Susan Templeman's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Macquarie Electorate: Australia Day Honours and Awards | Constituency Statements | House debates
I'm so proud to recognise the 13 recipients of Australia Day honours from Macquarie. Carol Edds and Farah Madon have each become a member of the Order of Australia, an AM. Carol has been...
I'm so proud to recognise the 13 recipients of Australia Day honours from Macquarie. Carol Edds and Farah Madon have each become a member of the Order of Australia, an AM. Carol has been recognised for her work in the construction industry and on heritage conservation, including as the founder of the Hawkesbury branch of the National Trust. Architect Farah Madon from Emu Plains, with her approach to supporting dignity, inclusion and independence for all, is recognised for significant service to architecture and to people with a disability. Eight people from Macquarie have each received a medal of the Order of Australia, an OAM. Ann Caro was on her first day of the school year at Mount Druitt's Chifley College Senior Campus when I rang to congratulate her for services to education. Among other things, she played a key role in establishing Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School at Emu Plains. Bronwyn Howes is honoured for her service to primary education, including guiding students at Oakville Public School for more than 20 years. Also from the Hawkesbury, Adrian Peter Read is honoured for his service to gymnastics and the community, which included being the director of Gymnastics Australia and serving on the YMCA. Cathy Gault, who contracted polio as a child but refused to let her wheelchair limit her, is recognised for her extensive disability work, including at the Thorndale Foundation and as a chaplain at Nepean Hospital for 17 years. For his service to conservation and the environment, Dr John Merson receives an OAM. He is a driving force behind the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, and it's been a privilege to work with him. For her many different contributions to outdoor recreation, Caro Ryan has been honoured. Two OAMs are presented posthumously—one to the late Graham Price, who was deeply involved in the Australian Mushroom Growers Association, Rotary and the Secret Garden and Nursery in Richmond, and one to the late Walter Sutcliffe for services to music as a conductor and organist, including at St Alban's, Leura, and as a founder of the Blackheath Choir Festival. For his decades of extraordinary service to the New South Wales RFS, Greg Frullani receives the Australian Fire Service Medal. Greg is a real hero of Hazelbrook. An Australian Police Medal was awarded to Detective Superintendent Darren Beeche for decades of operations involving fighting high-profile criminal activity and supporting victims of crime. The Public Service Medal was received by Kathryn Tidd for disability advocacy in the New South Wales public sector, and, in the military division, the Conspicuous Service Medal has been awarded to Flight Lieutenant Scott McNichol for his leadership as the commander of the air task unit for Operation Beech. Every recipient deserves this recognition, and we thank you for your work.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
We made a promise that we would expand the scope of practice for health professionals so we could deliver real benefits to Australians. We all know it's tough to get to a GP exactly when you need...
We made a promise that we would expand the scope of practice for health professionals so we could deliver real benefits to Australians. We all know it's tough to get to a GP exactly when you need to, and this is one of many tools we're using to try and address issues that have been building up for a long time in our health system, particularly at that first interaction in primary health care. This bill, the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025, is an important step to ensure that Australians have better access to the health care they need and specifically to the medicines they need—now more affordable medicines, thanks to our capping of medicines under the PBS at $25 a script and the ability to get 60-day scripts. This is all part of a much bigger picture and shouldn't be seen in isolation. The sense of this bill is that it will allow designated registered nurses to prescribe safe, timely and effective medication. It's extending what we call their scope of practice, the stuff they're allowed to do, particularly in primary care and aged care. I know for my community it's worth noting that we've got more than 1,300 registered nurses in Macquarie, and that's on top of about 1,700 midwives and nursing professionals. So there's a really large cohort of people who are highly qualified, very experienced and may well choose to take the next steps involved so that they can expand the things that they're allowed to do. It may not sound like a big change. The legislation allows registered nurses who are endorsed against the registration standard to be an authorised prescriber to enable them to prescribe certain medicines that can be supplied under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and attract Commonwealth subsidy. It changes the Health Insurance Act 1973 to include registered nurses with certain provisions. But it's been described by nurses and people working in the sector as a huge change to the health system. When you think about the implications of it, who you can go to in order to get a script and have a healthcare professional talk to you, we've already made it possible for more things to be done at pharmacies because we want pharmacists working at the top of their scope, but this is now expanding it even beyond that realm. We're talking about tens of thousands of nurses around the country who are now eligible to take that pathway towards prescribing medicines to patients. It's worth remembering what the situation we're changing is. Until now, the only health practitioners allowed to prescribe were medical doctors, dentists, optometrists, some pharmacists and, with some restrictions, nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives, all of whom have done the appropriate training to be able to make these really critical decisions for patients when they see them. For nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives, they have additional postgraduate training that expands their scope of practice. Registered nurses may only have a bachelor's degree as well as registration with a regulatory agency, and that has not allowed them to be prescribers. So how is it going to work? Health ministers got together, and that is one of the strengths of our government. We have the capacity to work with the states and health ministers around the country, because you do need things to be worked out, usually, at the Commonwealth and state level. And health ministers last year approved the plan to expand the role of registered nurses. I want to be really clear. This is a lot about ensuring the time of GPs is freed up, but it is not necessarily about nurses working in isolation. The idea is that they work as part of a multidisciplinary team so that we have each member of that team being as effective and efficient for patients as they can be. An example of what might fall under this came from Frances Rice, who's the chief nursing officer at the Australian College of Nursing. She said that a good example would be a person who is stable on medication that they've been for some period of time and may need a repeat