Ed Husic's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Social Cohesion | Grievance Debate | House debates
There's rightly been a lot of focus in this parliament on the events of 14 December, and there should continue to be. We witnessed 15 of our fellow Australians killed—Jewish Australians...
There's rightly been a lot of focus in this parliament on the events of 14 December, and there should continue to be. We witnessed 15 of our fellow Australians killed—Jewish Australians targeted because of their faith—a depravity carried out by ISIS inspired terrorists. Their act has written an incredibly dark chapter into our nation's history. The grieving will continue for some time, and, while this occurs, we have another task to pursue. We need to have a clear understanding of how this occurred. What are the lessons we can learn to avoid a repeat of this on Australian soil? This is why I never hesitated in expressing my belief—supporting the member for Macarthur—that a royal commission into this awful, horrific event be undertaken. Besides getting answers and clarity, it can also play an important role in healing and bringing us together. The growth of extremism needs to be confronted regardless of what corner it emerges from. I've been concerned about this for sometime, but it crystallised further in 2019—the year an Australian white supremacist travelled to Christchurch, New Zealand, and killed 51 people on the basis of their religion. That terrorist's acts against people of the Islamic faith was livestreamed over social media. His 74-page manifesto was later used to inspire attacks on a synagogue in Poway, California; a supermarket in El Paso, Texas; a mosque in Baerum, Norway; and another synagogue in Halle, Germany. This was a hateful cancer that spread. When I recently stood on that footbridge at Bondi and looked at the park where Jewish Australians had been celebrating Hanukkah and were targeted for attack, I felt the exact chill I experienced visiting those two mosques in Christchurch. In both cases innocent people were hemmed in, and, with little room for them to escape, tragedy ensued. Again, I supported a royal commission into the events of Bondi because, as I have said before and restate now, whether it's an Islamist or a far-right extremist, anyone that poses a threat to the safety of our fellow Australians must be dealt with head-on using every resource we can muster. We must stand up to terrorism, but tough should join with calm—resisting threats while unifying. Post Christchurch, then New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern was praised for doing whatever she could to comfort and rally New Zealanders. At a time of grief and mourning, she consoled while also being prepared to respond strongly to terror, including setting up a royal commission into the horrors of Christchurch. Notably, she did not beam herself in via Australian media to blame our nation for the terror that occurred on New Zealand soil. Prime Minister Ardern worked with then prime minister Morrison to set in place laws to prevent social media giants from live-streaming terrorist acts. The response to Christchurch is a salutary example of how societies traumatised by terror can and should rally, comfort and unite. But, since the terrible events of Bondi, I've often reflected on the contrast between 2025 and 2019. I think it's important we reflect and contrast because, during the last parliamentary sitting, we heard a number of times from the coalition of the need to confront hard truths. In fact, the opposition leader made it a feature of her condolence motion, stating: To do so, we must face uncomfortable truths. Radical Islamist extremism caused this. I repeat: radical Islamist extremism caused this. After that, during condolence contributions and debates and via questions on notice, parliamentarians referred to 'radical Islamists', 'radical Islamist extremism', 'radical Islamist extremists', 'radical Islamist ideology' and even 'radical Islam' nearly 90 times. They didn't even blink associating 'radicalism' with an entire faith. Let's reflect and contrast. Let's, as the opposition leader invites us to do, 'face uncomfortable truths'. One person that has to do this on a daily basis is the person who heads ASIO, Mike Burgess. In February 2020, nearly a year after Christchurch, Mr Burgess highlighted the growth of right-wing extremism and the threat it poses to Australia. He warned how small cells of right-wing extremists were meeting across the country and saluting Nazi flags in homes nestled in our suburbs, where they hid weapons caches and trained in combat. A month later, one year after Christchurch, he appeared before Senate estimates, and what happened was instructive. He was grilled by coalition government senators who were not asking about what ASIO was doing about the threat but, rather, objecting to the label of 'right-wing extremist'. Let me quote then coalition senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells to Mr Burgess at Senate estimates. She said: 'Right' is associated with conservatism in this country, and there are many people of conservative background who take exception to being tarred with the same brush. She went on to tell the director-general: So I think the time has come, Director-General, especially from you, to ensure that you are very careful with the terminology that you use … Labels sting, huh? Do we think we should be a bit more careful about how we throw labels around, or should we just 'face uncomfortable truths'? What happened after this was also instructive because, 12 months after that exchange, under a coalition government, ASIO determined it would no longer refer to right-wing extremism or Islamist terrorism. From that time forth, the terms 'religiously motivated' or 'ideologically motivated' terrorism would be used. That was under a coalition government, a move overseen by then minister for home affairs Peter Dutton, and former ministers of that government are now telling us to confront uncomfortable truths—members like the member for Canning, who previously declared it was 'time for the Australian Muslim leadership to systematically and clearly make the case that Islam is a religion of peace'. So let's be clear then: when some coalition MPs advise us to face uncomfortable truths, are the only truths we confront the ones conservatives find comfortable to confront? Not to be outdone, we had but last week coalition senator Andrew Bragg muse: … the Australian Muslim community has to take some responsibility for the behaviours we've seen exhibited over the last couple of decades. He opined: The West has probably been too nice for its own good … Perhaps he should have a chat about whether a Victorian imam and his wife thought it was nice that they were run off the road in Melbourne and attacked and had racist abuse and rubbish hurled at them. Or is it nice for Muslim Australian women to have their hijab torn off or be labelled, with an expletive, 'terrorists' or be spat at? Is it nice to see pigs' heads in Muslim sections of cemeteries or impaled on the fences of places of worship? Maybe we should refer to any of the work undertaken by Action Against Islamophobia or the Islamophobia Register that tracks examples of what 'nice' looks like to many Muslim Australians on a near daily basis. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism across the board—all these behaviours should not be tolerated, full stop. We should be appalled by all of these acts, not selectively concerned or occasionally responsive. Let me go to words expressed in this parliament to underscore that point. In April 2019, then prime minister Scott Morrison said: We must strive to see the 'us' in our national life and to celebrate it, an Australian 'us' of different faiths, of different ethnicities, of different ages, genders and sexualities, an Australian 'us' that rejects the hate, the blame and contempt that grip too much of modern debate. Those words are those I can stand by. Disappointingly, those words are a far cry from the Scott Morrison of today, who wants to have practitioners of just one faith be singled out for registration and accreditation and for them to somehow prove their fidelity to our nation because the starting-point assumption is, 'Until you do this, you might be suspect, deficient, not to be trusted.' So much for the 2019 call for an Australian us that rejects the 'blame and contempt'. What's the end game here? Once imams are accredited and their loyalty proven, do we get them to wear armbands? Are we more relaxed with that—replicating a more abominable chapter of world history? Once we start down the path of uncomfortable truths, we need to know exactly where we're headed. It's worth noting that not one Australian was required to prove their fidelity to the nation post Christchurch, when a white supremacist Australian slaughtered 51 New Zealanders. No practitioner of the Christian faith was asked to do likewise after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. And here's the thing: nor should they. It's a ridiculous and divisive notion, because we do not sheet home blame and responsibility to entire communities for the acts of extremist individuals. Surely we can agree. Surely we can rally around that compelling logic, because dividing people and shoving them into dark corners to nurse fear and grievance is not the way we build and sustain a strong nation. This is the crux of my call to parliament. In a time of fear and grief and anger, we all as parliamentarians have a critical role to play. Scapegoating, wielding a broad brush to tar—that stuff's easy to do. That's the political equivalent of instant gratification—Red Bull politicking: quick hit then a slump. I come back to the words delivered by a rabbi to me post Bondi: 'We choose our hard.' Jacinda Ardern chose her hard and showed the world how to build a better, cohesive, stronger nation in the aftermath of unimaginable grief. That's the task before us all—the hard and patient and vital work to bring people together at a time when Australians want and deserve calm, determined leadership from us all.
Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Business | House debates
I rise to speak on the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025. At first glance, the bill is technical and administrative. It validates certain fees collected by the...
I rise to speak on the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025. At first glance, the bill is technical and administrative. It validates certain fees collected by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, between 1 July 2011 and 11 March 2025. These include late fees, upfront review fees and fees for special purpose companies. The bill doesn't introduce new changes and it doesn't increase what Australians pay. It simply corrects a technical error in the indexation methodology introduced back in 2011. Over the years, practice on indexation diverged from parliament's intent and this bill fixes that. So, in many respects, the amendment is an integrity measure. It ensures the law reflects what parliament intended and what ASIC has consistently applied in practice. It's administrative in nature, but it matters because it validates ASIC's authority and it ensures consistency in the way that fees are understood. While the bill is technical in nature, it points to something much larger—the authority of ASIC and the value of the work it does every day. ASIC isn't just a bureaucratic body; it's a frontline defender of fairness in our financial services system, and its work touches every Australian—whether you're a small-business owner, a shareholder, a superannuation fund member or simply someone with a bank account. Regulatory watchdogs like ASIC ensure that financial power serves the public interest, not just corporate interest, and that protection is not abstract; it's measured in real enforcement actions. We just need to look at specific cases, and none is more instructive than the action that ASIC took against one of our biggest banks, ANZ. Last year, ASIC determined it would level the largest penalty ever secured against a single entity, penalising ANZ $240 million for a range of actions that ASIC characterised as a betrayal of the trust of Australians. In April 2023, ANZ was assisting the Commonwealth government's Australian Office of Financial Management with a $14 billion bond issuance. Instead of taking steps to limit the market impact on this issuance, ANZ sold a significant volume of 10-year bond futures around the time of pricing. ANZ knew its trading could expose its client, the Commonwealth, to significant risk, but didn't disclose this. ANZ also misled the government about its trading turnover for nearly two years. This was not just a technical breach; the bond deal was raising money to finance government services, health, education, infrastructure and defence. ANZ's conduct risked taxpayer funds and undermined trust in sovereign debt management. These are exceptionally serious issues. ANZ's current chairman, Paul O'Sullivan, and new CEO Nuno Matos told investors there had been no loss to the Commonwealth after mishandling $14 billion in government bond sales, yet, according to ASIC, they estimated that the government suffered a $26 million loss as a direct result of ANZ's misconduct. So it appears that ANZ misled investors about how they misled the Commonwealth, which is simply extraordinary. How can you have confidence that ANZ will seriously tackle cultural issues in its bank when its senior leadership responds this way to an act that prompted one of the largest penalties ever? ANZ has claimed that senior leadership were made accountable for this, yet the same senior managers are now contesting the action taken against them. While new CEO Nuno Matos is promising a new approach, I'm yet to be convinced this will be a serious effort. The CEO may be different, but the chairman seems unrepentant. How can the chairman of that bank, in a role that is supposed to shoulder a lion's share of responsibility for overseeing corporate governance, not appear to take any responsibility for the cultural issues that seem stubbornly ingrained at the bank? It's worth noting that this is not the only misconduct by ANZ that has attracted regulator intervention, particularly from ASIC. Between May 2022 and September 2024, ANZ failed to respond to 488 customers who submitted hardship notices. These were Australians facing unemployment, illness, bereavement and family violence, yet ANZ pursued debt collection against them without responding to their hardship pleas in the required timeframe. Between 2013 and 2024, ANZ promoted bonus interest offers but failed to apply them consistently, making false, misleading or deceptive representation to customers. In 2024-25, further errors affected nearly 57,000 customers, with $480,000 in interest not paid. Between 2019 and 2023, ANZ failed to refund fees charged to thousands of deceased customers. Families dealing with grief were left to fight for refunds. This is on top of prior misconduct spanning more than a decade: a $900,000 penalty for breaching disclosure laws in a $2.5 billion share placement; a $10 million penalty for contravening the credit act and accepting sensitive customer documents from unlicensed third parties in its Home Loan Introducer Program; a $15 million penalty for misleading customers about available funds in credit card accounts, leading to wrongful fees and interest; a $25 million penalty for failing to deliver fee waivers and interest discounts to 689,000 accounts over 20 years; a $10 million penalty for unconscionable conduct over improper periodic payment fees; a $5 million penalty for irresponsible lending in car finance; and a $10 million penalty for attempting to manipulate the bank bill swap rate on 10 occasions. The pattern is clear—repeated breaches, repeated penalties—yet the $250 million fine is minuscule compared to ANZ profits and far lower than the maximum penalty that ANZ could have incurred. While I respect the decision of ASIC in terms of levelling the penalty that it did to ANZ, I did make the point at the time and I make it again that they could have and they should have penalised ANZ harder, because, if deterrence is to work, penalties have got to bite. ASIC has the power to send that signal, and I would urge it to do so. When misconduct is this widespread and repeated, it's not just a series of technical errors. It's a failure of governance at a serious level and a failure of oversight right at the top of the bank. The behaviour of ANZ has been so egregious that it attracted the attention of the Federal Court. Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach summed up the reason why this litany of misconduct prevailed for so long: 'ANZ's lack of accountability at both management and execution levels and inadequate senior ownership of formal framework and governance arrangements'. Yet, despite record penalties, we've seen few meaningful consequences for those ultimately in charge. In fact, I'm informed that, at the recent ANZ shareholder meeting in December, uncomfortable questions were repeatedly shut down and given short shrift. This is not the sign of an organisation prepared to confront and repair its governance failings. Docking a bonus while trimming an incentive payment is not accountability. It is not commensurate with systemic misconduct that costs Australians millions of dollars and erodes trust in our financial system. If leadership isn't truly held responsible, fines simply become a cost of doing business. We cannot have this mindset solidify in our banking system. I believe experience shows that bad corporate behaviour becomes a factor that reshapes political environments and, when the public believes that big businesses like this can act with impunity, it further undermines faith and trust in institutions and questions the ability of governments to act. That's why I'm so focused on the behaviour of the banks and their treatment of everyday Australians. If the ANZ can treat the Commonwealth with such disregard, imagine what they might do to a mum-and-dad retail investor—and that's before we even discuss the way that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was prepared to have 2.2 million customers or concession holders, many low-income earners, inappropriately sitting in bank accounts attracting nearly $280 million in fees over five years, an act that on its face contravened the banking code of conduct, which requires banks to be proactive in protecting customers from fee related harm. They weren't the only bank to have been found to do this, but they were one of the few to set up hurdles for customers to claim back the fees that they were charged. I've got to say that, if customers owed money to the Commonwealth Bank, I'm sure the path to recovering that money off customers would have been as smooth as silk. I'm concerned that we're seeing the same weeds that prompted the last royal commission pop up yet again, and the banks aren't taking this seriously. I do believe that it is imperative that we do focus on these governance issues and that the senior management of our biggest banks are held to account, because it does have an impact on ordinary Australians and, when they feel that they are not getting fairness delivered to them, it does have repercussions. If you don't believe that then you just need to see the growth of the Tea Party in the US following the global financial crisis. People reacted to the way in which major financial institutions seemed to get off scot-free for the decisions that they made that impacted on ordinary people and reacted to where people weren't held to account. ASIC's work is vital not just in banking but also in superannuation, where Australians' retirement savings, security and dignity in later life are at stake. For most people, superannuation is decades of hard work. It's time away from family, missed holidays, overtime shifts and careful saving. It's the promise that, after a lifetime of hard work, the contributions you made to your savings via super will give you a chance to retire with confidence in your financial future. So when that promise is broken, the consequences are deeply personal. In 2024 and 2025, two major superannuation schemes, Shield Master Fund and First Guardian, collapsed, leaving more than $1 billion in retirement savings at risk. More than 12,000 Australians were affected. Many lost what they believed were their life savings. One could just imagine the crippling anxiety and fear that people would have had when they believed that their life savings to sustain them in retirement had completely gone. Investigations revealed that high-risk investments were being marketed as safe. Research ratings misled investors. Networks of advisers and lead generators steered Australians into unsuitable products. Oversight failed. Ordinary people paid the price. I'm grateful for the attendance of the Assistant Treasurer in the chamber, because I know the huge amount of work that he has undertaken with consumers directly impacted by these collapses. I know that hearing stories like those that he was forced to confront made clear the very real toll that these events took on families across the country. We cannot ever lose sight of that human cost. In December, the government announced it would be consulting on a range of actions in response to the collapses, including cracking down on lead generation, risky superannuation switching, high-pressure sales tactics and ensuring our regulatory settings are fit for purpose. I also understand the Assistant Treasurer wrote to regulators ASIC and APRA to identify action that could be taken to prevent anything like this happening again and has requested ASIC to consider whether current financial resource requirements for managed investment scheme operators are appropriate. These collapses have exposed weaknesses across the broader financial ecosystem, where all have a responsibility to protect investors from risk. The release of the outcomes of APRA's thematic review of superannuation platforms is a welcome step, but right now the priority has got to be preserving what funds can be preserved and getting money back into people's hands. We cannot have faith in the superannuation system undermined, and I think it has been important that the work led by the Assistant Treasurer has come to the fore to be able to give people some sense of comfort. Finally, I just want to congratulate Sarah Court on her appointment as chair of ASIC and starting her five-year term on 1 July. When Ms Court delivered ASIC's 2026 enforcement priorities, she revealed ASIC had doubled the number of new investigations and nearly doubled the new matters filed in court in the last 12 months. I wish her every success as she continues this important work on behalf of Australian consumers and investors, and I thank the House.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Early one morning last December, a rabbi and I stood quietly together on the footbridge overlooking that patch of Bondi that's becoming abominably attached to an awful chapter in our history. We...
Early one morning last December, a rabbi and I stood quietly together on the footbridge overlooking that patch of Bondi that's becoming abominably attached to an awful chapter in our history. We earlier visited the memorial at Bondi Pavilion. Respecting an old Jewish tradition, I placed a stone amongst the flowers and wreaths. In this tradition, stones endure. They represent a commitment to remember—to remember Matilda, Edith Brutman, Dan Elkayam, Boris and Sofia Gurman, Alexander Kleytman, Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Reuven Morrison, Marika Pogany, Rabbi Eli Schlanger, Adam Smyth, Boris Tetleroyd, Tania Tretiak and Tibor Weitzen. We remember you all. While walking towards the footbridge, the rabbi was telling me of the days filled with funerals he'd attended and the grief weighing down his community. Other rabbis and Jewish Australians I've spoken with have told me the same. When I stood next to my friend on that footbridge, it was a cold moment because of what silently crushes your mind and presses on your chest—the realisation that anyone gathered below had so little room to escape the hateful intent that befell them. I keep thinking of Matilda, a 10-year-old. She deserved a life rich with experience, yet she was robbed of this by terrorists fuelled by antisemitic hatred, who targeted her simply because of her faith while celebrating Hanukkah in Bondi. It's chilling. It's wrong on so many levels to every person killed that day. Bondi Beach isn't simply a place for sunburn and surf; its power comes from those waves drawing in the four corners of the globe. It's a magnet for people from all different walks, from both here and other shores, who make their way to that beach, entranced by a natural wonder. It's a place of shared joy. You don't need to feel the itch or heat of Bondi's sand between your toes to know that, when you see Bondi, you think of Australia—laid back, care free, people getting on. For years it's also been the perfect backdrop for Jewish Australians wanting to celebrate a sacred moment in the calendar of their faith, Hanukkah. But this image, this backdrop, has been marred, stained horrendously by an act of terror and hate—bullets whose purpose was to end lives and divide the rest of us. Worse still, for the children of Abraham to do this to each other, at a moment important to the faith of the other, is truly sinful—two men contorting faith to justify terrorism. One was stopped by another man driven by his faith, guided, he said, by the hand of God. I thank him and everyone who stepped forward when instinct screamed, 'Step back.' Thank you to all first responders, doctors, nurses, lifesavers and those that are now helping people tortured by grief. Our gratitude is deep and profound. Mourning and condolence is a space for remembrance, reflection and choices about what's next. When it comes to choices, a rabbi put to me, 'We choose our hard.' Even easy choices are made to avoid hard ones. They come with harder consequences and harder choices later. There is little that will be easy for us all in this place with what's before us. The questions we must ask ourselves on the floor of this House are: What are our choices, and what do we bring to this moment? Does the moment need more anger and bitterness? For many who've suddenly, tragically, prematurely farewelled those they love, these are instinctive responses to grief, to fear and to loss. I respect and understand that. But, for us here, have we had enough raised voices, and do we need more temper? What can we do to help draw the nation together? Less brawling, more healing and less driving each other into our own defensive corners. If we say we choose to unite, let's prove it. Let's do the hard work restitching our social fabric, refashioning the bonds between people of all walks. Resolve doesn't need to be fuelled by anger and hate to achieve its ends. I dare say you've heightened the strength of resolve emphasising clear purpose—a clear resolve to confront and address extremism, a resolve to unite and to build a sense of safety, an ability for others to practise faith free from fear. Let's deliver that. It's what we should absolutely resolve to deliver to Jewish Australians. The roots of my family tree come from a place that shredded itself with ethnic and religious hatred. What I've resolved and what I bring to this moment, and from the moment I took my first oath to serve here, is a determination that our country, which has been so good to so many, will never contend with the same fate—unity always. We can differ in view, but we should never dissolve as a result of corrosive hate. We can resolve that, no matter from what corner extremism emerges—Islamists or far-right extremists—we will stand up and deal with it together. What presents as a threat to Australians of all faiths and backgrounds is a threat to us all. We can remember who we are as Australians, and we can resolve for better, for safer and for stronger. I end on this point. One of the toughest books I've ever read is Night by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel. Night devastatingly details what Elie and his family endured and, in cases, succumbed to during the Holocaust. He wrestles with the testing of faith that comes with horrific experience, a theme he returned to regularly through a prolific literary career. I've retraced many of his words and thoughts lately. I end with this observation he made when I ask friends in this place what we bring to a shared challenge. Elie Wiesel observed: Just as despair can come to one only from other human beings, hope, too, can be given to one only by other human beings. This is our moment to give hope to each other and the people we collectively have been sent to represent.
Chifley Electorate: Coral McLean Awards | Constituency Statements | House debates
I want to let the parliament know about the incredible success of the 14th annual Chifley Coral McLean Awards, a celebration of women whose compassion, leadership and strength continue to shape...
I want to let the parliament know about the incredible success of the 14th annual Chifley Coral McLean Awards, a celebration of women whose compassion, leadership and strength continue to shape our community for the better. We also took the opportunity to raise funds for a local women's group, Community in Fellowship Together. I wanted to give a special shout-out to our terrific guest speaker this year, journalist and radio presenter Chris Bath, who proved to be one of the most entertaining speakers we've had in a while—other than, say, the member for Riverina. Her warmth and wisdom truly struck a chord with everyone in the room. Each year, the awards honour the legacy of Coral McLean. Coral was a woman who dedicated her life to social justice, reconciliation and community service. It was estimated that she devoted 100,000 hours of her time to people in our area. Even when she moved out of Mount Druitt and was up on the Central Coast, her door would be open to people who would travel to her in an hour of need, and she would be there for them. She was a tremendous Australian. This year's recipients, especially the Coral McLean Award winner Sister Carlene Allen, could not have embodied Coral McLean's spirit more. For nearly two decades, Sister Carlene supported women, families and vulnerable locals through her work at Holy Family Parish. She's a true pillar of compassion in Mount Druitt and the surrounding suburbs. We also recognised Chifley Woman of the Year, Hanna Shamoka, and Chifley Young Woman of the Year, Aarushi Duggal. The MP Recognition Award went to Learning Ground's Cassandra Jackson. Each of these women gives so much of themselves, from supporting vulnerable families to uplifting and inspiring young people, building bridges across cultures, generations and communities. Their stories remind us of something deeply important—that strong communities are built by people who care, people who show up and people who quietly change lives every single day. Our winners and nominees reflect the very best of Western Sydney. The dedication they have is inspiring. It challenges us. It gives us hope for the future. I want to thank every volunteer, supporter, performer and community member who helped make this year's ceremony such a success—as they do each and every year. Most importantly, I want to thank the women that we honoured. Their work doesn't just strengthen our community; it strengthens the sense of who we are and makes our area a better, kinder place to live.
