settlement. But will Australian writers benefit?' It's a very good question, because all too often the courts are determining and deciding on matters pertaining to copyright, but are the penalties or the resolutions of these cases—the money—filtering down to the people who actually created the items or the photographs or the art pieces or whatever in the first place? The author wrote: If the settlement is approved by the presiding judge, the company will pay authors about US$3,000 for each of the estimated 500,000 books included in the agreement. It will destroy illegally downloaded books and refrain from using pirated books to train chatbots in the future. Another article in the Conversation, the author of which was Alice Grundy, a visiting fellow at the School of Literature, Language and Linguistics at ANU, was 'The Productivity Commission is floating AI copyright exemptions—with worrying implications for Australian authors and publishers'. That's why we do need to act. That's why we do need to be on top of this. Whilst it is a complicated subject, I appreciate the member for Griffith mentioning the former attorney-general and his work in this regard, and I would very much encourage the new attorney-general, the member for Greenway, who is a former minister for communications, to have her department and her staff look at this because it is an important topic and we do need to protect Australian authors and Australian writers. We particularly need to do so to help Australian media companies that are investing in Australians and investing in Australian journalism. I'll stand up here and cheer them on every step of the way. In this article by Ms Grundy, it's written: This would make it legal to train artificial intelligence large language models, such as ChatGPT, on copyrighted Australian work. AI training would be added to the list of "fair dealing" exceptions already existing in the Copyright Act. Why? The Productivity Commission estimates— wait for this— a potential A$116 billion over ten years flowing into the Australian economy, thanks to AI. So it's upon us, and we have to act. All too often, in areas such as this, governments of all political persuasions are too slow to act. I commend the bill and I commend what it brings. We do need to put, as the member for Griffith said, careful guardrails around it because it is too important. We have to get it right. We can't muck this up and get it wrong. I'll go to the various schedules of the bill. Schedule 1 establishes an orphan-works scheme to facilitate the use of orphan works by limiting the remedies that are available for infringing uses of these works. It sounds all rather complicated, but 'orphan works' refer to copyrighted material where an owner is unknown or unlocatable. You can understand that, with people changing jobs and going here, there and everywhere in this day and age, it is sometimes difficult to find out who, in fact, actually wrote the piece in the first place, and sometimes articles in newspapers are unbylined. Sometimes pictures and other works do not carry the author's name—the taker's name, in the case of a photograph. Currently, anyone using unauthorised reproductions or adaptations of existing works may face significant financial consequences, even where genuine attempts have been made to identify the original creator. You will get some people who think it's just their right and their privilege to cut and paste and to pinch anything to use as memes and all those sorts of things. But somebody has generated that image or that article in the first place, and there is a duty upon the person who's lifting it to at least try to find out who the original content author was. The legislation will require users to conduct a reasonably diligent search, and people should do that. They absolutely should. Schedule 2 clarifies that a copyright exception related to the performance and communication of works in the course of giving educational instruction applies to online and hybrid educational environments. I have a daughter who's a teacher; in fact, she's an English teacher and a drama teacher. It is important for not only students accessing their education online but also younger students who may require assistance from a parent or other person, but it also comes back to teachers, and the onus is on teachers. I tell you what: when you are a teacher these days, you're not just a teacher; you're a parent, you're a caregiver, you're a parish priest, you're a sports coach, you're a therapist—you are everything. You have to make the meals for the kids! You wouldn't be a teacher for quids, quite frankly. We owe it to our teachers to do everything we can to help them in their absolutely fine work. And I'll tell you what: if you are a teacher, thank you. Thank you for the work you do for and on behalf of Australian families everywhere but for our future as well. Independent and Catholic sectors are calling for broader reforms as part of this bill. I do hope that the government has put this out to discussion enough. Sometimes I do fear that the government doesn't do that and doesn't take on the stakeholders, but this is an important aspect of it. Those organisations, the independent and Catholic sectors, wanted to see a public interest fair-dealing exception so teachers can safely use digital and AI tools without risking copyright breaches. As I say, teachers are very good at what they do, but they can't be bush lawyers as well and try and take in everything. So fair's fair. Schools have largely welcomed the change. They say it's only a first step—and they're right—as the law fails to meet the needs of modern schools, particularly as AI creeps into our schools, creeps into our computers, creeps into our lives. We need to be on top of that, absolutely. Schedule 3 makes other minor and technical changes, including reallocating powers to appoint certain members of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia. We hope that these people are diligent and across everything. I'm sure they would be. But the bill, in what it is attempting to do, is an important piece of legislation. I commend the government for doing what they're doing in this important area, which is not everybody's cup of tea, but it is mine. Well done to the government for that.
Transport Industry | Grievance Debate | House debates
Without trucking, the nation stops. Australia is so heavily reliant on our transport industry, particularly our truckies. They do a power of good, and they've never been under more pressure than...