script. Depending on the medication, the registered nurse could be the one to do the prescribing, instead of needing to make an appointment to see the GP. So there is one example of where this might work. There are extra requirements that registered nurses will need to do. It's a major expansion of their scope of practice, and they have to meet stringent requirements to apply for an endorsement to prescribe. They have to do postgraduate qualifications. They have to be able to demonstrate adequate clinical experience, and then they need to participate in a six-month clinical mentorship with an authorised health practitioner. They then need to establish a formal partnership with an authorised health practitioner, like a GP, and that will involve a prescribing agreement detailing the circumstances in which the nurse can prescribe drugs. It's a huge change. It has a lot of safeguards around it. It is probably worth noting that the last time new prescribers were endorsed in a similar way was when midwives and nurse practitioners were endorsed, and that was about 20 years ago. These things are done with a lot of care, a lot of planning and a lot of safeguards around them. The registration standard for endorsement has been published by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. It paves the way for prescribing of schedule 2, 3, 4 and 8 medicines—each of those is a different type of medication—but only in partnership with an authorised health practitioner who's an independent prescriber, such as a nurse practitioner or a doctor. The way this changes things is one part of many things that we're doing. I should point out that this legislation that we are discussing today will result in the first cohort of designated registered nurse prescribers likely to complete their education, receive endorsement and begin prescribing medicines from sometime around the middle of the year. So this is something that will take a little bit of time, but we're going to see it in 2026. We are really committed to supporting our health workforce, our valuable, highly skilled and hardworking health workforce, to deliver quality care to Australians. We've done it in a number of ways. We've been talking a lot today about bulk-billing practices. In Macquarie, to make it easier to access your GP, we've ensured that we already have 18 fully bulk-billing practices, and they are practices not just in one area. Remember that my electorate is 4,000 square kilometres. So they are not just in one part but from the top of the Blue Mountains all the way down to the plains where the Nepean River defines it and then up north, across through the Hawkesbury. These practices are fully bulk-billing practices. For every patient, every time, bulk-billing is available. There are 18 of them to date. I'm also very proud that our Hawkesbury Medicare urgent care clinic opened this week. It's fantastic! I got a sneak peek through it last week, and I look forward to the official opening, but it is up and operating from eight in the morning until 10 at night. Again, you just need your Medicare card, and it's at 2 Kable Street in Windsor, co-located with the Cable Street GP Myhealth practice. I'm very grateful to the doctors, nurses and staff at that facility, who have stepped up in quite a short space of time to create a place where I know on Monday morning at eight o'clock there was a queue because it's a much-needed service and will take a lot of pressure off our Hawkesbury hospital emergency department. The practice will work closely with other GPS and feed back the circumstances in which they've seen patients. There's still more to come. We still need to see radiology on site. We will continue to work on all the things as we get feedback from people as they use it. That's another example of the Albanese government doing something really practical to make access to health care not just affordable but free when and where you need it. I'm told by my local sporting groups that they don't want to have to send any of their players there, but when the season starts, they have every expectation that there will be a steady trail of limbs being examined from basketball, soccer, football—you name it. I've mentioned that this piece of legislation also plays in to our cheaper medicines. It is hard for people to remember back to the early 2000s. It is hard for any of us to remember, and there are a whole lot of people who weren't even born then who will have no idea why we hark back to it. But the last time that medicines were $25 when you went to get a script was in the early 2000s. It's really significant to see the price reduction. Not many things go down in price in this world, and it's great that we have been able to use that lever to help ease cost-of-living pressures for people. We've also made a really big effort to ensure that these new nurses who are coming on and are able to prescribe things have even more things that they may be equipped to provide. The one that we announced just this weekend was the medication for Australians with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. They now have access to a really key medicine that had not previously been available on the PBS and cost about $930 a script, and, now, it's $25 a script and even less for people with a concession card. It's just $7.70 with a concession card—a price that will remain for the next few years, because we've frozen that concession card price. The medication has a really long name and goes by the brand name Andriga-10, and those who are relying on it will absolutely appreciate the benefit that it has. It's for the treatment of castration-resistant metastatic carcinoma of the prostate—not something that's good to have—but this can absolutely slow the disease, ease the symptoms and help patients feel better for longer. These are just some of the ways in which the Albanese Labor government is looking at availability and affordability of health care. We don't pretend that it's done and dusted. There is always more to do, and I have many parts of my electorate where I want to see more fully bulk-billing GPs and where I want to see greater access to support. I think the thing I'm probably most proud of and have fought hard for for well on 15 years is the access to free and available mental health support. Not only do we now have our online service that began on 1 January, but locally we have headspace for our young people at the top of the mountains in the Hawkesbury and in Penrith. We also have Medicare mental health centres where you can just walk in and say, 'Things are not great,' and you can talk to somebody and find a pathway—all of these things. It's about your Medicare card, not your credit card. That is life changing for mums, for elderly people—all of us have competing pressures, and it's really hard to tackle all the other challenges of life if your health is letting you down. What we're focused on is making sure that health is the thing that you can get on top of. I really encourage people to support this legislation so that we can have more of our amazing Macquarie registered nurses ready, able and legally allowed to prescribe medications to help take pressure off our GPs and to help support a community that most of them not only work in but live in. I commend this bill to the House.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
I was a long way from Bondi Beach on the evening of Sunday 14 December, at a community event to celebrate the festive season, up above the Hawkesbury River in part of the greater Blue Mountains....