My First Speech Competition, Universities | Grievance Debate | House debates
I begin not with grievance but with inspiration, because today I had the pleasure of meeting Jamison Dustin, a bright year 12 student from the Chifley electorate, and his mum, Cheryl. Both of...
I begin not with grievance but with inspiration, because today I had the pleasure of meeting Jamison Dustin, a bright year 12 student from the Chifley electorate, and his mum, Cheryl. Both of them sit behind me, but Cheryl in particular is rightly proud of her boy. Jamison was the award recipient of My First Speech with the Speaker. I want to read his speech into the chamber and basically seize every credit for all of his hard work in doing so. It showcases thoughtful young leaders we have in Western Sydney and the issues that they want to bring to light. This is the speech that he has submitted to the Speaker: 'Mr Speaker, Australia's education system is failing its students, and the problem stretches beyond exams. When I say 'education', I'm not just referring to textbooks, curriculums and syllabi. Rather, I define education as the holistic development of individuals, something that I believe is often overlooked within Australian schools in exchange for a focus on academic achievement. And, whilst countries like Sweden integrate life readiness skills with strong academic standards, Australian NAPLAN results indicate that 33 per cent of students are not even meeting the baseline expectations in numeracy and literacy. Whilst I acknowledge the importance of academics as a year 12 student, I'm currently surrounded by peers who are constantly stressed about the HSC, stressed about what ATAR they'll receive and stressed about failing to meet expectations. Mr Speaker, I believe that a student is more than their marks. This chamber cannot ignore the evident effects of failing to address educational development beyond teaching students maths and Shakespeare. One such avenue for a better system is the implementation of a financial literacy program. Research from the University of Newcastle has found that "greater financial literacy leads to better life satisfaction". Moreover, ASIC reports that people experiencing financial challenges are twice as likely to be experiencing mental health challenges. However, despite calls from ASIC and other institutions, a financial literacy program is yet to be implemented across Aussie schools, meaning that the over 330,000 young Australians facing financial insecurity each year are exposed to the triple edged sword of an outdated, underperforming education system, a widespread cost-of-living crisis and growing rates of mental health issues. There are endless opportunities to better Australia's approach to holistic education; financial literacy programs are just the start. So, Mr Speaker, when will it be enough? Our system needs change, because today isn't good enough but together tomorrow's could be.' Well said, and I want to commend Jamison on that terrific speech. Deputy Speaker Lawrence, I happened to receive a little book—treatise, no doubt—called Aiming Higher: Universities and Australia's Future written by George Williams, who occupies the role of vice-chancellor of my old uni, Western Sydney University. It's quite a read. In particular, what leapt out to me is: Today, universities find themselves in the distressing position where their very social licence is in question. It's a concerning quote at that. Mr Williams has done a bit of a speaking tour. Once he's completed that, I wouldn't mind if he did a speaking tour of the Blacktown local government area, where he could explain to the folks of our region why he is closing the only campus in the Blacktown local government area. The University of Western Sydney was started under a former federal Labor government as a result of reforms by the Hawke Labor government, driven principally by the notion that, if you see it, you'll be it. We wanted to encourage more Western Sydney kids to be able to go to university. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:44 to 12:56 In establishing those universities, particularly one in Western Sydney, it was important to send the signal that we wanted people to progress in terms of their obtainment of education skill. I'm proud to say I went to that university. It did open up an opportunity for me as the first in my family to go. In the mid-1990s, a person that I'm proud to call a friend and who was the member for Chifley before me, Roger Price, had championed the concept that, on soon to be vacated Royal Australia Navy land of HMAS Nirimba, we use the opportunity not to sell that land off but to put on one site public and private high schools, TAFE and a university so that we would then boost educational opportunity in that area. The Western Sydney University now is looking to shut that campus down which is an absolute tragedy. It will mean it will take out, from one of the largest council areas in Western Sydney, the only university campus. What is extraordinary about that is that the university and vice-chancellor said to me the reason they are shutting it down is because it is a poor student experience. You would think that a university would devote itself to improving the university experience by investing in that area. Instead, to deal with the poor university and student experience, the university is removing its presence. The Western Sydney University—I've watched this, and many others have noticed it—are centralising most of their facilities in what I and many others would describe as the eastern suburbs of Western Sydney, like Parramatta. They're not doing it to increase the number of Western Sydney students going to that university. They're doing it to try and get students from the east of the city, betraying the very reason the university was set up in the first place. It's unacceptable. In the process of shutting that campus, they're also shutting the Western Sydney University childcare centre at the Nirimba campus, which is leaving many parents distressed. It's abhorrent conduct, quite frankly, from them. Over the decades that early learning centre became more than just a childcare facility; it became the cornerstone of early learning in the Blacktown local government area. It's a licensed 50-day long-care service. It's not just the closure of the building. It upends the lives of many families in my part of the region who are not only losing a major university presence but a vital childcare service as well. The university's response has been disappointing. They're taking the step because, 'not economically viable.' But don't worry, they'll prioritise transfers for affected families to other early learning campuses. This means that if you're living as a family in the Blacktown area the closest one is now 25 minutes away, and that's if you get in. Otherwise, you're driving 40 minutes to Campbelltown. It's just not on. It's just wrong. We have the biggest local government area in Western Sydney. We will now not have a significant university presence in there. Again, if Mr Williams wants to wonder why people are questioning the social licence of universities, he can just look straight at his own lap and at the decision that he's made to shut down that campus. It's unacceptable. The other thing quite distinct from that is we have an urgent need for improved public transport in north-west Sydney. One of the things I've been championing is the extension of the north-west metro rail line from where it stops at Tallawong to St Marys. This will be huge for residents in booming residential estates, but also for existing estates. For whatever reason, the New South Wales Liberal government decided they would stop the rail line at Tallawong and have a huge gap between there and St Marys. It makes absolutely no sense. In its 2023-24 budget, the New South Wales Minns government committed $40 million to develop the business case to expand it, and I commend them for doing this business case. I believe, as the Prime Minister rightly noted earlier this year in giving a speech to Western Sydney residents, the missing link of the metro is Tallawong to St Marys. He's absolutely right in making that observation, and I believe that a cooperative, collaborative approach by both levels of government will be transformative for our part of Western Sydney. I've had thousands of residents back a petition calling for the extension of the metro. Building and extending that metro line will then open up the opportunity to develop the next big, central business district in the Blacktown local government area of Marsden Park. We will be able to build a functional, properly working, attractive central business district that will obviously be the biggest central business district in our part of Western Sydney and, importantly, it will create jobs right where people live. Having the metro connect up with the upgrade that has already been announced and is about to commence on Richmond Road means we'll get public transport, road networks and a focus on a satellite city in Marsden Park. We need to do that by federal and state governments working together. We need to build the extension to the metro from Tallawong right now.
Gas Industry | Private Members' Business | House debates
Thanks to the member for Bradfield for this resolution—I agree. Australians deserve a gas market that's predictable, reliable, affordable and transparent, not a radical proposition. Right...
Thanks to the member for Bradfield for this resolution—I agree. Australians deserve a gas market that's predictable, reliable, affordable and transparent, not a radical proposition. Right now, our gas system defies even the gravity of basic economic logic. The consequences of this are felt in households, factories and businesses across the country. We face a projected seasonal gas shortfall by 2028, not because we don't have enough gas but because the gas that comes from beneath Australian soil is prioritised for customers offshore rather than customers onshore. Pre-pandemic gas prices sat at around $3 or $4 per gigajoule; today they're at around $10.30. When I said that our gas prices defy the gravity of conventional economics, I meant this: domestic gas demand has actually fallen. Supply has sustained but been shunted off overseas. That's why falling demand hasn't been reflected in prices. The market is fundamentally distorted. Over decades, governments have entrenched this, largely by inaction, hoping the problem would go away. I'm proud though to say that, in the last term, this government was the first to have the guts to tackle this, even with the active resistance of the coalition. In late 2022, the government capped prices at $12 per gigajoule despite warnings from exporters and foreign buyers, who predicted the worst. Those predictions soured. We stepped in at a moment of crisis, and we were right to do so. Access to stable, affordable gas is not an industrial preference; it's a sovereign capability necessity. It'll be essential to the transition to net zero. Predictable voices will tell you, 'All we need is more supply.' That's misleading. We need supply at the right prices, and we need contracts that are fair. Manufacturers often tell me they're unable to get contracts longer than 12 months because of the profiteering obsession of gas companies holding out to ramp up prices beyond the contract period. This is intolerable. Tinkering at the edges is not enough to fix this. The ACCC has doubted that past interventions aren't having a perceivable effect. We need strong action—a complete rethink of the terms on which Australian resources serve the Australian national interest. In this country, it's almost like we're embarrassed about possessing so many resources and are so timid we feel we just have to cop what overseas companies and buyers tell us—what rot. Or we are spooked by this argument: if we demand too much these companies won't invest in new fields—lame. Former WA premier Alan Carpenter stared down that threat and established a west coast reservation system. Our generation trades on the courage of past generations without displaying the spine to do the same today. This timidity has allowed a structural flaw to fester, with domestic prices influenced by export prices and Australian users competing with Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore for Australian gas. We beg for the scraps—forced to cop globally indexed pricing that has absolutely no relationship with the cost of production. Our gas, our prices—that should be the bedrock, the cornerstone, of our thinking. The cost of doing business in this country, for multinational gas firms, is that they must provide a gas price in line with historic pre-pandemic levels. This should apply to any new field that's open, too. We absolutely need to establish a gas reservation policy to meet our local needs in this decade, not in the next. We must stand firm on another issue. We cannot tolerate being lectured to by overseas buyers telling us what we can do with our gas when they on-sell the gas they get from us to make a massive profit. Last year, Japan resold a third of the LNG it had purchased from Australia, making over $1 billion in profit and in quantities large enough to supply our domestic industry for a year. We should reshape the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism to allow the government to intervene, adjusting future supply based on past resold volumes. This nation should not be reduced to pauper status. We should be an energy superpower, and that should translate to economic strength. That's the ambition we should have no hesitation in pursuing. We may also need to prevent the sale of uncontracted gas offshore and ensure companies don't sidestep this by ramping up sales of uncontracted gas to drain what's available for locals. We cannot wait for a better deal for this country. We should have the ambition to pursue better for this nation, and we should reject the naysaying and the fearmongering by those who want to tell us that we should cop something that we all in this place know we should not.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 | Questions without Notice | House debates
Regional Australia | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Thanks, Deputy Speaker Young. It's great to see you again. You're working very hard for that role today, I might add, sir. I also want to commend my friend the member for Adelaide, who referred...