Without trucking, the nation stops. Australia is so heavily reliant on our transport industry, particularly our truckies. They do a power of good, and they've never been under more pressure than right now with all the rules, compliance, obligations and regulations. They appreciate that they have to do the right thing, and, by and large, they do. But the onerous nature of what is expected of them is becoming all too much. Under this government, so many of these wonderful trucking companies are going to the wall. D.J.K. Transport in New South Wales went into liquidation in August 2025 after operating for 57 years. A K G Trucking, from the same state, also entered voluntary liquidation in the same month and on the same day as Round Em Up Transport. XL Express, a national company, went under in August, after 35 years in business, leaving around 200 employees without jobs. That's 200 employees in a cost-of-living crisis. Where do they go? What do they do? Don Watson Transport, another national company, closed its doors in June last year after 77 years of successful operation, carting much of the refrigerated transport demand. They're a logistics company with more than 300 staff, who transported cold goods between Sydney, Wodonga and Melbourne. There are over 140 trucks up for sale. Transtar Linehaul, another national company, entered administration in July 2025, leading to the company auctioning off their 38 prime movers and their 56 trailers. Closer to home for me, in Wagga Wagga, there is Ron Crouch Transport. It, too, is a third-generation business, founded by Ron and Beverley Crouch in 1978. It started carting hay for a single client and grew into quite a powerhouse. Certainly, it's a large company for Wagga Wagga. Thankfully, a buyer has been found, and that is some relief for Geoff Crouch, the son of Ron, and indeed for the workers who are in that company. But look at other companies that went to the wall. Newnham Trucking in Queensland, Aava Logistics, Truck Repair Group in Queensland and BDS Group in Victoria all collapsed last year. And the common denominator is this: it's a Labor government that has not acknowledged that the trucking sector is in crisis. It's a Labor government that has brought about a cost-of-living crisis. It's a Labor government that does not care about small business. And this is one of the reasons why our trucking sector is in such a perilous state. Here are some facts about trucking. Forty-seven per cent of drivers in Australia in 2024 were 55 years or older, and only 5.4 per cent of those drivers are under 25 years of age. Projections by the International Road Transport Union predict 21 per cent of Australian drivers are due to retire by 2029. That cliff is not far away. In 2024 we had 28,000 unfilled truck driving positions in Australia. It's no wonder Ron Finemore advertises so extensively. It's no wonder Peter Rodney, who has his own group, is despairing and often calls me about the number of trucks he has backed up to the fence in his yard. Allowing for the projected retirement of more than 50,000 drivers, the shortage will grow to more than 78,000 unfilled positions by 2029. The mainstream media has just cottoned on to the fact—even though I have been banging on about this for some time—that the sham contracting arrangements are doing a great disservice to our trucking industry. Under a sham contracting arrangement, you'll get an ABN. That'll be paid, but the drivers miss out on all the add-ons. Of course, that company saves the additional expense. I'm told it's reasonably widespread and that that is how some operations are able to offer cheaper prices to haul freight than other companies. There's not a level playing field, and that is a problem. It requires, I believe, the transport minister to have a summit. We had a summit last year about productivity, and, if there's one thing we talk about when we talk about productivity, it should be trucking, because trucking enables productivity. Trucking enables goods to be transported all around Australia. And without trucking, as I said, all of that stops. The nation grinds to a halt. But what is this government doing about it? Zip. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We should be having a summit—a major gathering, a come-to-Jesus moment, if you like—for our trucking sector. And, yes, call in the unions. Let them have their say too. I'm not against that. I think what we saw when we had the productivity summit was a union talkfest—a gabfest. But I wouldn't be against the unions coming in, because they're part and parcel of this, and they might have some interesting input. I'm sure they would. But get the drivers in, young and old—mainly they'll be old, as I said before. Get a group together where the likes of Tom, Ron Finemore and Peter Rodney are all able to have their say and lay it bare on the table so that we know what the problems are, because they do know. But they will also have solutions, and I think it's incumbent upon the government to adopt those solutions because, if we don't, then all the goods that are being ferried around the nation are going to grind to a halt. Deputy Speaker, you know who will suffer the most? It'll be the mums and dads trying to pack their kids' school lunches, trying to get the kids off to school, because out there we talk a lot about all sorts of things—the inner machinations of the parliament and whether the coalition is together and this, that and everything else. Out there in voter land, they just want to get on with their lives. They want to open the doors of their small businesses. They want to make sure their kids get to school. They want to make sure their kids get to sport. They want to make sure that they live a good existence, but they can't do it if they don't have food on the table, they can't do it if the supermarket shelves aren't filled, and they can't do it without trucking companies. Regional Australia will suffer because many of these trucking companies emanated from regional Australia, and they're all over regional Australia. They're in Albury, they're in Wagga Wagga, they're in smaller towns as well, and they're doing it hard. They're doing it tough, no thanks to this government, which has made it so very tough. State governments have a role to play, too. I think they should be in the summit as well, because some of the regulations that they put on trucking companies need to be looked at. Maybe they're right; maybe they could be improved. But, whatever the case, we do need to look into this sham contracting. We need to get to the bottom of this sham contracting. If we don't, then those trucks that you see going up and down the highways and those trucks that you see on the byways and little country roads are going to disappear because nobody will be able to afford to run them. If Geoff Crouch can't run a successful operation, then I don't know who can. They love their companies, they love their workers and they love to see their trucks out on the road—the big rigs, the big heavy haulers, the freight movers, the people who keep this nation running. It's the Geoff Crouches and the Ron Finemores and the Peter Rodneys of the world. They love their industry and they're desperately worried about how it's going to be fixed. Looking for solutions—they've got solutions; they just need a forum through which to put their cards on the table. Is the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government listening? I doubt it. I do. Is the government caring? I doubt it. I haven't heard anybody from the government side talking about trucking or talking about what we can do to help the transport industry. I'll stand corrected, but I would love to see somebody get up in question time and talk about the trucking industry and thank the trucking industry for what they do for our nation. I don't think anybody really knows. I think a lot of city people think that their milk juts comes from the fridge in the supermarket. It comes from a cow; it's milked. It gets put into cartons, it gets put on a truck and it gets taken to the cities. That process is all under threat. Those drivers are all at risk, and they're at risk because of sham contracting. They're at risk because the margins are too small for the trucking companies that have served this nation for decades and have done it so well and deserve the applause and the gratitude of the government—a government that, at the moment, is very unfeeling and uncaring about an industry that keeps this nation moving.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Fifteen blessings. Fifteen rays of light. Fifteen beacons of hope. Fifteen beautiful, innocent lives gone—lost, taken, stolen—in a hail of hateful bullets, a mad and bad fury of mere...