I was a long way from Bondi Beach on the evening of Sunday 14 December, at a community event to celebrate the festive season, up above the Hawkesbury River in part of the greater Blue Mountains. But, like so many others, I was only one person removed from knowing people who were there that evening, people who'd left the beach a little earlier, people who were about to go for their regular run, people who were at the surf lifesaving club for Christmas parties—and the connections go on. However, it is not the proximity to danger that has created horror and anguish for people; it's the sheer evil act—the murder of 15 innocent people at Bondi Beach that evening, at a celebration for the first day of Hanukkah, in a horrific, targeted antisemitic attack. It's something none of us could have imagined would happen on Australian soil. As it should, this has left Australians reeling. Our thoughts are foremost with the 15 innocent victims and those who love them, whose lives have been changed forever by this loss and who are now suddenly navigating unimaginable grief. May the memory of those lost be a blessing. Bondi is a special place. It's a meeting point between sand, sea and sky, between locals and visitors, and between generations. For Sydneysiders, it holds memories of our visits—as kids, as adolescents and as new parents—and, always, that feeling of being on one of the world's most famous beaches. It represents the freedom and safety that every Australian deserves. It represents the carefree, joyful spirit of our national character. It's a place that belongs to us all. To see such a place violated by an act of senseless violence has shaken Australians deeply because it has struck somewhere that felt shared, open and safe, a place where all Australians should be safe, and where Jewish Australians celebrating Hanukkah should have been safe. This attack on our Jewish community was an attack on all of us. I want to also acknowledge those who were injured, physically and psychologically. I want to acknowledge the bravery of the first responders, some of whom I had the privilege of thanking this morning—representatives of Bondi and North Bondi lifesaving clubs and Waverley Council lifeguards. I also acknowledge the bravery and humanity of ordinary Australians who showed the best of who we are in the worst of circumstances—people who ran towards danger to protect others, strangers who offered shelter, comfort and first aid to other strangers, and the countless private, quiet gestures of care and sympathy. I travelled from the Blue Mountains to Bondi a few days after the shooting. As I stood in the early morning light, I recognised that I was not alone in being drawn to that place to stand quietly alongside a community in mourning and to convey the respects of my own community. The objective of terrorist acts such as this is to divide us and to instil panic and suspicion in communities who are essentially full of goodwill. I understand the feeling of powerlessness that many Australians felt in the aftermath of this horrific attack. But I also understand that, as a community, our power lies in how we respond to this atrocity. Every act of compassion, kindness and unity is an act of defiance of these terrorists' will and a tribute to the memory of those victims. Every step we take to keep each other safe affirms our commitment to protecting life without surrendering the openness and respect that define us as a society. This attack did not take place in my local community, but it was an attack on the values shared by the entire Australian community. In 1623, the English poet John Donne wrote: No man is an island, Entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. … … … Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind. As Australians, we are all diminished by this loss. To Jewish Australians, to the Bondi community and to those directly affected by this attack, we say clearly that this parliament stands with you and shares in your grief. To all Australians, may we respond to hatred not by shrinking from one another but by standing closer together with resolve, with compassion and with humanity. May our response honour the 15 innocent lives lost and the values of Australian society of which they were such a treasured part.
Environment | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. How have the government's EPBC reforms been received?
Mental Health Month | Statements on Significant Matters | House debates
I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Leichhardt. This is a place where really personal stories get shared—that's what we all bring to our roles—and it's important...