Thanks, Deputy Speaker Young. It's great to see you again. You're working very hard for that role today, I might add, sir. I also want to commend my friend the member for Adelaide, who referred to a regulator as a superhero. I think you referred to the AER as superheros—that's maybe the first time in the parliament that regulators have been spoken about so effusively, so well done, Mr Georganas. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025, because I think it is important for the Australian Energy Regulator, particularly at this point in time, that we give them the independence, the efficiency and the resources that they need. As to independence, while the AER have been under the umbrella of the ACCC, it does not suggest for one moment that the ACCC has impeded their ability to do their job. But this will give the AER the ability to progress the work that it is doing in a very important space and allow it to act decisively and transparently in the interests of households and businesses, who depend on affordable energy. When it comes to our gas and electricity, Australians deserve a fair deal, and it is important that we have a regulator that's oversighting that. The AER, as I indicated, long operated as a part of the ACCC, a structure that made sense 20 years ago. But, really, times have changed, and it doesn't remain the case that it makes sense today. The AER regulates billions of dollars in network revenue and oversees hundreds of energy market participants yet still relies on the ACCC for staff and resourcing. We want the bill to address this, and that's what it does. It separates the regulators; it makes the AER a fully independent Commonwealth entity with its own staff, its own budget and its own governance. It will be able to make decisions faster, cleaner and more efficiently, respond to market circumstances and enforce rules in real time. It's one of the three bodies overseeing an area of particular interest of mine—the national gas market. It's notionally referred to as a 'gas market', and I want to come to whether or not that term is a sustainable one in this day and age. The three bodies—AER, AEMC and AEMO—have operated for 20 years without full financial or operational control. The separation empowers the AER to strengthen its independent oversight of energy markets, in particular gas infrastructure, pricing transparency and competition conditions. It does a lot of work in the gas space, which I want to reflect on, and I hope that it does more work in it. The ACCC does quite a lot of work. I commend the ACCC. Twice a year it does a very important overviews of the performance of the so-called gas market in this country. If I had one suggestion, one area of reform is a much more dynamic approach to assessing the state of the gas market. The way it operates at the moment is that the ACCC releases a report every six months but that report reflects on data captured six months earlier—so it releases a report in the middle of the year talking about summer prices and a report at the end of the year talking about winter prices. There's got to be a much more dynamic way to measure the behaviour of the so-called market, the prices that have been achieved in that market and the contracts that have been offered. If there is reform to be done, it is that this work needs to happen on a much more frequent basis. We're on the cusp of, for the first time, seeing inflation data being reported not on a quarterly basis but on a monthly basis. If we can do that on something as big as that in the economy, we can definitely move quicker on reporting on gas pricing. I've intimated a few times that there is a label applied here—'the gas market'. It's very important to emphasise that this is not a gas market. This is not a situation where there is equal power between the supplier and the buyer. This is a market where there is extraordinary market power held by the gas companies themselves, who set price and contract terms in ways that, frankly, operate against the national interest. Their pricing is way out of line with international pricing, despite, I'd say, misleading suggestions to the contrary. They provide contract terms particularly to Australian manufacturers that are, frankly, unacceptable for manufacturers who rely on gas for feedstock. These are unacceptable terms. The sad reality is—and it's been reflected upon by the ACCC in its twice-yearly reports—that, with the measures that have been put in place like the heads of agreements, the gas trigger and the code of conduct, it is hard to see that there is a demonstrable effect or a significant downward pressure on prices as a result of these interventions. They've been treated as a joke by the gas companies themselves, who make out that they have compromised and been able to do a better deal for consumers—but quite the contrary exists. Some of the behaviour of the gas companies and their executives is extraordinary and portrays completely tone-deaf behaviour by them. Exhibit A is a Santos executive—I don't think it is extraordinary that we have Santos being tone-deaf; they've demonstrated their capability to do this time and again. Mark Vassella, the CEO of one of the biggest steel manufacturers in this country, BlueScope, spoke to the National Press Club and talked about how their overseas competitors could get gas in the US at $3. Santos executive Stephen Harty disputed that, saying that there was no such thing as $3 gas in the US, and then went on to quote Henry Hub gas prices at $4.90 a gigajoule in Ohio—this is in an op-ed that Mr Harty submitted to the Australian Financial Review on 21 October—and then said that the average industrial gas price in Ohio, where BlueScope's North Star plant is located, 'was more than $17 a gigajoule, higher than Australia's gas price cap of $12 a gigajoule'. Mr Vassella may want to investigate and respond to those claims. Santos, by the way, buys up a lot of domestic gas supply so it can top up its export loads and flog those off at much higher prices, which puts pressure on the local gas market. Be that as it may, we can come back to that at another time. Let me give you an example. I said that was exhibit A of the tone-deaf nature of gas executives. The gas executive said: If manufacturers are concerned about gas prices, why are they not investing in new gas supply sources? That is like asking a buyer in a market to invest in supply. You turn up to the market to obtain supply. When the customer objects to the price of supply, the supplier says, 'If you think you could do better, go do it,' which is just bizarre logic. On top of that, the Santos executive said: The truth is manufacturers do not have the appetite for the large amounts of capital— No wonder—or, as the kids say, 'No duh'— They want risk-free, long-term contracts on a cost-plus-margin basis. Oh, the horror! The horror that manufacturers would want a better price for their energy! I come back to the point that this is not a market; this is dictated to by companies with great market power. When manufacturers go and seek a contract length of greater than 12 months—this parliament needs to know that that rarely happens. Manufacturers that need gas as feedstock cannot get a contract longer than 12 months. Why? It's because of the profiteering of these gas companies that want to maximise profit and refuse to do a longer contract, because they hope that, at the end of the 12 months, they can get a better price. This is what we're dealing with. Those opposite will go on about why gas prices are so high, but they'll do nothing about it. When we tried to cap gas prices, they voted against it. Their answer, taking the cue from the very gas companies that thug our manufacturers, is, 'We'll just get more supply.' Yes, we can get more supply, but we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that more supply alone will result in a better price. It can put, to some extent, downward pressure on price, but it's not the answer alone. We need to get more supply at better prices of an Australian resource—our gas, our prices. We should not be dictated to by export prices. The cost of doing business in this country for these gas companies who say, 'If you do anything against us you, we'll take our capital away'—as if, when they are fleecing the export market—is to give us a much better, much more competitive gas supply arrangement, with fairer contracts at way better prices. I would argue that the $12 cap, in this day and age, is too high. It should be lower. Australia should have the courage to argue. With bountiful supply of our own resource, we should demand a better price because it confers on us great commercial and economic strength. Most other countries get it. Most other countries are prepared to stand up for themselves, as should we. Instead of having these executives, like what we've seen out of Santos, say, 'If you don't like it, go get the supply yourself,' and, 'If we don't like it, we'll take our capital elsewhere'—this is just tantamount to trying to thug the market, but it also defies common sense. They should do a better deal. Given that 80 per cent of our gas is exported, they're doing very well. They're doing very well on a historical basis. These gas companies are doing very well relative to when they made the investment. They were charging $3 a gigajoule and they have now got $12 a gigajoule. They've made more than enough profit to be able to do a better deal for Australian consumers. While I'm at it, if we're talking about regulatory arrangements which we are expecting the AER to benefit from, can we please stop just watching foreign buyers get our gas—demanding to have access to it and saying it's a sovereign risk if they don't get it at the right price—and then resell it? We have had countries resell Australian gas after demanding access. No-one has a problem with foreign buyers using gas for themselves, but if they tell us we can't change our gas arrangements or our gas prices and they then sell the same amount of gas as east coast households and businesses use—this is extraordinary. We cannot sit by and watch Japan and Korea resell our gas, which Japan in particular has done it for four years in a row, when we have been crying out for uncontracted gas at a better price. This type of stuff needs to be tackled—our gas, our prices. We need it for our manufacturers. The gas companies are making 'more money than God', in the words of President Biden when he talked about some of the gas companies in the US. They are not being short-changed. This resource is in bountiful supply. It is being exported, and a lot of money is being made out of it. We should have the courage to insist on a better deal for Australian manufacturers. It's something that we should be fighting for, because it is important. As we said coming out of the pandemic, we need to make more things here. Gas is a key input for many of the manufacturers. We need to take a strong stand on this to be able to provide it. We can't just listen to the claims of the gas companies that say, 'If we just get more supply, you'll be right.' No. We need more supply directed here at a much more competitive price and on contract terms that are longer than 12 months. Those three areas are what we need to focus on, and I urge the House to do so.
Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
If you've been in place long enough, what's old is new again. It should not be particularly surprising that from time to time governments of both political colours will determine that there is a...
If you've been in place long enough, what's old is new again. It should not be particularly surprising that from time to time governments of both political colours will determine that there is a point at which we are going to attack red tape. I remember my friend the former member for Kooyong being very energetic, doing his red tape 'bonfire of the vanities' routine in times past. Only Josh Frydenberg could get a lot of media coverage pushing for red tape reduction. He did a very good job on it. We swore that we would cut it back. I liken this process to weeding—you do one cut and then you have to come back again, months or years later, to attend to the growth of red tape. For bringing this on, I hold to account Ezra Klein, the US writer who has written the book Abundance, which I have in my Audible list of books to listen to on my drive to Canberra. I haven't quite got to it yet, but apparently he's made some sort of impact. Now it's the thing for us to reimagine red tape reduction, and that's what we're doing. But it is about getting the balance right on red tape reduction, because one person's cut to red tape is another person's cut to protections and to systems that have been put in place in response to issues that the public have raised. Do I think it's a bad thing for governments to cut red tape? Of course not. I think it's important that we always find efficiencies in the way that we do things, efficiencies that will improve the way we use the resources required to get things done and the speed at which we provide services to the general public. I think it's always important that the public sector in particular rethink its approach to getting things done, and it doesn't matter which side of politics is in government. If I may put it in rather stark terms, in many respects the Public Service sees the political parties as renters: at a certain point in time they occupy a bit of real estate, but the systems will always go on and will always stay the same. It is incumbent on whichever political party forms government to look at whether or not those systems are fit for purpose, and clearly one aspect of that is looking at red tape. Off the back of people reading Abundance we've had this surge in focus, which is great, but let's see what it actually yields. 'Tell us once' is great. Governments of both sides have been pursuing this for a decade. We have had hand-on-heart commitments by the other side of politics, when in government, that they would get this right, supported by a public service that said in all honesty that said they would get this done. Here we are 10 years later, again committing to do this. Do I think this is wrong? No. I think it's very good. I think it's important that the general public are not left on hold for an extended period of time, waiting for service, when contacting Services Australia. I think it's a good thing, as the population gets more digitally savvy and can work with these systems, that they need only provide information once—that a system captures and records information once, not multiple time, when a member of the public wants to engage with and get action from a federal government department. This isn't a challenge just for government, by the way. Red tape also exists in major corporations, where people are forced time and again to provide information to organisations in order to obtain a service that they desire. The notion that government is awash with red tape and the trope that it is an inefficiency of federal government—I don't think people need to believe that. Big organisations develop a multilayered approach to getting things done. It's not guaranteed that the private sector always does it better than the public sector. It is a challenge, but if we get 'tell us once' right it does make a difference to the general population. What is also important is that systems for recording data are modernised. Again, regardless of what side of politics is in power, there is the challenge of the amount of money we dedicate to the turnover of antiquated IT systems. It costs a lot of money to get that done, and sometimes governments decide they won't do that, or they'll defer it—yet again. Again, we've seen both sides of politics doing this. Some of those bodies exist within the remit of Services Australia or like bodies, where the money hasn't been put in place. So, you can cut the red tape as much as you want, but if the system, particularly a legacy system, takes time to accurately and efficiently record that, it is going to be a challenge. Again, I make the point that what is said in theory—cutting red tape, the idea that we'll make it easier for the general public—is all very good, and we all support it. But we also need to make sure we make the investments in the systems to make that happen. That is critically important as well. The other elements of this bill that are noteworthy relate to some of the changes that have made in schedule 4, part 6, around improving energy performance and that there'll be measures to introduce demand flexibility as a new object of the act. Demand flexibility would be enabled, and consultation would occur. This aligns with the National Energy Performance Strategy and reflects our commitment to the evolving regulatory framework with the emerging energy needs and technologies. The reason I'm supportive of this is that right now, just as the latest trend is to read Ezra Klein's text on abundance, the other big idea is that we'll improve our technological capabilities by allowing many data centre flowers to bloom in this country. A lot of US tech players are very keen to set up a raft of data centres across this country. The promise is that if we get these data centres built it will be a good thing for our capability in areas such as artificial intelligence and what that might unleash for the nation. That's all great in theory, but it's a basic theory. It doesn't necessarily guarantee that. If we are going to cut red tape and we are going to bring these data centres online a lot quicker, we also need to know that they use a heck of a lot of energy, particularly if they are platforms supporting the operation of generative AI, and that we will need to stagger the way these centres are built. Right now we are going through an energy transition. Right now it is terrific to see that renewable energy is, more and more, forming the energy generation base of this nation. But a lot of these data centres tend to soak up a lot of energy use, which has become a hot topic in the US, where a lot of these centres are getting built. The concern is that there's a lot of investment in this for the benefit that comes out and the amount of energy that gets chewed up as a result. Louisa Kinnear, from the Australian Energy Council, makes that same point. She says: In the US, data centres are a major source of demand growth resulting in shortfalls of energy capacity. The US consequently faces a dilemma -in a time where it can take many years to develop and build new energy assets, how can it service this rapid uptick of energy demand while keeping energy prices affordable? She goes on to say: Australia too is grappling with the extent to which data centres might drive future demand, although we are not seeing the levels of demand growth being experienced by our American friends. Not yet. A number of major US tech firms that are experiencing the types of problems Ms Kinnear has identified have sought other jurisdictions in which to set these data centres up. For instance, Amazon and Google are looking to set up new data centres. Obviously other generative players would be looking to do the same. So, this is something we need to keep tabs on. If we are boosting renewable energy supply and we are seeing that new supply getting taken up by new centres, that's an issue. It is also a challenge in that we have a target of building 1.2 million new homes by 2030. We also have a raft of state governments that are undertaking infrastructure investment and rolling out that investment in different parts of the country. So there's a demand on skills availability between the housing sector and infrastructure. The building of these new centres is not a small thing. It does require skilled people to be able to undertake that construction work. So it's not just a call on energy; it's a call on skills as well, particularly if that occurs in regional areas, where the ability to call on those skills may not necessarily be available. So I do think, as much as we obviously value the role of data centres supporting local business—and I think there is a case to be made that a lot of these firms could do more to demonstrate the residual benefit to Australian industry of that processing power through their centres—and there is a benefit there, we should also be 'eyes wide open' on the challenges. Letting it rip in terms of data-centre development in this country sounds great on paper. It doesn't necessarily guarantee a smooth energy transition. You've got to ask the question about what it does in terms of skills. Because data centres use a lot of water as well, you've got to make sure that that resource is available, bearing in mind that it should not be assumed that, just because water systems are available in cities, that is an equal and standard case in our regions. Water supply is obviously, in different parts of the country, just as big a concern. So the fact that there is a demand flexibility incorporated in this omnibus bill is very important, and, if it is a measure that can provide for a sharper, clear-eyed assessment about the way in which we roll out the construction of these new data centres, I think it will be a valuable thing. I say this as someone who very much values the role of technology and, in particular, its uptake by Australian business. But getting it right and getting the balance sorted out is very important. Having measures like this in the bill, if they allow for a much more measured and balanced approach to the rollout of these things, so they don't become an issue like in other countries and so we don't import that issue into our own country, is very important. I'll leave my remarks at that. I think the bill is an important way in which to send a signal about being able to reduce the number or the range of regulations that are put in place. I suspect, in time, we'll probably also have a fresh look at 'one in, one out' rules when it comes to red tape—that is, if you are bringing in a new set of measures, where are you reducing measures elsewhere so that that is a constant way in which you improve on the growth or counter the growth of red tape? That is something that has been embraced in times passed. In the UK, the Blair government championed this. We did have some of that here in this jurisdiction, particularly at the federal level. Whether or not we reinvigorate that approach is another question altogether and probably a question for another time. But it is worth considering. So I certainly commend the bill to the House, and I am grateful for the chance to make a contribution on it.
Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
We debate a lot of things in this place. We move new legislation that becomes law and we set up new institutions. Understandably, there is sometimes confusion or not necessarily an appreciation...
We debate a lot of things in this place. We move new legislation that becomes law and we set up new institutions. Understandably, there is sometimes confusion or not necessarily an appreciation of the significance of the moment, but I think this bill represents an important long-term contribution to the better health of the nation. We have said, through the course of a once-in-a-generation pandemic, that we would learn a lot of lessons. Now it's time to back that up with hard evidence. I would submit to the House that this is one of those cases that demonstrates just that. We've moved beyond the talk, and we're setting in place something that has been called for for nearly 40 years. The reality is that many people recognised we needed such a centre to help us with moments in time where there were threats to public health at a large scale and that we needed a coordinating body that could best inform and draw together efforts to combat those moments in time where public health was under threat. Clearly, having something like the Australian Centre for Disease Control is one of those investments in the long-term health of the nation. It will be an independent, non-corporate Commonwealth entity, with the bill establishing the roles, the powers, the functions and the duty of the agency and its director-general. It was a commitment made by former shadow health minister Chris Bowen that then continued to be championed by the now Minister for Health, Mark Butler. I think it's an important and enduring part of our long-term public health architecture. An interim CDC was established in January last year, and this bill will bring to life what's required, particularly in transferring public health responsibilities to the director-general of the CDC and for the Biosecurity Act, the National Health Security Act and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Act. It will have a number of other important functions to be embedded in this CDC. The CDC idea was brought to the fore during this last pandemic, which we had to all endure. As indicated, we've had to go through these once-in-a-generation pandemics. Often, people would remind us of the experience of our forebears through Spanish influenza back in the last century and how devastating that was. We've had other major public health threats as well. Sometimes the distance between those events means that our collective memory fades. We don't necessarily put the same amount of investment in being able to protect and prevent the impact of some of these things on the broader public. Or there are, understandably, advances in care and containment that would not require of us the same level of approach as has previously been experienced. However, I think there are some important things that do need to be reflected on. My contribution in this debate was brought on by listening to the former deputy prime minister and member for Riverina, who I've got a lot of regard for. Even though we have differences of opinion, I do respect his contribution to the debate and his contribution in the last government, particularly being part of a government responding to COVID. However, while I might have regard for him, we do have different opinions. We have different opinions on the way that the COVID pandemic was managed by the former government. I think it is important that some of those differences be put on the record. The former deputy prime minister may be proud of Australia's response to COVID, and there were a lot of elements to be proud about relative to other nations. What we saw in terms of their responses and the impacts on their populations was pretty significant. But perspective also gives you a different vantage point from which to review past events, and the history, as it was experienced in our part of the world and in Western Sydney, was different. I also think it's important to recognise that the incoming coalition government of 2013 did make cuts to pandemic preparedness that had been worked on back in 2008 and 2009 by the government before them, because people recognised that you need to. Even though it might not affect you straight away or during your course of government, at some point it will, and it's important to replenish the institutions that manage it. When we started to see evidence of COVID emerging in late 2019 and early 2020, the concern about what effect this would have started to mount. I found it a bit hard, as a member of this parliament, to see a government response to COVID relegated to a dixer—a three-minute response in question time—as opposed to taking the serious step of convening a ministerial statement that would walk through what the risks were and what things needed to be done to help prepare the nation. I was critical at the time, too, of the former health minister. I appreciate that he did undertake a number of things at that point in time, but the country should have been taken into the confidence of the government and walked through what was being done ahead of what we actually experienced. We had leaders of this former government encourage attendance at mass events when scientists and medical practitioners were saying that that was the worst thing to do—to attend major sporting events and be part of a potential distribution of COVID. They then had to walk that back. We tried to get vaccines developed here. Unfortunately, it didn't work, but I commend the former government for encouraging that. But then, when it was clear other jurisdictions were developing the vaccine and we needed to order the vaccine in large numbers for the population, that didn't happen, and we were in the back of the queue in terms of vaccine purchase. I don't need to mention the COVIDSafe app in any great degree; that did not work out as a great contact-tracing platform. There was a $60 billion rounding error on JobKeeper, and not everyone got access to JobKeeper. I remember talking in the parliament about workers at places like dnata who were in the electorate I represent and who couldn't get JobKeeper and were laid off and couldn't maintain contact with their work. I want to thank the Transport Workers Union for maintaining the focus on that issue. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the former government would not amend its JobKeeper provisions to allow for people to be sustained in their employment. I spoke in this place about the docking of the Ruby Princess. I have friends I went to school with whose parents were on the Ruby Princess and died as a result of getting COVID on there. There were a whole lot of questions about why it was allowed to be docked at that point and why those aboard were just released en masse—2,000 people—into the community when there was evidence that COVID was being experienced on that vessel. The New South Wales government did a good job on a lot of things, but I had big differences with them about locking down Western Sydney and dividing the city in half, and it seemed to be accepted by the former federal government. There was a saying at the time, 'We're all in this together,' but the former federal government did undertake partisan attacks on state jurisdictions. I remember the Palaszczuk government in Queensland calling for support to set up quarantine facilities. They couldn't get anywhere. The Victorian government was continually chipped and criticised by senior representatives of the former Morrison government. The federal government joined with Clive Palmer to put pressure on the WA government to bring down its borders and stop the lockdown that protected that state. That happened at the time. It was astounding. No Western Australian forgot the fact that Scott Morrison and Christian Porter, the Attorney-General, sided with Clive Palmer to bring down that lockdown. That was staggering. So it seemed to me we were all in it together as long as you voted for the coalition, and I don't think that's acceptable from a public health perspective. That is a significant and, I appreciate, offensive remark for members of the coalition. I get that. But that's how it was felt. When they locked down Western Sydney—and from my recollection no national or state leader visited when that lockdown occurred—people at the time felt like they had been discriminated against and racially profiled because of where they lived. That was absolutely a point that was raised in a report by the Australian Catholic University and the United Workers Union, who said that people from Western Sydney suburbs felt targeted and racially discriminated against compared to Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs residents, who were allowed greater freedoms in the lockdown. So we had that. The other thing that got to me was that, at the point of lockdown, the supports that were necessary for the region going through the lockdown—a region that contained essential workers who sustained the city during COVID—were not provided. Here are some examples. In Mount Druitt, which I represent, we fought for ages to get a vaccination hub and were denied it. There was no support out of the federal government or the state government, the Berejiklian government, to get that vaccine hub. The Premier was questioned repeatedly about this, at a time when 3,000 people a week were getting infected. The hardest thing for me is hearing stories about kids orphaned because both their parents died as a result of COVID. That was too hard. That is still, for me, a scar in my mind for the people who I represent. They didn't get the support that they needed. Mental health support hubs were set up in Liberal electorates but not in the areas that were hardest hit. That is a fact you can go and see. In the electorate of Lindsay—the state electorate of Penrith—they got a mental health support hub. Why wasn't this done across Western Sydney? It shouldn't be that way. Public health is too important to be politicised. The reason why we're proud of our public health system and our universal health care is that it reflects a value of this nation. Australia says that, regardless of your income or where you live, we should fight to make sure you get the health care that you need. I'm proud of the fact that our country values that and that it fights for it. To be frank—putting aside the politics—both sides of politics get the importance of Medicare and a universal healthcare system. We may have different levels of commitment to it, but I think we have now gone beyond thinking that Medicare will be dismantled. It's about the level of investment in it. But I did feel really strongly, and I still feel really strongly, about the fact that Western Sydney was treated differently. We didn't have national or state leaders in, and we didn't have the supports that were needed, and we didn't have the coordination required to help people in need. The other thing, to talk about salt in the wound, was that the areas that were hit hardest by COVID were also hit hardest by COVID related fines. In Mount Druitt, nearly $1.4 million in fines were handed out to people in the areas I represent, some of which are huge low-socioeconomic areas. So they were not given the support—the vax hubs and the mental health hubs—and they were locked down, treated differently and fined hard. The reason I speak on this bill is that, if we've learnt anything out of that pandemic, it's the need to better coordinate, to not treat people in different regions differently and to be able to do what we can to coordinate a response—particularly standing up greater levels of support for vulnerable communities. In large part, the way to do that, I would argue to the House, is setting up something like a CDC that can do just that and work across jurisdictions. I hope, when we say we've learned the lessons of the pandemic, we genuinely mean it, and I'm proud of the fact that this CDC is evidence we may be doing something to do better.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
There are two central ingredients in our financial system. One is obvious, and the other one Labor recognises as equally important. Obviously the first one is money, but the other necessary,...