Fifteen blessings. Fifteen rays of light. Fifteen beacons of hope. Fifteen beautiful, innocent lives gone—lost, taken, stolen—in a hail of hateful bullets, a mad and bad fury of mere minutes when iconic, peaceful Bondi Beach changed forever. These were 15 Australians—strangers to most, but Australians. They loved and were loved. This country is girt by sea. We know this because we sing it every time we join in the national anthem. Bondi provides some of that girt. It encircles, fastens and helps to bind Australia. Our Jewish Australian community does the same. On 14 December, hundreds of Jewish Australians gathered at Bondi to celebrate and to commemorate. Hanukkah is about the victory of light over dark. What took place on that day of infamy should never, ever have happened—not anywhere and certainly not here in our law-abiding, peace-loving country. But let's be honest. Let's look deep into our hearts and minds. If we were that law abiding and peace loving, then how does something so terrible and terrifying occur? We need to be better as a nation and as a people. But will we? Already, in the short, sad days since the worst terrorism attack on Australian soil, we have seen and heard more of the antisemitism, the radical Islamist extremism, that has been allowed to spread like a cancer through society across our communities, even regionally. This must stop. It has to end now, for little Matilda's sake if nothing else. When a state premier, Chris Minns, and a police commissioner, Mal Lanyon, ask that a particular protest not go ahead, those requests must be upheld and honoured by the judiciary who head up our courts. Our New South Wales police, and all first responders to this incident, were magnificent. They were. They ran to help when harm threatened. The ordinary, everyday heroes were courageous in the true Australian spirit of mateship, of bravery and of humanity. Locally, for my electorate, candlelight vigils were held at Wagga Wagga on 18 December, when the mercury hovered around 40 degrees Celsius, and three days later at Yass, when it rained heavily—tears from heaven. Both were touching ceremonies. Thank you, Riverina. I communicated this morning with my good friend Jewish Australian Josh Frydenberg, the former federal treasurer. This is what he said: 'This is Australia's fight. Jews are the canary in the coalmine. It is critical the government supports the victims' families in a big way. Many of them have very limited financial means. Securing the royal commission was the result of people power.' And he's right, of course. Josh, as has every Jew, has especially felt this tragedy—this unnecessary tragedy. Jewish Australians have been let down. They have been badly let down. No more. May light always conquer darkness. May justice be served on the perpetrators and all of those who seek to do harm in words or actions to Jews in this life or the next. Shalom to the 15 victims and their families, whose lives have been irrevocably changed by this awful event. May the names of those so evilly murdered live forever in the conscience of a bereaved but, hopefully, better nation.
Queensland: Infrastructure | Questions without Notice | House debates
I just suggest an extension of time for the minister so she can talk more about coalition funded—
Richardson, Hon. Graham Frederick 'Richo', AO | Condolences | House debates
Fine words by the Deputy Prime Minister from another, former deputy prime minister. I love Richo. I really did, and he was so good to me. You can only take people as you find them. You can only...
Fine words by the Deputy Prime Minister from another, former deputy prime minister. I love Richo. I really did, and he was so good to me. You can only take people as you find them. You can only take people as you see them, as you have experiences with them, and Graham Frederick Richardson AO was so very, very good to me—unusually so, because, as you just heard from the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Corio, Richo was a Labor man through and through. He loved the Labor Party—he did—but he loved his politics more, and he wanted Australia to be the best possible place it could be. I think he also loved the fact that he could help and defend somebody who was being kicked, somebody who was down. I have to say during my time as DPM there were times when there was a pile-on, and you knew that when there was a pile-on most of the media, most of those in politics, would also pile on. They would kick and they would kick hard. Richo was somebody who would come across and put his hand out. He would defend you. And, when I met Richo the first time in a political sense, he was there defending me. He came to my wife Catherine's and my house, our home, and he had Amanda with him. He had D'Arcy with him—what an impressive young man D'Arcy was and is. You could tell there was this deep bond between those three, that close-knit family. Richo interviewed me for Sky, and he did a special on me which was cut short by one Alan Jones. Richo was horrified at the fact that Alan Jones—it was his show—stepped in and, you know, nipped the interview in the bud. But, whilst the show was on air, you could sense this friendship that was forming between Graham and I, and it was a friendship that endured and endured to the day that he passed. I was very, very upset when I learnt that he had died, not just because I didn't get to experience that long lunch that we'd been promising to do for some time but because I'd lost a very true and dear friend, and Catherine had too. I wasn't aware of how close Catherine and Amanda were, but they were texting on the day. I saw Amanda in the corridor the other day. I know she was in the parliament this week for the Prime Minister's and the Leader of the Opposition's fine eulogies and fine memories of Graham. But I have to say Australia has lost one of its brightest beacons with the death of Graham Richardson. He was always so very supportive and encouraging. He happily gave his wise counsel. I'm from the National Party—go figure this. You've got a Labor doyen, somebody who is entrenched in—call it for what it is—the union movement, the labour movement, who reaches out across the aisle, across the political divide, and wants to help and support a National Party person at a time when that National Party person was having a pile-on against them. I'll tell you the other person who did this as well—it was Simon Crean. Simon Crean and I were very, very close, and I cried the day I learnt that he had passed, and I don't cry very easily. But when my wife, Catherine, just after Easter last year had open-heart surgery, Richo reached out. He sent a beautiful bunch of flowers. That was special. He would be the first on the phone to ring and to offer his advice but also to pep you up when he thought you needed it, and that's rare in politics. I know the Deputy Prime Minister and I have a good relationship, and I admire the job that he's doing, although I'd never admit it publicly—I think I just did!—and I know the Attorney-General and I have a very close relationship. You form these friendships across the aisle, and you do it because you want the best for our nation. I hope the member for Dickson and I can, eventually in the future, as well. We're only custodians of the job for as long as the people who get to vote us in decide that we are still the person for the job. Richo gave his all when he was the health minister and other portfolios as well. Yes, it was whatever it took. Yes, he was a rogue. Let's call it for what it was. He was a bit of a rogue in his younger years, but who isn't? None of us are perfect—absolutely none of us are perfect. But he gave so much to this nation. He gave so much to politics and to the Labor movement. He wore his heart on his sleeve, and I understand and know full well that he was one of Labor's powerbrokers, numbers men. He was ruthless when he needed to be, but he got on well with people across the political spectrum, and that's the important thing. He loved his country—there's no doubt about it. You didn't have to second guess Richo, because he was a plain talker. He was upfront and he was honest. He was straight to the point. He meant what he said and he said what he meant each and every time. I know that he gave that promise to D'Arcy—lovely, smart, intelligent, beautiful, young D'Arcy—that he would live until D'Arcy had completed his Higher School Certificate, and he did. He kept his word. You know why he kept his word, Deputy Speaker? It's because he was a man of his word, and he was. If he said he was going to do something, then he jolly well did it. As the Deputy Prime Minister has just said, he had so many surgical procedures. He had so much going wrong with his health, but he didn't complain. You didn't know about it; he just got on with the job. He was mortified as to his inability to do the normal daily everyday things that most of us just take for granted, but he was mortified as to what he was doing to Amanda or asking her to help him in every possible way of life. That was the Richo we know and loved. His articulate thoughts in the media—and they were articulate—always cut through. Even when Scott Morrison went on his little overseas trip—and I know; I was the DPM at the time!