I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Leichhardt. This is a place where really personal stories get shared—that's what we all bring to our roles—and it's important for others to hear them. When I think about mental health, I cannot foresee a time when I will ever say, 'Job done. We've done all we need to do.' I just cannot see that we will get to a point where there isn't more to do, because it feels like there will always be more to do. But Mental Health Month does provide an opportunity to reflect on progress, and I'm very proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is delivering more mental health services in the heart of communities right across the country. I'm also really proud to have been one of the advocates who has helped ensure that this is a key focus for this government. When I look back to the start of my time in parliament, access to free mental health services was available only in acute situations—essentially when you were hospitalised. the biggest change I've seen in that decade is access to free early intervention and ongoing management care for complex mental health issues through places like headspace and Medicare mental health centres. It truly is transformational. When I came to this place in 2016 there simply was no free mental health service where young people could front up before something happened, before they reached a crisis. After years of advocating we were able to secure, first of all, the Katoomba headspace and then in more recent years the Richmond headspace, and of course the Penrith headspace was one that we set up last time we were in government. These have provided and continue to provide access to young people. That's why I support the expansion of these services. We're expanding to 203 headspace services to support the mental health and wellbeing of young people aged between 12 and 25. You might say, 'Well, that's great for young people, but what about adults?' My experience is that some older people who are able to go to headspace are opting for an alternative service, which is the Medicare mental health centre, a place that anyone of any age can walk into and ask for help. I think that's the key thing: it's the ability to walk in, at any time, to ask for help. And the centres are not just open from Monday to Friday, nine to five. The Medicare mental health centre in Penrith is open seven days a week and the one in Richmond is open six days a week, including Thursday and Saturday evenings. As the mother of someone who's experienced complex mental health issues throughout their life, I can assure you that it never happens between nine and five, and that's been taken into account in so many of the services that have already rolled out and that are in the process of being rolled out. I recently visited the Penrith Medicare mental health centre with Assistant Minister McBride. The centres are staffed by multidisciplinary teams with mental health clinicians and, importantly, peer workers. These peer workers are a vital part of the process. I see them at my Richmond centre and at the Hawkesbury centre as well as at the Penrith one. They're located in every Medicare mental health centre. It means they meet you on your level. They've been there. They've walked in your shoes. Care in these centres is tailored to the needs of each person, with wraparound support for people who have more ongoing need. No appointment, no referral, no mental health treatment plan is needed. You literally walk in. Ninety-one Medicare mental health centres are on their way, offering free walk-in care from this multidisciplinary team. The expansion has been part of our plan to strengthen Medicare, and we made a historic $1.1 billion commitment at the election to deliver these new and expanded mental health services. It's across the whole lifespan of Australians. It includes 20 perinatal mental health centres to deliver support for new and expectant parents. I had a fantastic update just this week on the plans for the Penrith service, and I'm really looking forward to more details of the location of that one coming out, because we know how important those first few years are. They can be tough on mums and dads, but they are formative for children. So these perinatal mental health centres will unlock a whole other way of accessing support at a time when things are already quite complex. Even if everything's going well, it's never the easiest time in a parent's life, especially a mum's life. We're also creating 17 Mental Health Kids Hubs to provide children and families with behavioural, social, emotional and wellbeing support. We're really looking at these free services being expanded across the entire range of need. From early next year we're rolling out the new National Early Intervention Service, which will deliver free phone and online mental health support from trained professionals. We received the details this week of the organisation selected to deliver this free digital mental health service. It's going to be called Medicare Mental Health Check In, and St Vincent's Health Australia has been tasked to deliver this service from 1 January next year. The Medicare Mental Health Check In is part of our commitment to making sure that, no matter where you are—whether you're in periurban areas like mine, whether you're at the top of the Blue Mountains or beyond, whether you're way up in the world heritage area and not easily able to access centres in places like Richmond, Penrith or Katoomba—you can access support. This is a free digital mental health tool. It'll give you access to self-help tools and low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy. CBT is part of so many support treatments that people receive. It'll be delivered by trained professionals via phone or video. I'm very excited to see the impact that the Medicare Mental Health Check In will have. It's for anyone over 16, and you don't need a referral from your GP to access it. We'll also be encouraging people to seek help early. Having personally experienced the quality of care of the St Vincent's mental health team in our family, I look forward to seeing the product they roll out and how they work with the various stakeholders to get this right. Everyone should know the Medicare mental health phone line: 1800 595 212. Everyone should know that there's a Medicare mental health website, medicarementalhealth.gov.au, to help you find the service you need. You can't do any of this unless you build a workforce. Reflecting back, we have been able to build that workforce, with more than 4,000 psychology scholarships, internships and training places, plus our focus on peer support workers. Next year we'll establish a new peer workforce association with a census of peer workers. I know I'm not alone in advocating for better mental health services, and I really want to pay tribute to Assistant Minister McBride, who has used her professional experience in the sector to drive so much of the reform that we're seeing, along with the Minister for Health and Ageing. Our special envoy for men's health, the member for Hunter, has met people in my electorate, including Panthers, the Nepean/Blue Mountains/Hawkesbury prostate group, Walk it Off, Men's Shed and Lions, to hear their stories and concerns around mental health. The Panthers wellbeing officer, Kevin Kingston, shared the work being done to focus on wellbeing on and off the field for players, coaches and support teams. This is work that happens in our community. I know groups like Reachout are doing incredible work, and I met recently with a delegation of young people, including Sina from Bligh Park, to talk about their research on the need for trusted mental health information online so that young people know what to trust. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Eating Disorder Awareness, we will continue to do work so that people suffering from an eating disorder can control what they see online. There is so much more to do, and I'm very proud to keep doing it.
Guitars for Veterans Australia | Statements by Members | House debates
If you've wondered about the power of music and music therapy to heal, you would have had no doubts after hearing veterans playing at Guitars for Vets' end-of-year performance at Windsor RSL....