There are two central ingredients in our financial system. One is obvious, and the other one Labor recognises as equally important. Obviously the first one is money, but the other necessary, vital ingredient is trust. Australians should be able to trust their financial system and know when they save, invest or seek help that they're dealing with institutions that will act with integrity. I know that there's a bit of a trend at the moment. We're going through our normal cycle of focusing on red tape and reducing regulation. I understand that we have to go through these phases, and we'll go through it, no doubt. But, when it comes to the financial system, regulations are there for a very important reason—the reasons I mentioned before, not the least of which is to underscore, reinforce and support trust in the system. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025, as my colleagues have reflected, covers a number of areas that will be of great interest to Australians, but one of the big areas in here will be around improving the frequency of assessments of how our regulators are performing and supporting their work in maintaining that trust, that vital ingredient that I mentioned earlier, specifically delivering more comprehensive reviews of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. This will help deliver more considered recommendations that are impossible under their current review cycle. It's designed to improve the effectiveness of our financial system regulations. It is exceptionally important. Trust itself, in our financial system, isn't a given; it's got to be earned, and it's got to be continually protected. I have to say that, like many people in the public, I was simply staggered to see ANZ fined a record $240 million in penalties after admitting to widespread long-standing misconduct that affected tens of thousands of Australians. This was the largest penalty that ASIC had ever sought against a company—the largest ever. Why? It was because ANZ, one of the big four banks, misled the Commonwealth on a $14 billion bond deal, overstating bond trading volumes by tens of billions of dollars. It failed to respond to hundreds of customer hardship notices. It underpaid interest to tens of thousands of customers. It charged fees to the deceased while ignoring grieving families trying to settle estates. This isn't a one-off. ASIC has—and this is, again, just as staggering—taken action against ANZ nearly a dozen times in the decade. This points to systemic misconduct. Even more importantly, it's happening against the backdrop of a 2019 royal commission into the banking system that was designed to weed out this type of misconduct and, equally, to improve governance—exceptionally important. When you look at ANZ's performance, given the things that I've just mentioned to the House, it seems like ANZ is not getting the message. If they can't get the message after a royal commission, then sterner, harder action needs to be followed up until they do get it. I think it's important for the House to understand why ANZ was the target of the biggest fine that has been levied against a company. Let me read into Hansard, based on information released by ASIC, what happened. They were accused of 'unconscionable conduct when managing a $14 billion government bond deal and inaccurate reporting of secondary market bond turnover'. The ASIC media release reads: On 19 April 2023, ANZ was assisting the Government's sovereign debt management agency, the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), to help deliver a $14 billion bond issuance. Instead of trading gradually throughout the day to limit market impact, ANZ sold a significant volume of 10-year Australian bond futures around the time of pricing which placed undue downward price pressure on the bond price. ANZ knew— according to ASIC— its trading could expose its client to significant risk of harm, but did not disclose to its client that ANZ still had significant volumes to sell before pricing nor provide its client an opportunity to consult with ANZ about delaying pricing. This is extraordinary behaviour. The release continues: This denied the Government an opportunity to protect itself and the public interest— when it came to $14 billion worth of bonds— The Government was relying on ANZ's expertise and professionalism. When the Government later asked what happened— this is equally damning— ANZ's reports were misleading or deceptive. The point I would make about this is that, if ANZ did not even blink to do this to the Commonwealth, imagine how they are treating mum and dad consumers. If they are prepared to mislead the Commonwealth and do what they did, what else are they doing in terms of impacting on the security and the interests of mum-and-dad consumers? This is critically important. It's also worth noting just the number of times that this bank, ANZ, has been found to engage in misconduct. Again, with the indulgence of the House, I will read this into Hansard: over 150,000— contraventions of the ASIC Act, Corporations Act and Credit Act for failing to provide promised benefits to customers with offset transaction accounts or under a 'Breakfree' package over 20 years … We had a banking royal commission. This type of behaviour was supposed to be weeded out. We clearly have a bank, in ANZ, that has not picked up the message. As I indicated to the House earlier, if ANZ is prepared to deceive the Commonwealth on bond issuance, you can see what it's prepared to do to other people, based on some of the contraventions I just read into Hansard, which have genuinely affected mum-and-dad and other regular customers as well. I congratulate ASIC, most definitely, on the fact they've taken this stand. It is really important not just that our regulators have the teeth but that they use them, and they did. But if anything, with the greatest of respect and regard to ASIC, while I do acknowledge the scale of the penalty that has been imposed, given the rap sheet for ANZ it would certainly be within their ability to go even harder than the $240 million. I'm not alone in thinking this. Jeannie Paterson, professor of law in consumer protection at the University of Melbourne, said that, while the $240 million is the largest penalty ever sought, the amount that actually can be imposed on financial institutions for contraventions of financial services law is way higher. So, while $240 million is big, it could and should have been bigger. Professor Paterson said: Under provisions in place from 2019, the civil penalty could have been set at 10% of ANZ's annual turnover, currently capped at $825 million per contravention. One point of comparison is the $125 million penalty ordered against Volkswagen in 2019 for misleading consumers about emissions (and later upheld on appeal). Notably, this was one contravention, not four as the case with the ANZ. ANZ agreed to the penalty because they would rather do that than fight this in court and be further exposed for their poor governance behaviour and framework. But certainly we do need to take a harder line. In particular, where ASIC has the ability to pursue tougher penalties against banks, it should. It's often said that the big four are too big to fail. But they can't be too big to be fined, and they should be fined hard where they breach trust. As I said, it's absolutely critical that people have trust in our financial system and that they have faith in the way the regulators pursue breaches of trust. This legislation will be an important step in giving further strength and improving the efficiency of our financial regulations. But if the behaviour of ANZ post the banking royal commission is anything to go by, and the number of contraventions and the fact that it secured the biggest corporate fine, then we need to go harder to protect trust in the financial system, and I'd certainly urge ASIC to do so.
Middle East | Adjournment | House debates
Let me state this clearly and unambiguously at the start of this contribution: Hamas is a terrorist organisation; what it did on 7 October 2023 was an abomination; Hamas should be held to account...
Let me state this clearly and unambiguously at the start of this contribution: Hamas is a terrorist organisation; what it did on 7 October 2023 was an abomination; Hamas should be held to account for its actions; and all Israelis taken hostage by Hamas must be released immediately. I also want to state clearly and unambiguously that innocent Palestinians should be protected; they should not be targeted by actions in Gaza. I made comments like this in this House back in October 2023, and I've expressed similarly repeatedly since the horrific events of October 7. Since then, I've stressed we should be conscious of the humanity of others. My stance has been utterly constant and steadfast, but it's gotten stronger and stronger as I've witnessed the suffering of the innocent and the starvation of kids. Starvation shouldn't be used as a weapon against civilians. Civilians, aid workers and journalists should be off limits. It's just wrong, and we can't turn away from that. This has remained the case, even as the supporters of a foreign government here and abroad have consistently sought to deny, deflect or outright misrepresent my position and those who share my views about preserving and protecting innocent life. They do that because it's easier than confronting the morally challenging reality that 63,000 Palestinians have been killed as a result of the Netanyahu government actions since October 2023. Nearly 70 per cent of those killed are women and children, and there are more child amputees and orphans in Gaza per capita than anywhere else in the world. I think it's important for the parliament to note that the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, believes it's plausible that the acts of the Netanyahu government could amount to genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide requires countries, including ours, to take steps to prevent genocide, not just punish it. The Netanyahu government is planning to seize and control entirely Gaza city. It's also mobilising recruits to join the IDF, and there's resistance to this from within Israel itself. In these circumstances, it's not unrealistic to expect that dual nationals from our country may be called to serve in the IDF. We should be sending a clear message—please don't join. Some dual nationals have already left Australia to join the IDF, prompting concerns in civil society. For example, three months ago, the Australian Centre for International Justice wrote to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs, plus the AFP, asking that we send unambiguous public warnings about the legal implications of joining IDF actions in Gaza. The ACIJ emphasised it was troubled by statements from Netanyahu government officials highlighting an intent to pursue the systemic and widespread transfer and deportation of Gazans from territory in which they lawfully live. Why is that an issue? It's a crime against humanity, specifically the deportation or forcible transfer of population as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and it's an offence under our own Criminal Code Act. We don't need Australians placed in a position where they witness, abet or participate in what will likely be deemed a genocide. I'm also concerned about the impact of trauma on those returning after witnessing what they would have seen in Gaza. I note, in the Australian today, ANU professor Donald Rothwell stated: Because it is such a high-level political crime, I would find it most unlikely … Individual soldiers who are members of the IDF could rarely be held responsible individually for genocide. However, a counterweight to this position is the ACIJ view that any Australian participating in action in Gaza risks being held liable via what they state are a number of modes of liability, including as direct perpetrators, as well as aiding and abetting through the provision of logistical, material or operational support. Indeed, they highlight that the International Criminal Court Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia previously considered even lower ranking individual soldiers can potentially be held responsible for the crime against humanity of forcible transfer, notwithstanding any attempt at utilising superior orders defence. I urge our government to send a clear statement surrounding the risks of participating in IDF actions in Gaza. I also urge our government to consider reforming our laws to prevent dual nationals joining a foreign force in cases where a body with the weight of the ICJ believes plausible genocide could be occurring in a part of the world where a foreign force is operating. Both of these steps are actions we can or begin to take right now. They're sensible, measured steps that will be welcomed by fair minded people who believe we should do everything we possibly can to end the tragedy we witnessed for far too long.
International Relations: Australia and China | Questions without Notice | House debates
I love how Dan Andrews lives rent-free in your heads!
Address-in-Reply | Governor-General's Speech | House debates
Congratulations, Deputy Speaker Aldred, on your appointment to the Speaker's panel and on your election, for the first time, to this place. I have to say it's my 15th year of having the honour of...