—and the whole nation was on top of Scott for doing that, Richo defended him. Richo was in there, and he was saying: 'Well, prime ministers need holidays too. They need a break.' The one thing that he fell upon in that argument defending the then prime minister was the fact that it was about family. Richo believed in family. He believed in core values. I'll be a little bit political here. Even though he was a former environment minister and we can thank him for what he did to preserve, save and protect the Daintree rainforest, he also believed in—wait for this—coal. He did! I remember he texted me one day, and he said, 'Only idiots think we can do without that black stuff.' He was sensible, and he was pragmatic—unusually so for this place. I say 'this place' across the aisle because he didn't always go with what you would expect him to go with. He didn't always just go with the grain and fall into line because that was the party political position. And that's what I liked about him most. He was a little bit maverick. But when Graham Richardson spoke, not only did the parliament listen, but the nation did as well. And, as I say, I loved the bloke. He was so, so good, and for somebody from the National Party to be saying this in a condolence motion about somebody from the Labor Party—it boils down to the fact that we're all just human. We all just have the same desires, the same hopes, the same ambitions and the same aspirations. The thing that Richo and I shared was a love of this nation. And I know we all do, but I will never forget the support and encouragement that he gave me. It was when you were at your lowest ebb—and I'm sure that goes for other people too—that you could always expect a call out of the blue from Richo. I say 'always expect', but it was out of the blue. He'd send a text, he'd give you a call and he'd say, 'Keep on going.' He would be there to support you when the party political way would be, 'Let's get stuck into him, and let's ruin this bloke forever.' No—that wasn't the Richo way, and that shows the deep love that he had for this nation, for his fellow human beings. Yes, we have lost a combative person from the halls of parliament, but we've also lost a beautiful man who had so much more to give. And I know he gave all he had. To Amanda and D'Arcy, and to the Labor Party, the Labor family: my and Catherine's deepest condolences. I will miss him greatly. I loved him dearly. Vale, Graham Richardson.
Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The coalition supports stronger integrity in the skilled visa program, but what this bill does is it fails to achieve that objective without exposing employers to unjustified risk. I'm not saying...
The coalition supports stronger integrity in the skilled visa program, but what this bill does is it fails to achieve that objective without exposing employers to unjustified risk. I'm not saying that every labour hire company, every employer, is going to do the right thing. And I agree with the member for Gorton: those people who exploit workers should be exposed. Absolutely, 100 per cent, they should. Certainly, I know the raids that were conducted by the immigration department when we were in government. I know the sort of work that those public servants, for and on behalf of the Commonwealth, do now, with Labor in power. They should be doing it. They should be exposing people who do the wrong thing by some of the most vulnerable people who come to Australia to work hard, to do the jobs that sometimes won't or can't be done by Australians themselves. We thank those workers, and we should be protecting those workers—absolutely, we should. The publication of basic sponsor information could be seen as a proportionate step, but the bill, unfortunately, gives rise to too many potential problems and also leaves the scope of data of any exemptions to regulations. That's what the coalition is concerned about. That's why the coalition is not supporting this bill. We need to establish clear criteria and review mechanisms to prevent what would be arbitrary use of power—we should. But there are so many potential risks to businesses which rely on migrant workers, particularly in regional areas—and it's regional areas where many of these workers are being engaged. It's regional areas, as I said earlier in my remarks, which welcome these people, which need these people and which by and large—the honest employers, those good farmers, those well-meaning communities—do the right thing by these workers. More substantial antiexploitation reforms promised by the government as part of its Migration Strategy, including criminal sanctions, a whistleblower visa and repeat-offender bans against those recidivists have yet to materialise. Labor and the city based members get so uptight about these things; the city based members often want to tell us—I appreciate there are some city based coalition members sitting here with me!—how to live our lives, how to run our businesses, how everything should happen in regional Australia, they who've barely ever set foot in the place. I'm not saying that about the coalition city members in the chamber at the moment. You know who I'm talking about—they just need to learn a thing or three about regional Australia. And the government should be held to account for those unnecessary delays. But don't just take my word for it; maybe find a farmer who does employ these workers and ask them. Maybe find a local government mayor—and I know the member for Parkes has many of them—and see how vital these workers are to the operations of our local communities in country Australia. As I say, by and large, people in regional, rural and, in particular, remote Australia do the right thing. A concern raised directly with Senator Paul Scarr from Queensland, the immigration shadow minister, by the Business Council of Australia relates to the inclusion of nomination headcount data. I don't always agree with the BCA, but, certainly, in this instance, they argue that the information is not necessary for the stated transparency purpose and could expose employers to—wait for it, Member for Parkes—union harassment. We all know what happens when the unions start to harass. I say this—and Labor members can smile about this all they like—I was a union member for 21 years. I've been a member of a union. I understand that unions have a part to play, a role and a responsibility in this nation, but what we don't want is to give a green light to unions to harass employers unnecessarily. Master Builders Australia also advised the good senator that migration agents—the key contacts for migrant workers, rightly or wrongly—would already have the information proposed to be included in the register. And, in cases where a migrant worker needs to find a new sponsor, these agents are already well placed to assist with that search. Alternatively, the information that the government is seeking to include in the new register could simply be shared with the migration agents rather than be made far more widely available. So there are clauses and pieces of this legislation which are concerning, and Labor, in typical Labor fashion, has not properly explained this. Labor, in typical Labor fashion, did not do, I and my colleagues believe, the proper stakeholder engagement before it brought this legislation to the chamber. But what the 'Labor dirt unit' does is give the notes to the members, and they come in here and just assiduously read them and think that that's all true and all right. They've always got that 'decade of neglect and dysfunction' et cetera; we all know it because we hear it parroted all the time, and if you say it that often eventually you'll believe it. But this side of the parliament did some very good work in the migrant worker space. I hope that the Labor side also does some work in that space to benefit our migrant workers because regional Australia needs them and regional Australia needs legislation that is the best it can be.
Well, Assistant Minister, seriously, I live it. I breathe it. I have these people come into my office all the time. I'm not sure how many of them come into your Melbourne office and talk to you...