If you've wondered about the power of music and music therapy to heal, you would have had no doubts after hearing veterans playing at Guitars for Vets' end-of-year performance at Windsor RSL. Guitars for Vets is delivered by Noro, who received federal funding through the Department of Veterans' Affairs to run workshops, and some of the groups are now being funded through their local RSLs. Participants and their families tell me that the program has saved their lives. The weekly meeting is a highlight for many—a session where you play and sing with people you may not have known before but are now bonded to. The eclectic music choices, from 'Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again' to 'Sweet Caroline', tell me there are some big discussions had about music genre. Australia's cultural policy, Revive, recognises that taking part in the arts strengthens social cohesion, connectedness and wellbeing. It helps break down social stigma and offers a means of creative expression. In both clinical and non-clinical settings, Revive backs the role of the arts in improving health outcomes, including in mental health. What's more, we saw the musicians from the Windsor, Penrith, Castle Hill and St Marys groups create joy, and we know that, for musicians, the act of playing can ground, soothe and remind us that we are not alone.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The legislation before the chamber, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, presents an...
The legislation before the chamber, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, presents an opportunity to open a new chapter for Australia's screen industry. This is the moment when we can ensure that, in the streaming age, Australian stories do not fade into the background but take their rightful place in the spotlight, centre stage. This legislation requires streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers to invest at least 10 per cent of their expenditure or 7.5 per cent of their revenue into the Australian sector. It will need to be invested in new local drama, children's programs, documentaries, arts or educational content. There are two clear principles at stake here. One is that Australians deserve access to their own stories, no matter which screen they're watching on. The other is that those who profit from access to Australian audiences should support Australian storytelling. The idea of guaranteeing Australian content is not a new or radical idea. In 1942, the Curtin Labor government introduced quotas for Australian music on commercial radio stations to support local musicians and foster a distinctive cultural identity. The Whitlam Labor government built on that reform, raising the requirement to around 20 per cent. That change provided crucial support for Australian music during the golden age of Australian rock and pop in the seventies and through to the eighties. The Menzies government introduced Australian content requirements for commercial television in 1961, and the Whitlam government strengthened them in 1973. Those changes ushered in a renaissance of Australian screen content, which my generation got to see, bringing productions like Number 96, The Sullivans, A Country Practicefilmed locally, largely in the Hawkesbury—and Prisoner to Australian audiences. When pay TV services launched in the 1990s, they were initially exempt from content obligations until the Keating government acted in 1995 to require providers to invest at least 10 per cent of their expenditure in Australian drama. This simple measure ensured that pay TV would meaningfully contribute to Australian drama, and it has. As a result, Australian viewers have enjoyed acclaimed series such as Love My Way, Wentworth and Cloudstreet. Radio and broadcast television reach their audience through publicly regulated airwaves. Pay TV providers operate through cable networks that, in many cases, were built with public investment. It's reasonable to expect that, in profiting from these assets, media companies deliver a measurable public benefit in return. Since the Rudd and Gillard governments began the build of the National Broadband Network, streaming platforms have had unprecedented access to Australian audiences. Without the NBN, it simply would not be possible to operate large-scale, reliable streaming platforms in Australia. Yet—unlike radio and broadcast and pay TV—global streaming platforms have until now had no specific obligation to invest in Australian content—no obligation whatsoever. That discrepancy has real consequences. We know the way Australians consume screen content is changing rapidly and fundamentally. In 2017, just 29 per cent of Australians used paid subscription streaming services. By 2024, that number had risen to 69 per cent, and 2021 was a watershed year, marking the point when Australians were more likely to watch content through an online subscription service rather than live or recorded free-to-air TV. According to some sources the average household now has more than three streaming subscriptions. Global streaming platforms are rapidly becoming an essential element of our cultural infrastructure. It's vital that this technology be deployed in a way that supports local cultural expression rather than accelerates the globalisation and homogenisation of culture. Time and again we've seen that, without clear rules and well-calibrated regulation, local content is vulnerable not because audiences don't value it—they do, profoundly—but because global market forces won't prioritise it if they're not required to. It's for precisely these reasons that France, Italy, Spain and Canada have all introduced local content obligations. Indeed, all EU member states require streaming platforms to ensure that at least 30 per cent of their catalogue consists of European works. So Australia is not an outlier here; we're just catching up to where we should have been some time ago. Streaming platforms can and do produce fantastic Australian content. This reform is about guaranteeing that this will continue in the decades ahead. If streaming platforms are where Australian audiences are watching—and, increasingly, they will be—Australian stories must be there too. It's the responsibility of government to guarantee that access, and that's exactly what this legislation will do. By passing this law, the House will send a clear signal that providing Australian content is not a voluntary contribution but a fundamental obligation. The legislation creates a regulatory framework fit for the digital age. It upholds the rights of Australians to see stories that reflect our shared identity while ensuring our screen industry isn't just viable but thriving. It affirms our commitment to forging a cultural identity that's made here, not imported by default. Labor has taken this policy to multiple elections, and our commitment was reiterated in our National Cultural Policy—Revive, which voiced the aspiration that Australian stories are seen and heard regardless of platform and that our creative industries and practice are future focused, technology enabled, networked and globally recognised. This change has been talked about for many years. The government has consulted on it extensively. We've listened to feedback and adjusted the policy accordingly. The