Congratulations, Deputy Speaker Aldred, on your appointment to the Speaker's panel and on your election, for the first time, to this place. I have to say it's my 15th year of having the honour of representing my part of Western Sydney, the electorate of Chifley. I never expected to be elected. I'd had a tilt before and not been successful. As I've explained to people, when the opportunity came round, it was akin to stepping on the wrong end of a rake: it came very suddenly, very quickly. And I didn't know what had happened for me to be put in the position of being preselected and then selected to represent the party I've loved since my teenage years and joined in that time. Having grown up in my part of Western Sydney, I've always taken this job incredibly seriously. It's not been about checking off a list of things that need to get done for the sake of being able to rattle those off. I've always taken the view that my part of Western Sydney has been told long enough that it should wait its turn, that the folks I represent, salt of the earth people in Western Sydney, based in Mount Druitt, should wait a bit longer to get what they need. I saw the needs that they had were great and that they needed to get those things that would make their life easier and, more importantly, that they could use to deliver for their kids, to build better neighbourhoods and to oversee the personal challenges they have in their life, in our area, so they can have a much better quality of life. I've seen tremendous contributions in my area. We recognise them every year—for instance, in the Coral McLean Awards, named after Coral, who, it was estimated, dedicated over 100,000 hours of her personal time, out of the Holy Family Parish in Emerton, to help people at all hours of the day. In fact, when she moved out of our area to the Central Coast, we were told stories by her children of people knocking on her door late at night who'd driven from our part of Western Sydney to the Central Coast to get help from Coral. When Coral passed away after a battle with cancer, we set up these awards to recognise the contribution of women and girls in our area who are building better neighbourhoods. The community spirit in our area is often remarked on by people who visit our part of Western Sydney. They always talk about how those from our part of Western Sydney, when you need a hand, will go out of their way, even if they have limited means to do so. They will literally give you the food off their plate or the shirt off their back to help you out. That is why I have been proud of representing Chifley. I've been proud to have such great faith in the people of our area. As a response to that, I have fought really hard. People know I don't take a backward step; I'm always prepared to argue, and argue hard, for the people of our area because, as I've said, they've been told quite often that they have to just wait in line and take their time to get the things everyone else has had the good fortune of being able to receive. For example, things like education are a big deal in my area—making sure we are investing, in particular, in primary education and secondary education. Once kids finish school, which I always urge them to do—please do. Your fortunes in life will be shaped by the bag of skills you get, and you will not develop them fully just by finishing high school. Being able to take time to go into TAFE or uni is a big deal. The fact that Chifley has some of the highest uptake of fee-free TAFE in the nation shows you aspiration right there. There are a lot of young people that want to go to their local TAFE, like the one in Mount Druitt. I've met automotive apprentices they really want to be able to not only get a job in there but start their own shop as well. That's aspiration right there, and I'm proud of the fact that our government has fought so hard to make sure we have fee-free TAFE. Just the other week we opened up a university study hub with the Minister for Education, the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare. The Mount Druitt Ethnic Communities Agency fought to get that funding and have just opened up a uni study hub in Mount Druitt and will open one in Emerton. So many kids and young people in our area—they would probably be mortally offended that I referred to them as kids, but it's probably a sign of my age—will be the first ones to go through uni. For so many families in our area, it's the first time they have. I want young people in our area to feel that uni is for them, because sometimes they figure it's for someone else better than them, and that's absolute garbage. It is proper. It is right. Labor governments in times past opened up the university sector to ensure more kids from a first-in-family background took up that study. The thing about the study hubs is it gives them a place to go and quietly do their study and, more importantly, engage with other students going through the same experience as them. I am proud of the fact that our government put forward the money that then got invested into our area. It got taken up by MECA, and now we have these hubs, which I suspect will expand in time. We're building those skills, and the base of it all is making sure that, if young people are going to TAFE or uni, before they got there, investment in primary and secondary education happened. Our government, in our first term, worked out with the states and territories the funding stream to properly bring to life those Gonski reforms. People may not remember the bloke, but they do remember and do get that if you've got an area of high need, it takes a bit more in terms of resources to be able to make sure you get your way through. That's what Gonski was about. Schools like Crawford Public would tell me that the extra resources they got at the tail end of our last government helped them set up tutoring for kids who were struggling in math. They provided that, and, once they did, they could see a definite difference in terms of the math scores in that school. That is huge because that means the life trajectory of that student has been transformed. The fact we put in $5 billion, with the New South Wales government, to make sure we invested in the proper resources for primary and secondary schools is phenomenal. As much as people think 'life changing' is a well-worn term, that is exactly what it is. In Chifley we saw the biggest investment in school infrastructure in 10 years. On top of that, about half a dozen schools received improvements to the quality of their infrastructure, so that the schools were modernised, they had modern equipment, and parents could have confidence that their kids were going to a place that is a quality environment. Plus there's the investment we made through the school funding reforms, which has been huge. It is critical. The fact that we are cutting student debt is a point of pride for us. Some of the largest numbers of students who will benefit from the 20 per cent cut in student debt come from the Chifley electorate. It makes it a bit easier that, once they've finished their studies, we relieve a bit of that debt and that they can get on and chase the things that they want in their neck of the woods. The other thing I've fought hard for, which I think reflects our national values, is health care. As much as some people might think we go on about Medicare, the reality is that Medicare reflects an embedded value of this country—the value of a fair go. When you hold up that Medicare card, it represents what we truly believe, which is that if you're in strife, particularly with your health, the size of your bank balance should not be the determinant. It should not decide whether or not you get quality healthcare. For us, it is a clear reflection of a national value that we look after our own, and we don't judge them on how big their bank balance is. They'll get the care they need. The fact that we cut the cost of medicines means a big deal to Chifley residents. It's been estimated that people in our neck of the woods have saved over $9 million, with about 1.5 million of cheaper scripts. For people on low incomes in our area, that is huge. It's a huge relief, and it stops them wondering whether or not they can afford to get the medicines that will make their quality of life better. On top of that, I pushed for the establishment of an urgent care clinic in our electorate. That happened with the setting up of the Rooty Hill Urgent Care Clinic. By visiting the Rooty Hill Road North urgent care clinic, 12,000 people were able to get the help they needed, and it will continue to provide support for them in our part of the world. Doctors, GPs, nurses and support staff all work so hard—and there are a lot of doctors. In fact, I want to recognise one who's retiring this week: Dr Kek, from the Mount Druitt Medical Centre. He's worked in our area for nearly 50 years. The reality is these doctors could have worked in any other part of Western Sydney. They didn't; they stayed in our area and made a tremendous contribution. Infrastructure is another big thing. I've fought hard for upgrades for the fastest-growing parts of our electorate, like Marsden Park, Colebee and Schofields, which have had real issues with road funding. Our government put forward a billion-dollar roads plan, which is delivering for people in my area, including the upgrade of Richmond Road. The other big project that I'll be working on is the extension of the metro and the filling of the metro missing link that would see Tallawong to St Marys constructed in the long term. The other thing that I think we've got to be able to work on is building social and affordable housing in Chifley. I'm proud to be part of a government that has dedicated so much towards the building of new homes and increasing supply. It will be a priority for me in this term to push for the greater development of social and affordable housing. Later this month, we'll hold a housing forum to talk about how we can make that happen. It builds on the fact that we've announced the five per cent deposit scheme for first homebuyers, and we've had a 50 per cent increase in the maximum rent assistance, which helps over 11,000 people in the Chifley electorate. For this term, pushing for more social and affordable housing will be a massive priority for us. All of this can only be done by a government that takes seriously its responses in these spaces. I want to end with thanks. There have been a lot of folks who have helped us out over many years, but especially I want to thank those who helped in the recent election—working on stations and mobile offices and being there through prepoll and out on election day. I make huge thanks to my FEC, the branches in our area, and volunteers—some who may not be members of the party but wanted to assist and support us in the campaign. I extend to them my deepest gratitude. I want to thank local state members Edmond Atalla, Stephen Bali, Prue Car and Warren Kirby. It's been tremendous to work with them and Mayor Brad Bunting and the Blacktown City Council team. It is terrific to have the federal, state and local government levels working together. Can I just say to Deputy Premier Car, who's got her own health challenge at the moment, that, if anyone's going to beat a health challenge, it's Prue Car. She is a tremendous fighter, and we look forward to her getting through the challenges she's facing and getting back on the front line in our area. We had a wonderful campaign launch in Tregear, and I want to thank all the branches for being there through thick and thin. I want to say thank you to my ministerial office. There are a lot of people who have been through the office or worked in the office, led by David Masters and deputy chief of staff Ellen Broad. I want to recognise Brett Gale before them as well and all the team that worked in the ministerial office. I could rattle off a list of things, but the big thing is that we were driven by a belief, a faith, in the power of Australian ideas to make Australians' lives better. It was a huge honour to play a part in that industry and science portfolio—in particular, in terms of supporting the great work of so many people in those areas, Australians who are doing phenomenal things for our nation. I appreciate having that ministerial team there, and I want to say to them: thank you so much for working the hours and doing what you did. It will never ever be forgotten. To be honest, I'm particularly grateful for their service to the country as well because what they did was to help a first-term Labor government achieve quite a lot, and I'm very grateful for all their work I'm grateful to the electorate office as well. In my time as a minister, I wasn't there as much as I'd have liked, but I can tell you that they made a difference. I had so many people say that their lives had been shaped by the fact that the electorate office would go that extra mile to help people out. I'm sure every single member of parliament reflects so warmly on their members of staff within their electorate offices for the work that they do. I give a heartfelt thanks to every member of my office. To one who just recently left, Ade Amuda, I want to say thank you so much for your help. Finally I want to say thank you to my partner, Fiona. She's actually my fiance, but my nickname for her is 'wife asterisk', where the asterisk represents a rounding up, because she will be my wife at some point soon. I can't tell this chamber how blessed and lucky I am to have someone like Fiona in my life. We are parenting three boys: Tor, Sam and Harry. It is an absolute blessing to have that in my life. I regard public office as a tremendous opportunity, but ultimately being able to find someone you love who can make such a big difference in your life is truly something words cannot express gratitude for. To Fiona, who I love so deeply, I just want to say thank you—in particular for all her fierce support, her help and, more importantly than anything else, her love. I'm grateful for all of that. I'm conscious that Minister Rishworth is here and she thought that I'd only speak for 10 minutes but I've spoken for 17. And I notice the member for Barker on the other side coughing. Are you speaking next, or is it Minister Rishworth? You've been very good to me, Minister Rishworth, so thank you for that. I want to end on a sombre note. We learnt of the passing of Greg Whitby. Greg Whitby was with the Catholic education office. He was someone I worked with when I was first elected. I was stunned to hear that he passed away on 30 August. He was a teacher, academic and author who changed the lives of thousands, particularly through his principles of inclusivity. He was awarded the highest honour for teachers in 2017, as director of the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta, assisting 78 schools, 43,000 students and 4,500 staff. Along the way, he wrote a book called Educating Gen Wi-Fi that looked to modernise the way schools educate and deal with the vast impact of technology, and he wrote that 10 years ago. I'm really sorry. I was just saddened incredibly at Greg's departure. I would like the House to know about his contribution to public life in his way. I thank him enormously and will miss him greatly. Vale, Greg Whitby.
Housing Australia Investment Mandate Amendment (Delivering on Our 2025 Election Commitment) Direction 2025; Consideration | Documents | House debates
Anyone in Sydney in the last week or so who thinks a lot about housing would have been absolutely perplexed with some of the reactions to boost housing supply in Sydney, especially the reaction...