Well, Assistant Minister, seriously, I live it. I breathe it. I have these people come into my office all the time. I'm not sure how many of them come into your Melbourne office and talk to you about the pitfalls and the shortcomings of what Labor did when they made those changes to the PALM scheme. I know I was right, because I was the shadow Pacific minister at the time. Labor then put a pause on it and changed the rules. They did. They backtracked. You can't tell me they didn't, because they did. Labor then went back to the scheme as it was to begin with, because the farmers were leaving it in droves and so were the PALM workers. You know what was happening? The fruit was being left to rot on the ground. The work wasn't being done. You can throw your head back all you like, Assistant Minister, and make out as if I'm off on the wrong tangent. I am not, because I had that lived experience. I'm there at the front and centre of what the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme is, because the Riverina lives it. We have those workers, we enjoy those workers and we applaud those workers. You cannot come in here, Assistant Minister, and tell me that the changes to that PALM scheme weren't wrong, because they were. The Minister for Pacific Island Affairs backtracked and backflipped—the member for Shortland—because he knew that he'd got it wrong. He'd listened to Minister Burke and he knew that it was wrong, because the scheme started to fall apart. Don't try and tell me anything else, because I know. It's our farming areas that grow the food, grow the fibre and employ the PALM workers, who benefit from that scheme. They were being dudded by the changes by this Labor government, and that is true. Now, let's talk about this legislation, shall we? Many businesses in the Riverina, as I said, rely on the migrant workers. It's a regional area that welcomes these—I don't know why you're shaking your head, Assistant Minister. I've said everything that was true, and with the PALM scheme—
I listened to her in silence, so the member for Kingsford Smith can give me the same courtesy, and I'll get to you in a minute. She cannot come in here and start talking about racism in the...
I listened to her in silence, so the member for Kingsford Smith can give me the same courtesy, and I'll get to you in a minute. She cannot come in here and start talking about racism in the coalition. She cannot make allegations about nuclear when it's not mentioned in the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. And she cannot come in here and talk about exploitation of migrant workers and blame the coalition. That's just a bridge too far. I had a good relationship with Brendan O'Connor, the member for Gorton's predecessor. He's a good man, and I'm sure you're a good person too. Brendan was often very bipartisan in the sorts of things that he brought to this parliament and in the sorts of ways that he wanted to make a better Australia. I wish him well in his future and I also wish you well in your parliamentary career. But don't just take the talking points that Labor gives you and think that that's the way to proceed with a debate. What the coalition did in nine years—not 10 years but nine years—of government was make sure that they protected workers, and not just migrant workers, to ensure we had a fairer Australia. There's no better place to see it—I understand that your electorate is very multicultural. That's fantastic. So too is the Riverina, whether it's the Riverina that I first represented in 2010—which included the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, which I think is the cradle of multiculturalism in this country. So many people went there—pre World War II, but particularly after the Second World War, when the great mass of migration came out from Europe after the guns had fallen silent in 1945—and made a better life for themselves in regional Australia. I understand and appreciate that the member for Gorton mentioned the regions and I commend her for that. Because it's the regions that are crying out for migrants, Member for Gorton. They truly are. And the sad reality is that we recently had a productivity summit that was headed up by the Treasurer, the member for Rankin. I think what we need in this nation right now is a planning and population summit. I think we need to do much better across the aisle when it comes to seeing where our migrants go. Because, all too often, they are going into the western suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney, and they're not reaching the regions where they're crying out for skilled labour and crying out for unskilled labour. They're not reaching out to those places. I appreciate there are measures in place that are put there by—I see the member for Parkes at the table. He's Assistant Minister for Resources and Assistant Minister for Agriculture and he knows about this. He represents more than half of the New South Wales landmass. And in western New South Wales, just like in the Riverina, they want migrants, they welcome migrants, and they celebrate migrants. So for the member for Gorton to suggest that coalition members are in any way racist is, I think, a bridge too far. In Wagga Wagga, my home town, the largest celebration of the society—after the Wagga Wagga Gold Cup horse race, which is on the first Friday in May—is our FUSION BOTANICAL multicultural festival. It celebrates the food, culture, dance, music and attributes that migrants bring to our city. It's the largest inland city in New South Wales. You were right when you said, in one sense, that some migrants were exploited, but it wasn't the fault of government. There are some higher firms which do do the wrong thing, and they deserve the full force of the law brought against them. They deserve the immigration department raiding them—whether they're doing the wrong thing by farmers or the farmers in some cases are doing the wrong thing by migrant workers, and some of them do. Let's not beat around the bush about this. I'll tell you one thing that Labor did do, which was, I believe, antimigrant. They changed the rules around the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. What that did, as Labor tried to unionise that scheme, was force farmers to pay for work that was never going to be done by trying to even out the number of hours and extend the number of hours such that they would pay migrant workers money when there wasn't the work there at all. We know that farming work is so seasonal, whether it's in crop production, horticulture—whatever the case might be. The biggest losers out of that were not necessarily the farmers, who stopped employing the migrants; they were the Pacific workers themselves because the work stopped and the farmers turned off the tap. Labor brought this in, they tried to unionise the scheme, and it fell foul of the people that they were purportedly trying to help. They were the workers themselves, the PALM workers, those magnificent people who come here and do the jobs that Australians simply won't do or can't do.
The member for Gorton is new here. I wasn't going to pick on her about her speech, but some of the things that she mentioned—
Asbestos | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to reports that imported materials from China, used to build wind towers in Australia, contain asbestos. What action is the...
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to reports that imported materials from China, used to build wind towers in Australia, contain asbestos. What action is the minister taking to address this?
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
A bouquet for the minister at the table straight up. I know he has veterans at heart, and I know that he and I share support for the two veterans facilities in Wagga Wagga, in the heart of the...