time has come to deliver. This reform is well and truly due because it's not just the future of Australian storytelling that is at stake; it's Australian jobs. When streaming services invest in local productions, the benefits ripple outwards through the entire economy. Screen productions create valuable work not just for writers, actors and directors but for the crews and businesses who make it possible. These are real, meaningful, skilled jobs like camera operators, set builders, hair and makeup artists, costume designers, location scouts, caterers, editors, postproduction specialists, visual effects artists, accountants, drivers and so many others whose livelihoods depend on a strong and steady production environment. The screen sector industry directly engages a workforce of around 55,000 people and contributes more than $6 billion in value to the Australian economy. With a guaranteed minimum investment in our domestic screen industry, local producers will have the certainty they need to make long-term plans and invest in the next generation of creative and technical talent. This system will help ensure that those workers have a future in their own country, and it will help prevent the loss of creative Australians to more supportive environments overseas that robbed our country of so much great talent in earlier decades. We know that no model will satisfy everyone. When balancing cultural and commercial imperatives, it's impossible to achieve 100 per cent consensus. Some may have preferred a different figure for the investment obligation. To them, I say this 10 per cent expenditure requirement is a floor, not a ceiling. Let's be clear: what matters most is the cultural outcome, not the number itself. The legislation mandates a statutory review after four years. If the data shows the scheme has fallen short, the policy settings can be revisited. This mechanism ensures that if changes are needed they can be made, and that when the industry grows the policy can grow with it. Others will argue that obligations are unnecessary, that streaming platforms are already doing their fair share. To them, I say this system does not impose an undue burden but it does remove uncertainty. It's a modest, predictable requirement that ensures that local content continues to be available to Australian audiences and that jobs in the creative sector are supported. If this system were already in place, the vast majority of platforms would already be meeting their obligations. If streaming platforms want to invest more, and several already do, this framework doesn't stand in their way. Streaming platforms are already producing fantastic local content across a range of genres, with productions like Apple Cider Vinegar, Boy Swallows Universe, Heartbreak High, Totally Completely Fine, Deadloch, Colin from Accounts and Bump. This legislation will ensure that the production of great content like this continues well into the future. Our government wants to work in partnership with the streaming platforms active in the Australian market. That's why we're putting forward a system that is practical and flexible. Our system will allow streamers who've invested more than 10 per cent in one year to carry that surplus forward as a credit for a period of up to three years. It recognises that production doesn't always fit into a neat 12-month window. The system allows platforms to choose which stories they want to tell and to meet their requirement through any mix of drama, documentary, children's, educational or arts content. They are the genres where the cultural imperatives are most at stake. They are the genres where the risk of market failure is greatest, so they are the ones that our system is most focused on. It will allow them to meet the obligation either through 10 per cent of expenditure or 7.5 per cent of revenue—whichever best aligns with their business model. The revenue approach may be particularly attractive to new entrants to the industry, which will help ensure that we have a diverse and dynamic streaming market in future years. And this system will give streamers the freedom to fulfil the requirement through one major production or several smaller ones if they wish. This reform has been almost two decades in the making. But, as Special Envoy for the Arts, I know how intensely we have worked on this over the last few years. I want to thank every industry representative who has contributed to the extensive consultation process that has shaped this legislation—some of whom have held many meetings with me and my team. To Screen Producers Australia, whose Make It Australian campaign has kept this issue on the political agenda for years: thank you. You and your members have made a huge contribution. To the Australian Writers Guild, the Australian Directors Guild, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the hardworking advocates of the children's content sector: your passion and persistence have ensured that storytellers remain at the centre of this debate. To the streaming platforms: thank you for your constructive engagement and for your willingness to meet, discuss and collaborate, and to meet again to discuss and collaborate. It is crucial to a sustainable and vibrant screen ecosystem. The government looks forward to working closely with you as the system is introduced. To the opposition and crossbench members who voiced their support for this important reform: thank you for backing Australia's creatives. I'd like to particularly acknowledge our Labor ministers for arts and communications, past and present, who've demonstrated so much commitment to Australian creativity and invested so much hard work in designing a system that is flexible, fair and fit for purpose. This legislation will not fix every challenge that faces the screen industry. It will not deliver perfection, but it will deliver certainty and confidence. It will deliver investment, it will deliver opportunity for creative workers, and it will deliver Australian stories to Australian audiences. I'm confident that a decade from now we'll look back and say: 'That was the moment Australia stood up for our cultural sovereignty. It was when we said that our stories matter, our creative talent matters, and our screen sector deserves a strong future.' Ultimately, this legislation is not about regulation. It's about identity. It's about the future of Australian stories and who gets to tell them. It's about whether our kids will grow up seeing their experiences on the screen, hearing voices that sound like theirs and recognising the landscapes. It's about telling every Australian that their stories matter and deserve to be seen, heard, celebrated and shared with the world. Our culture deserves to be nourished by content that reflects who we are, not who someone overseas thinks we ought to be. Every time we share a new Australian story on screen, we strengthen our sense of who we are. With this reform, a strong screen industry and our extraordinary creative talent will remind the world that Australia is a nation with something to say and the confidence to— (Time expired)
VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 we are considering is important because vocational educational training plays a huge role in building the skilled workforce Australia...
The VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 we are considering is important because vocational educational training plays a huge role in building the skilled workforce Australia needs now and will need in the future. We are taking steps to fix a problem identified during a review of how these VET student loans are administered. We have taken action to ensure an issue that emerged is resolved, and that there is certainty the students and providers. The bill is a fix for where the VET student loan providers were handling tax file numbers and it wasn't authorised in the legislation for that to happen. Tax file numbers are an essential piece of information for administering the loans program of this kind, so this is why the Albanese government is bringing forward the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill to fix the problem. The bill will retrospectively authorise the student loan providers who are handling the tax file numbers to do that. The bill will also provide certainty to providers and government offices that their past handling of students' tax file numbers for the loans scheme was lawful. There is absolutely no change to the way students apply for VET student loans using the electronic Commonwealth assistance form. This might seem like a pretty minor piece of legislation but it achieves a number of things. It underpins the VET Student Loans program, which makes vocational education and training more accessible to Australians by providing opportunities for students to do a VET course at the diploma level and above and defer the payment of tuition fees through an income contingent loan. This program really helps to address skills shortages across industries involving science, technology, engineering or maths and occupational licensing trades, among many others. The Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future and boosting the workforce that we need to deliver it. We're investing in priority occupations and creating a modern, adaptable apprenticeship system, which is critical to the nation's future prosperity and productivity. Without programs such as the VET Student Loans, many students wouldn't have the opportunity to undertake tertiary studies. Australian businesses and the economy would miss out on those skills that VET students and alumni bring to all our industries. It's worth thinking about the number of people who are doing apprenticeships. If I look at my own electorate of Macquarie, there are nearly 1,800 students currently undertaking training in the VET scheme. I should point out my neighbours have pretty good levels, too. In Lindsay, there are 2,365 people. These are the most recent figures for the last year of people doing training. My neighbour to the north, the Hunter, has 3,500 people. Calare to my west has nearly 3,000 people. Those are significant numbers. The top 20 list of TAFE enrolments also tells a story. The second highest on that list is the Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, and this is the data for New South Wales. Wentworth Falls in my electorate offers that course, and it is terrific to see how many people are taking it up. Also on that list is the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care, also taught at Wentworth Falls. Both of those are vital for providing the staff we need for our early education centres, because kids need to have really qualified educators to take them through those very formative years. I also note that Certificate IV in mental health and Certificate IV in Entrepreneurship and New Business both make it into the top 20 courses in New South Wales, and that is a really good sign for future employers. It shows what young people and maybe older people are interested in pursuing. I also note that, when I look at the key sectors, the top two courses in the agricultural sector are Certificate II in Animal Care and Certificate III in Horticulture, and both of these are courses offered by the wonderful Richmond TAFE. The key to the revival of TAFE has been free TAFE. Only Labor is the party that believes in free TAFE; those opposite do not. Delivering cost-of-living relief and valuable skills to Australians is a priority for the Albanese government, which is why we passed the free TAFE bill, as well as announcing the $10,000 incentive payment for Australians who want to become a housing apprentice. So let's talk about free TAFE. There have been more than 685,000 enrolments under free TAFE. That's 685,000 opportunities to help build Australia's future in critical skills, like the care and disability courses, which have seen more than 186,000 enrolments. In technology and digital, there have been more than 65,000 enrolments. The total figure for the early-childhood education and care sector has been more than 53,000 enrolments. And that shows where people are picking up. I should point out that, under free TAFE, a student training in Cert III in Early Childhood Education and Care in New South Wales can save up to an estimated $1,930 dollars in their training. That is absolutely cost-of-living relief. There are also more than 52,000 apprentices in construction courses, with that number set to grow thanks to the investment in more places in such an important sector. I note that, in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains, the construction sector will be feeling the benefit of this. The construction industry has the largest number of total registered businesses in the Hawkesbury, part of my electorate, comprising nearly 30 per cent of the total. The construction industry in the Blue Mountains is nearly 20 per cent of all registered businesses. Emu Plains, of course, has its fair share of construction businesses, like PAAL homes, who I visited earlier this year. So workers for this sector are essential, and cost shouldn't be a barrier. We have given special focus to the housing sector because of the catching up that we have to do to have enough workers to meet the additional housing supply and make up for what hasn't been done in the past decade or so. Cutting 20 per cent of student debt also applies to those who have incurred fees as vocational education and training students. The one-off reduction to student debts will apply to more than 280,000 VET students and Australian apprenticeship support loan accounts, which represents about seven per cent of all income-contingent loan accounts that are administered by the government. This measure to cut 20 per cent of debt is going to get rid of more than $500 million from the loan balances of VET students and apprentices. That's a big figure. It's great to be able to provide that sort of relief to people. There are a couple of ways we've really incentivised apprentices to work in the housing sector. The additional $10,000 in financial incentives that kicked in from 1 July is one of those. That is our Key Apprenticeship Program, which includes a housing construction apprenticeship stream. We've also extended by six months, to the end of this year, the Australian apprentice training support payment and priority hiring incentive, which is providing up to $5,000 to apprentices and employers in priority occupations. Plus there's an increase to the living-away-from-home allowance from July this year, which helps apprentices who need to relocate for their apprenticeship. I know apprentices value the opportunity to learn and earn at the same time and that they appreciate the training that they receive both off and on the job, but we know that they do experience cost-of-living pressures and so I'm very pleased to see the steps that we are taking. The final thing I'd like to point to is the overall investment that we have made and the overall impact it's having. Data from the national VET data custodian, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, shows that apprentice numbers are up under the Albanese Labor government in comparison to 2019 figures. Those are the pre-COVID figures. We need to be fair about this. The government is investing $1.4 billion in supporting apprenticeships over 2025-26. In the last financial year, more than 62,000 employers and 119,000 apprentices have received incentive payments. The data is showing that our strategy to rebalance the apprenticeship system towards priority occupations that are critical to our current and future workforce needs is working. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I live in the World Heritage Blue Mountains.