Anyone in Sydney in the last week or so who thinks a lot about housing would have been absolutely perplexed with some of the reactions to boost housing supply in Sydney, especially the reaction of Woollahra council to the New South Wales government's proposal to build higher density homes close to the city but with infrastructure to be built alongside it. We had the Woollahra council reject that proposition of higher density homes being built in Woollahra. As someone from Western Sydney who has grown up and seen fields transformed into rows and rows of mortar and rooftop tiles continually, we would love the idea that you would have infrastructure built at the same time as housing, because I've got to tell you that that hasn't happened for quite some time. Full credit to the Minns government for coming up with the idea that they would provide that in there. In our neck of the woods, we're still waiting for the completion of the missing link of the metro, while all these homes get built and there is no infrastructure, yet Woollahra council seem to have walked into a stable full of gift horses and made sure they didn't miss the opportunity to smack each one of them in the mouth by rejecting a plan that would build infrastructure and homes in a city where we do need to find places where we can get the critical workers that are important to cities. The nurses, the teachers, the cleaners, the mechanics—all the people who help modern cities function but who are being pushed to the furthest fringes of the city and made to travel at the weirdest hours of the day just to start their shifts, after having travelled probably over two hours to get to work—we've got to be able to have homes for those folks, who make sure our cities run, and ensure that they're built in the face of nimbyism, which certainly is the case for the Woollahra council decision, and we've got to think laterally about how to address supply. I'm proud to be part of a government that's doing just that. We all recognise that we have to build more homes, and we have to do it in a range of different ways. If I can pick up on something the last speaker said, the member for Fowler, who talked about what's at the heart of what we're discussing here in the parliament at the moment—the five per cent deposit—we can't just rely on one thing. No-one from the government is suggesting that. We've actually got multiple options that are designed to address a housing crisis that has been decades in the making and to make sure that we provide relief to people. I've got to tell you, the fact that we are enabling first home buyers to get their homes sooner, with a five per cent deposit, is a big deal. Here's the stat that tells you why it's a big deal: today it takes someone on the median income around 12 years just to save for a deposit. Back in the nineties, it took four to five years, so you can see how those times have absolutely blown out. We've got to address it, and we're bringing forward the ability for first home buyers to get access to that scheme, slashing the amount of time required to save for a deposit and uncapping the scheme, which is a terrific move. Also, for single parents, I might add, we'll continue the Family Home Guarantee, which helps them buy a home with a two per cent deposit. It's a terrific way to be able to do that. We need to be able to open up those avenues for first home buyers to buy their homes. I know that, in my part of Western Sydney, this is a big issue. Later this month I'll be hosting a housing forum in my area to see how we can boost the building of social and affordable homes in Chifley in the outer western suburbs. We need to see more of that happen. We also need to see more homes built for people fleeing terrible situations such as domestic violence and to be able to provide crisis accommodation as well. We need to get that happening. I'm pleased to say that the New South Wales housing minister, Rose Jackson, will be coming along, and we'll be getting other experts in the field to talk through how we can create more social and affordable housing in the areas that I represent in my part of Western Sydney. Types of measures like what we're talking about today will be exceptionally important. We've got to build more homes, we've got to improve the range of homes that are being built, and we've also got to help renters. People want to be able to buy their own home, for sure, but they need to live somewhere in the interim. We've got big challenges, though, in building homes. In the construction trades, we're 90,000 short of people available to build homes. How are you supposed to do that? We also have competition. If you get more workers in to work in construction, you're instantly in competition with infrastructure projects, who are offering higher rates of pay for workers to go there. So, the minute you get people in construction, they get poached by infrastructure. That's a big deal. Also, we cannot keep importing labour to fill the gaps, which means we've got to find new ways to build homes. One of those ways is certainly prefab and modular housing, which'll help us build homes faster and smarter. For people who think that those homes are just akin to the school demountables that they lived in, they clearly haven't walked through a prefab home that has been built recently with current, seven-star energy efficiency standards and is a comfortable place to be able to live. We need to do more of this. In Japan, it's estimated that 15 per cent of their homes have been manufactured in a factory. In Germany, that's up to 20 per cent, and in Scandinavia it could be anywhere between 45 to 80 per cent. We've got to be able to have these modern manufacturing methods being used to build homes faster and smarter. In doing so, according to the Productivity Commission, you cut 20 per cent off the construction costs and halve the time it takes to build these homes. It creates a great manufacturing opportunity. I've seen it in the western suburbs with places like Fleetwood in Smithfield, who are doing great work in being able to build a home in a factory, take it on the back of a truck and build it on site, which is particularly important. We should use procurement to ramp this up. Future rounds of the HAFF should focus on using procurement and set a challenge to have the greatest number of prefab homes built using Australian industry and Australian manufacturers to do so. We should provide that platform of procurement and have the HAFF do that so that we can get the guarantee for the volume of supply. In other countries, prefab has fallen over because we have not seen governments provide the volume of work and the certainty of work that prefab manufacturers require to build their homes. We need more of that to be able to happen. And Australians, according to Amplify, want to be able to move into prefabricated homes. In fact, the advocacy group Amplify said that 95 per cent plus support reform aimed at unlocking modern housing, community support for the reform grows as people learn more about prefabricated building and the opportunity for debate, and 94 per cent strongly agree there should be diverse housing options for all. Interestingly, Amplify found that people of all politics backed the reform. There's broad consensus, and all generations back that reform, which is important as well. We do need to unlock that. As a government, we have put some money in to back that in. I don't think we've put anywhere near enough. We need to put more in and be able to have HAFF do it. But it's one of those great things about certain areas of policy that get put into Treasury—it takes a little bit longer to get ideas out the door. I often find Treasury is a great place for ideas to go to die, but housing being put in Treasury is probably one of the areas where I've always raised my eyebrows as to why it sits there. Treasury needs to probably—this is a subject for another day—get a clear focus on what its core functions are, but housing is in there for whatever reason. I'll be interested to see if Treasury does back the need for more prefab homes to be built and for us to be able to provide the existing procurement pathways for that to occur. I just want to end on the coalition. The coalition did nothing through their time in government and are using their time in opposition to oppose everything when it comes to what we're doing on housing. They hardly built enough homes under their watch, certainly nowhere near the amount of social and affordable housing that we needed. Interestingly, now they're setting up this debate that renting is worse than buying. We heard that from the member for Cook. I wouldn't want us to look down our nose at what needs to be done to get roofs over people's heads. People want a range of options, and I would hate to think that the next battleline here is to oppose build-to-rent as one of the areas that we think is important to create more homes in Australia. (Time expired)
Eagles RAPS, Simms, Uncle Greg | Constituency Statements | House debates
I'd like to recognise the phenomenal work of Sally Wynd, who set up Doonside's Eagles RAPS. Nearly 30 years ago, spurred by tragedy, Sally and husband Marten determined to make a difference for...
I'd like to recognise the phenomenal work of Sally Wynd, who set up Doonside's Eagles RAPS. Nearly 30 years ago, spurred by tragedy, Sally and husband Marten determined to make a difference for young people in Doonside and beyond. They always believe in the ability of our young people, even if others won't. With no formal background in youth work, Sally started Eagles RAPS as a place young people could turn to for help, and a vision grew. Eagles RAPS began training young people to grow their skills and ambitions, developing great links with major firms such as Amazon Web Services. Eagles RAPS has supported so many young people—I love attending their graduation ceremonies and seeing the pride in the faces of the graduates' parents. It's said that Sally is retired, yet 'retiring' is never a word I'd associate with Sally. I'd like the House to know that Sally Wynd has been instrumental in changing lives and delivering hope to young people in Doonside. This is going to be hard to talk about because this person meant a great deal to me personally and to our community—the late Uncle Greg Simms, community leader, activist, storyteller and cultural educator. Born in 1949, he fashioned deep, tight and enduring ties to Western Sydney through ancestral links to the Gundungurra of the Blue Mountains and the Gadigal of the Dharug nation. Quiet, humble, modest, often with a cheeky glint in his eyes but never to be mistaken, he was a force of nature. He always directed that force to help others—always busy, always working. At every event in every corner of our region, Uncle Greg would be there, and then he'd be there for others in their time of need, especially young people who'd given up hope that anyone would be there to help them. Never bitter and never angry, he was full of faith in his fellow person. He strove for reconciliation; a regular face at the Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Walk, he often reminded us, 'Piano sounds best when the black and white keys play together'. You didn't just know Uncle Greg; you loved him. You loved what he stood for, and you loved how much he gave of himself. His farewell service at St Andrew's Catholic church in Malabar witnessed an incredible turnout—literally standing room only. People were spilling out of the doors, leaning in to hear what they could. It seems fitting, when recalling Uncle Greg, to end with one of his signature phrases—one that always left an imprint on the minds of those who heard it. 'When you take your next step, remember the ones that took the steps before you.' Rest in peace you tremendous, warm soul, Uncle Greg Simms.
Manufacturing Industry | Questions without Notice | House debates
Thanks to the member for Boothby for the question. She knows the importance of manufacturing to our economic and national security. Making more things here will ensure that we can stand on our...
Thanks to the member for Boothby for the question. She knows the importance of manufacturing to our economic and national security. Making more things here will ensure that we can stand on our own two feet and weather shocks in the global economy. Ensuring Australia is a country that makes things has been a central priority of the Albanese government, which is why we stepped up to back the Whyalla Steelworks, which makes 75 per cent of structural steel in this country, going into defence, construction and infrastructure. What's good for Whyalla is good for Australia. It's important to keep making aluminium in Australia, which is why we have a long-term, $2 billion plan to do just that. We need to invest in new, smarter, more efficient ways to make steel and aluminium, which is why we have another $750 million invested to do just that. We're helping exporters by investing millions to promote our Australian Made brand in new and traditional markets overseas. Our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund has seen nearly half-a-billion out the door over the last few months, backing firms to make more here, from heavy mining equipment to cutting-edge quantum technology, standing shoulder to shoulder with Aussie blue-collar workers and Aussie manufacturing and sticking together to forge our own future in the face of an uncertain time. I'm asked about risks. Those opposite had three years to come up with any plan that would show that they could back Australian manufacturing, and they have absolutely nothing to show. The coalition have no plans, because they don't care. They are good at pointing out problems but never there with a solution. On everything our government put forward to back Aussie manufacturing, the coalition said no. They were just nasty and negative. Why? Because it makes it easier to cut investments in Aussie manufacturing, because they don't have the guts to tell workers now what they will cut. We build; they cut. They also want these cuts to fund a $600 billion nuclear fantasy that will cost too much, deliver too little and deliver it too late. But what simply stunned me was the failure of the coalition to back Aussie steel and aluminium in the face of tariffs just announced. They didn't put our country first. They didn't put Team Australia first. They put their political interests first. And then the coalition leader had the gall to say, 'We would have saved Australia from those tariffs.' The same mob who couldn't build a commuter car park can now navigate international trade. We stood up for the country; they would sell it out. We will speak up for the nation—no ifs, no buts.
Future Made in Australia | Questions without Notice | House debates
You should get ready for it! Thanks to the member for Gilmore for not only the question but backing manufacturing, particularly in our regions. We have been focused on rebuilding manufacturing...
You should get ready for it! Thanks to the member for Gilmore for not only the question but backing manufacturing, particularly in our regions. We have been focused on rebuilding manufacturing capability for a host of reasons. One, Australians want their country to be a nation that makes things. Two, strong economies have to have strong manufacturing capability. Manufacturing makes secure, well-paying jobs—very important to the nation. The other critical issue is that rebuilding manufacturing capability is important in our national, economic and strategic interest. We need to be able to stand on our own two feet and not be dependent on broken and concentrated supply chains, only relying on a handful of nations for the things that are really important to our country. That's why we stood up the National Reconstruction Fund. That's why, recently, we stood up the $2 billion investment plan to work with aluminium smelters to give a sustainable long-term future to regional blue-collar communities to make aluminium. Importantly, the other big step happened last night when the Senate passed our production tax credits—particularly important for critical minerals processing, as the Minister for Resources has outlined. I give credit to the Minister for Resources and the Treasurer for their support on these important initiatives that are really critical for the long-term good of the country. But we need to make sure that local supply chains are there to make sure we've got the things we need as we make the transition to net zero. I'm asked about alternative plans. Where are they? They've spent, the coalition, three years—and no plans and no policies, no costed policies in particular. Frankly, the reason they have no plans is they have no care. They don't care to put forward what they think is important in the national interest. Their plan comes in one word: 'No.' When we asked them if they would support the National Reconstruction Fund: 'No.' When we asked them to support the $2 billion to transition aluminium to a sustainable footing: 'No.' When we asked them for support on production tax credits: 'No.' In fact, their blind opposition has blinded them to how bad they look. The Australian Greens backed our plans on critical minerals and backed our plans for the National Reconstruction Fund, while those opposite voted 'no' against them. The Greens back the resources sector and manufacturing, but the Libs and Nats don't support the resources sector and manufacturing. It shows you they have nothing to offer the Australian public except negativity, no plans and no care. (Time expired)
Chifley Electorate: Australia Day | Constituency Statements | House debates
I think a lot of us know that no-one ever leads a perfect life. Everyone has challenges from time to time. Some people have them more than others. It's not always the case that there'll be people...
I think a lot of us know that no-one ever leads a perfect life. Everyone has challenges from time to time. Some people have them more than others. It's not always the case that there'll be people there, necessarily, in your immediate circle of family and friends that can help. The great thing about my community in Chifley is that I get to see a lot of people step up to help those who, in a time of need, just need a bit of guidance. Two of those people in my area are Sally and Marten Wynd. Back in the late nineties, with only 50 bucks, they started a mob called Eagles RAPS in Doonside. This has helped people, particularly young people, who just need a hand and someone to talk to and learn new skills from. Sometimes they've had trouble in school and problems in being able to get along. They receive that support through Eagles RAPS and, in particular, learn new skills that they can put to work to get a job and open up new opportunity to get a better life. In December, I got to see the graduation of a number of students from Eagles RAPS and the work that they've done with Amazon Web Services to learn digital skills that are in high demand. It's a great partnership between Eagles RAPS and Amazon. I mention this because it was terrific to see Sally and Marten be recognised through the awarding of Order of Australia medals reflecting their community service. It is a just and fitting tribute to a pair that have done tremendous work in our area. The biggest thing I want to say to them is: thank you for believing in the young people of Doonside and the western suburbs and for making sure that they have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. During the Australia Day ceremonies that occurred in our area, particularly in Blacktown City Council's area, a number of people were recognised. In particular, in the awards that were celebrated, the Mount Druitt Family Science Fun Day, organised by MECA, took out the prize for community event of the year. I saw it firsthand, and it is a fantastic way to encourage science participation. Paul Wynne from Prospect, who helped create Grace's Place in Doonside, a first-of-its-kind centre that helps kids who've lost family members, won citizen of the year. The young citizen of the year was Marion Coles, who started Pay It Forward Angels, which has grown into a network of 1,400 volunteers. Over Christmas, they gave out more than 400 gifts to people doing it tough. That's the type of community spirit we love. Thank you to all those people who do tremendous work in our area to build better and stronger neighbourhoods.