A bouquet for the minister at the table straight up. I know he has veterans at heart, and I know that he and I share support for the two veterans facilities in Wagga Wagga, in the heart of the Riverina: RSL LifeCare, the Riverina Veteran and Family Hub at 240 Baylis Street, Wagga Wagga—the main street; and the Pro Patria Centre, in the western suburb of Ashmont. The minister announced funding recently for Pro Patria, for the defence shed, in September this year. Earlier, in November 2023, he announced $1.2 million for Pro Patria and $520,000 for RSL LifeCare. Those investments were welcomed. He was in Wagga Wagga to announce the 2023 spending. It is funding which will save lives, and I say that because I know how important it is, as a former veterans affairs minister—and you don't get that job unless you are a good person, and the minister is a good person. I'm giving him some bouquets at the moment; don't worry, Minister, you'll get a few brickbats further on in my speech! I also acknowledge the service of the member for Solomon, who is speaking after me—a solid citizen as well; he went through Duntroon. I acknowledge the member for Herbert and the member for Canning, former reserves and may still be serving in some capacity—the members for Hasluck and Spence, and no doubt there are others. I know the member for New England has also done some service, and there could be other members in the House of Representatives as well who have. I say to them, as we ought to say to everybody who has worn a uniform: thank you for your service—TYFYS. As the shadow minister, the member for Gippsland, quite correctly pointed out in his remarks, but for the service and sacrifice of those and many others before them we would not enjoy the benefits we do today. We live in the greatest country on earth. We have these democracies, these freedoms. I see a number of young people up in the gallery; they will enjoy a better life because of those people who have put on a military uniform and represented our nation. I come from Wagga Wagga. That city is a garrison city. We have Blamey Barracks, named after Thomas Blamey; what a hero he was. But for him, we may well be speaking a different language and this nation would be vastly different to what it is today. His efforts in the Pacific in the Second World War are to be admired and respected. That is Blamey Barracks, Home of the Soldier, 1st Recruit Training Battalion Kapooka. We've got the Royal Australian Air Force. There's a sign that says 'Air power begins here'—and it does, right in Wagga Wagga. If you spend any given time in the Air Force you may well end up at Forest Hill. With that base, we have a Navy base as well, even though we are a long way from the nearest drop of seawater. There are 80 personnel serving the Navy proudly at Wagga Wagga, at that Forest Hill facility, and we thank each and every one of them. Recently all three arms of defence came out to mark one of the many commemorative occasions that we do in our defence training city. It was so impressive to see them marching up the main street in khaki, blue and white, representing the three arms of the Defence Force. This Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill is due to come into effect on 1 July next year. It establishes a single legislative framework for veterans' entitlements, compensation and rehabilitation. The minister would know, as would anybody who has served in any capacity in the portfolio of military, defence and veterans' matters, that getting simplification for entitlements for veterans is so crucial and so vital. The legislation introduces minor technical amendments to support a smooth transition from the three existing acts to the new Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025, quite simply known as the VETS Act. The coalition backed the VETS Act when it passed the parliament early this year. We understood—because veterans are at the core of what we support as well—a simplification of veterans' compensation and rehabilitation, the system recommended by the royal commission. In her remarks, the member for Sturt talked about the royal commission, which shone a light—an all too tragic light—onto what some of our veterans have endured since leaving military life, and it's not a new thing. Indeed, former Australian War Memorial director Dr Brendan Nelson—he was probably the best prime minister we never had. He used to speak about the fact that as many veterans, diggers and Anzacs passed away in the decade after the guns fell silent on the Western Front in World War I on 11 November 1918 as did in the war years from 1914 to 1918. Just think of that—for the 60,000 of Australia's best and bravest who came back from that conflict, the bloodiest war the world had ever known, there weren't the support systems and there weren't the wraparound services that we have today, more's the pity. They came back with trench fever, shell-shocked. They were conditions that no-one could possibly have understood. They were different men. Yes, there were women too. There were nurses who were on the frontline, and, no doubt, they too suffered. We gave mightily to World War I efforts. They called it the Great War—no war is great. We've learnt a lot from that conflict, and we've acted responsibly since, but we can never do enough for our veterans. I know that former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull is being honoured this week. He put in place a veterans' employment program which is to be acknowledged and applauded. I know he would often say, during his days in the Lodge, that not all of our veterans are broken. And they are not. The member for Sturt touched on that in her contribution, wisely so. Many of our veterans come back, and they're used to the formality and rigidity of military life. It must be hard for them to adjust back into civilian life and back into family life, and yet many of them do and contribute mightily to our nation. All of them have put in, all of them have given, all of them have served, and all of them have sacrificed. Not all of them are broken, and we should acknowledge that. But, for those who are affected and for those who have done their time and done their service, proudly so, and are going back into civilian life who are affected—we must be there for them. As a parliament, we have to be. I have to say that making sure that compensation and rehabilitation come under the one banner, under a single piece of legislation, is to be acknowledged and is to be applauded. It replaces the outdated patchwork of laws veterans currently face. Not every veteran's relationship or association with the Department of Veterans' Affairs is going to be a good one. Some choose not to even go through the DVA process at all. But I would encourage veterans to take advantage, to avail themselves of all the services available. The DVA has very good people. Our public servants in that area are very good, and they want to help. They truly do. But veterans' experiences may well be different to those of their comrades and former comrades. This bill ensures a smooth and fair transition to this new system. It's written in such a way that veterans do not accidentally lose entitlements in the process. Thank goodness for that. It's not a new policy proposal; it's about fixing cross-references, it's about definitions, and it's about transitional clauses in the law—making sure they work properly when the new system takes place and begins. Importantly, the bill guarantees that veterans with existing claims under the Veterans' Entitlements Act or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act keep every right and review option that they currently have. Nothing is being taken away. Minister, this is where the brickbat comes in. I know the minister, as I said before, is a principled person, but he should not have listened to the Department of Defence, to the bureaucrats, when they came to him with the changes to Defence medallic recognition. I know that he knows I was going to say this. For people such as Richard Norden, a recent Victoria Cross for Australia recipient—he would not have been eligible under the system that was proposed and even passed this House of Representatives. He would not have received that long-overdue recognition, that highest of honour that the military could provide and that Australia could provide to someone who, at the Battle of Coral-Balmoral went into danger not once, not twice, but thrice—again and again and again placing his life at risk—to rescue a mate. Isn't that, after all, what service and sacrifice are all about? Mateship, honour—he didn't do it for a medal. He didn't do it for a piece of tin on his chest. He did it because it was the right thing to do and because that's what Australian soldiers do. That's what Australians who go through Kapooka do. Under the changes that were passed by the House of Representatives—brought into the House of Representatives by the minister at the table—that was all going to be taken away for future heroes. That was wrong. That was dishonourable. Thankfully, the minister has, through pressure, through advocacy and through common sense—and, I will say, through decency because you are a decent man, Minister—has taken that piece of legislation, that folly, off the Notice Paper. Let it never see the light of day again, because our heroes deserve better. They deserve better from a parliament that understands the service and sacrifices they have made, not in their name but in their mate's name, in the duty of their service in the Army, Air Force or Navy, for the flag and for the patriotism of our nation so that others may live, because, as St John once said, 'Greater love hath no man shown than to serve and lay down one's life for one's friend.' I commend the bill.
Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The member for Sturt and the speaker who will follow me, the member for Blair, are both lawyers, and I respect that. But I cannot understand why Labor wants to outsource what should be the work...
The member for Sturt and the speaker who will follow me, the member for Blair, are both lawyers, and I respect that. But I cannot understand why Labor wants to outsource what should be the work of a minister—it should be the role of the Attorney-General—particularly to the member for Sturt, who one day may well occupy the Attorney-General's chair. I hope she does. Why would she want to be advocating something that is going to lessen her role and responsibility in the Parliament of Australia? I just don't understand it. There are only four speakers in the Federation Chamber on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025—the member for Sturt, the member for Blair, the member for Pearce, who will follow the member for Blair, and me—and this is an important bill. Sometimes, when we look at legislation, as legislators we get mired in perhaps the complexity of the particular legislation. There's no question that the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 carries with it a degree of complexity. But you don't need to be a lawyer. You don't need to have studied law to know that, once again, we're seeing this Albanese Labor government wanting to outsource its responsibilities. And what do they want to do here? Well, they want to outsource the responsibilities of the Attorney-General to a minister, to a board—a board described by the member for Sturt as having transparency and accountability, a board that will have a carefully managed process. Those deliberations by said board will have at their heart community safety. Well, let's hope so. Now, I like the member for Sturt. I do. I have a lot of time for her. She speaks on just about every bit of legislation, and, for a new member of parliament, I really admire that. I take my hat off to her for that. I respect her for her successful legal profession. I know she studied in London. I know she mentioned the international experience. I know she also referred to the states as having best practice, and this is what the Commonwealth is now going to do. And let's face it: with a 51-seat majority, this will become law—unless, of course, it's held up in the Senate. But the coalition is opposing this particular piece of legislation. The fact that the government is going to rely on a board astounds me. The fact that more people aren't getting up and belling the cat also, I have to say, surprises me. Now, the board will replace the Attorney-General as the decision-maker for the management and release of federal offenders into the community on parole and licence, including the conditions under which they are released. I know the member for Sturt mentioned those who have mental health issues. We know that 'federal offence' means an offence against the law of the Commonwealth. We know too that a 'federal offender' means a person convicted of a federal offence, and these sorts of offences include drug trafficking—awful, terrible; they take lives. They include child exploitation—nothing is worse than that—social security fraud and terrorism, which is a heinous act against society. Let me put this on the record: whilst people often think blue collar crime is the worst, it's white collar crime which also destroys lives. It does—truly. So federal offenders are people who should be locked up, people who need to have justice served on them. And justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. I don't think this legislation achieves what society needs or wants, particularly at this important juncture, where we are in a society where there is so much hatred and there is so much divisiveness. We see decisions made by Justice Belinda Rigg in early August where, despite the protestations of the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, who I also have a bit of time for, and, moreover, the New South Wales Police Force, those brave men and women in blue who go out every day and place their lives on the line to keep our state safe—they objected to a pro-Palestinian march on Sydney Harbour Bridge, and Justice Rigg allowed it. She went against the premier of the state. She went against, worse still, the police in that state to allow that protest to happen. And what did we see? Well, we saw people waving al-Qaeda flags. We saw people who support Nazism. We saw people who were writing slogans on the Sydney Harbour Bridge: 'This is colonialism. Let's tear it down.' It is one of the most iconic pieces of infrastructure in the world which connects the north with the Sydney central business district, built in the early thirties during a time of great depression, and here we have these idiots, these—let's call them what they are—criminals, wanting to tear the bridge down. They foster hate. And yet now we see a Labor government that wants to outsource parole responsibility to a board. Do you know what we'll see? We'll see a board of woke wets. That's what I fear the board will be made up of. These are people who, let's face it, don't have, in my view—and this is my view, and people can have their own view because the great thing about democracy is that you can have a view. I can see the member for Blair grimacing, but you often see these decisions made at committee level that don't concur with what society's expectation are. It'll be like these focus groups that political parties—don't shake your head, member for Blair. Just hear me out here. You know what focus groups are like with politics. It's the person who speaks first and speaks loudest who sways the rest of the committee, the rest of the focus group, with what they think. Then, all of a sudden, the polls are going this way and that way. I really worry when the government of the day outsources the work of the Attorney-General, and we've got a good Attorney-General. I really wonder what the member for Greenway thinks deep down in her heart of hearts about this particular legislation. Now, you'll tell me that she brought it to the chamber. You'll tell me that she thinks it's a good thing, but she's outsourcing her work—why would you want to do that—to a board which is not elected, which is faceless— Well, you may think that, but we see these decisions. They crop up in our tabloid newspapers. They'll release someone; they'll let someone out in society who, quite frankly, should not be allowed out into society. We have seen it all too often in recent times, decisions made regarding people who came to this country and then, because they didn't have their correct identification or paperwork, they had a little anklet, a little bracelet, put on their leg and were allowed out in society where they recommitted offences. People right across the nation, ordinary, average people—I'll call them Mr and Mrs Average—were outraged. They thought: 'Why is our government doing this? This is not in the best interests of the safety and security of average, ordinary, everyday Australians of our communities.' And they're right. This is what I worry about with this particular bill. I do. You may say that I'm off on the wrong tangent, but I don't believe that we should be outsourcing ministerial work to committees. Otherwise, why don't we just outsource everything to committees? I saw it when Labor got into power in May— An honourable member interjecting— Let me have my say. Labor got into power in May 2022, and, all of a sudden, they wanted to outsource regional infrastructure to a committee. What have we got now? We've got a pause on regional infrastructure. Ministers should do their job. Attorney-General is the title of the first law officer of the land. I'll say this. I'll put it on the record that I think we've got an outstanding first law officer of the land in the member for Greenway. She is an outstanding member of parliament, and I think she'll make a very good Attorney-General, but I don't agree with this piece of legislation. Members opposite can disagree with me all they like, but mark my words: down the track, when this becomes law—and we know that it will because you've got the majority, and majority rules; I get that, I understand that, I recognise that—you will see this committee make a decision in the future, and people will just slump their shoulders and go, 'Why did a board designated by the parliament to do a job allow that decision to take place?' They will. Member for Blair, you will too. I think one day in the future you'll go: 'You know what, member for Riverina? You were right.' We'll be in our dotage; we probably already are there. But you'll say: 'You know what? You were right. You were right.' And that's what I fear. I just think this sort of legislation is unnecessary. Why is it happening? I don't get it. I mean, we've got the Commonwealth Parole Board. 'This legislation seeks to establish an independent'—well, everybody's always making as if 'independent' means that they are totally devoid of having political acumen or political decision-making ideas. No-one—let's face it—is really, truly independent. They have to vote for someone. They'll come here with their biases. They'll all be lefties. You can just see it. But, anyway. It continues with 'an independent federal parole authority to replace the Attorney-General'—why? I don't know—'as the primary decision maker for parole or federal offenders'. It says, 'Currently the Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction in Australia where elected officials make parole decisions.' Good! Excellent! Fantastic! Let's keep it that way. 'The Parole Board bill aims to depoliticise'—go figure that one out—'this process by appointing a board of experts.' Experts? That's a drip under pressure. 'This would include legal professionals, law enforcement, psychologists and victims advocates to assess parole applications based on risk and rehabilitation potential.' You know what we'll see? We'll see these federal offenders making all sorts of wonderful applications and reasons as to why they should be released and why they should be out in the community, and you'll get this bunch of woke wets who'll go: 'Oh, yes—poor little Johnny and poor little Mary suffered a traumatised childhood. They should be released.' I say bunkum! I'm sorry if I'm the lone voice against that, but sometimes you've got to take a stand. Sometimes you can't be silent when you ought to speak, and I'm speaking because I think this is a folly. This is a risk, and it's a risk to good law and order. I'm no lawyer, and you could probably shoot holes in my argument left, right and centre. But I'll tell you what. I stand here for ordinary, average, everyday Australians who expect better. They expect better from a government which they gave a landslide majority to—in the number of seats, not necessarily the number of votes—at the May election this year. This legislation worries me. It truly does. 'The Parole Board will have the powers and functions to make decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community.' I really worry about this because what we'll see is when the first offender is released by the first woke, wet, leftie board—you can laugh all you like, but that's what they'll be made up of—Ben Fordham and the other shock jocks will have a field day, as well they should. And I hope they refer to my speech as the lone voice against it. I hope they say: 'You know what? The member for Riverina was right. He was a hundred per cent correct, because he belled the cat on this particular piece of legislation, which should not have even been debated.' Why we are outsourcing the work of the Attorney-General to a bunch of so-called experts I will never know. And that is why the coalition will be opposing this all the way. Even if I am the only voice speaking against it, I think it's bad policy. I think Labor should go back to the drawing board on this, and I think the Attorney-General should do the job that she was elected to do—'she' at the moment; 'he', maybe, in the future. Who knows? It doesn't matter. We've got a good Attorney-General. She should do her job.
Ethnic Religious Minorities | Private Members' Business | House debates
At the outset, I want to commend the fine words of the member for Corangamite in bringing this motion to the parliament. I've heard the member for Melbourne make several very personal...
At the outset, I want to commend the fine words of the member for Corangamite in bringing this motion to the parliament. I've heard the member for Melbourne make several very personal contributions, and each time she speaks it's well worth listening to. Likewise, the member for Goldstein just now. I want to acknowledge the member for Rankin's presence in the chamber. Normally the member for Rankin and I—as we are now—are on opposite sides. He probably generally disagrees with whatever I'm saying, but I'm sure he's going to agree with me tonight. I want to acknowledge that he's here as a local member, not as the Treasurer. He's here because he cares. He's here with his people, with people who have come to his electorate to seek a better life. So I say to him: thank you for being here for this important motion. And I thank each and every person here for coming here to the parliament tonight to listen to this motion. Wagga Wagga, like many other communities in Australia, has a Hazara community. That is so important. The Hazara people have left their homeland, Afghanistan. They've faced ethnic and religious persecution for too many years, over many decades. I appreciate that many of their loved ones are still in the country of their birth, their homeland, and with their families as well, but they have been separated, and my heart goes out to them. There are over 50,000 Hazara people in Australia, many of whom fled Afghanistan during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Australia lost 47 of our bravest and finest during their service in Afghanistan. It was a war that went on for way too long—from 2001 to 2021. It was the longest conflict that this country has been engaged in. I heard so often about the educational opportunities, the better life, that it opened up for women in Afghanistan—and you knew that that was a war worth fighting. Sadly, we see the Taliban back in charge. You sometimes wonder whether those outcomes, particularly for girls and women, are still there. But it did open up a pathway for them to study, to employment opportunities and to equality that was not there before. I mentioned Wagga Wagga. Many of the Hazaras have gone to study at Charles Sturt University. Our local Hazara community strongly believes in the value of education. Hazara people are often targeted at schools in Afghanistan, preventing them from obtaining that education—particularly women, who don't get the same opportunities. This is so vital. Hazara women in Afghanistan are particularly at risk of violence and discrimination, as the Taliban have retained control of that country, and that is just so sad. I mention—because all politics is local—Wagga mother Hakimeh Rahimi, who fled Afghanistan in 1995. Back when her story was published by the local newspaper in 2021, she'd been in Australia for eight years. She called Wagga Wagga home. She came to Wagga Wagga—which is a very giving, very multicultural place—because she saw hope and opportunity there that she could not see elsewhere. She was welcomed with open arms by the Multicultural Council of Wagga Wagga, by Belinda Crain, who runs that very august organisation, but also by the Wagga Wagga community as a whole—because we understand, we value, we acknowledge and we recognise you are peace-loving people like us. You want the best. You want the best for your families. You want the best for your education. You want the best for your future. They are all things that I know that we share in this room and in this parliament. It doesn't matter from what side of politics you are; you are welcome in Australia. This is your home. It's as much your home as it is mine, and I was born here—way too many years ago! But to the many of you who have come to this nation to make it your home: thank you. Thank you for choosing our country. Please know that, if there are matters of importance, you have your local members, whether it's Jim or whether it's me—and I think I can use that term. Please avail yourselves of every opportunity that is available to you in Australia. I say again: I know you've been through a lot; thank you for choosing this country as your home. Thank you very much.