and that will help people with their energy costs and lowering emissions. But we will also be delivering the strongest environmental protection and restoration laws that Australia has had. It...
and that will help people with their energy costs and lowering emissions. But we will also be delivering the strongest environmental protection and restoration laws that Australia has had. It won't just deliver better protections for our special places but restore and regenerate them for future generations.
This legislation is not a tug of war between the environment and the economy. I've heard the coalition, the Greens and some Independents each argue that you can have one but not the other. That...
This legislation is not a tug of war between the environment and the economy. I've heard the coalition, the Greens and some Independents each argue that you can have one but not the other. That isn't true. These reforms deliver a balanced package while delivering more efficient and robust project approvals, which means more renewables projects will be approved more quickly—
There is nothing more distinctively Australian than our stunning natural environment, and there are few places more iconic than the Three Sisters in the Blue Mountains—a World Heritage area...
There is nothing more distinctively Australian than our stunning natural environment, and there are few places more iconic than the Three Sisters in the Blue Mountains—a World Heritage area in my electorate. In fact, it's the 25th anniversary of the declaration of the area as a World Heritage area on 29 November. This is an area that gets four million visitors a year. They come because we are known around the world for our wilderness in Sydney's backyard. We need to protect it. Our environment and economy are intrinsically linked. For the Blue Mountains, our tourism relies on a healthy natural environment. It matters in the Hawkesbury and along the Nepean too. For the Hawkesbury especially, the agricultural sector relies on a healthy natural environment. Australians want governments, businesses and environmental groups to work together to protect our environment and to reap the economic benefits of sustainable development. This last election, people put their trust in Labor. They clearly rejected the extremes of politics on both sides. We know it's really important to build connections from all sides. That goes to the type of government Australians have told us that they want. We need to be able to accept the science and to build coalitions across the community while solving the problems and keeping the lights on. This Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, and cognate bills, delivers modern, fit-for-purpose national environmental laws that ensure big gains for both the environment and for business. The Albanese government is committed to reforming our environmental laws to deliver stronger protections, reduce duplication and boost accountability and transparency in decision-making. The legacy of every Labor government in my lifetime has been to improve the environment for future generations. That is an endless task. In June 1987, Bob Hawke went to the Daintree to announce that he was going to seek World Heritage listing for that site. I flew with the prime minister that day, as a young journalist, to report on the announcement. It was incredible to witness history. That decision and announcement in the election campaign that year, came on the back of the Hawke decision to save the Franklin River from being dammed a few years earlier. The Keating government began the establishment of Indigenous Protected Areas, which now cover 112 million hectares of land and sea. Rudd signed us up to climate action through the Kyoto protocol, and Gillard continued that work. The Albanese government is aiming to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030. And we've committed more than $1 billion in funds for that plus the Indigenous Protected Areas Program to protect critical biodiversity areas, as well as our ambitious plan to stop species extinction. One of the projects we've done in Macquarie is a million-dollar grant for the Hawkesbury Environment Network and incredible platypus work by Western Sydney University researcher Dr Michelle Ryan and her colleagues. And a new koala project will soon begin with Science for Wildlife and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, worth nearly $3.5 million, to research and look at land and threat management to help establish a koala stronghold in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This has the potential to support 20 per cent of New South Wales koalas. So, Labor makes a difference to the environment. We protect it, and Australians endorsed the Albanese government's policy agenda at the election. That agenda involved protecting jobs and the environment. That includes making sensible reforms to protect our environment and deliver certainty to business. It's been five years since Graeme Samuel tabled his report for the former environment minister, currently the Leader of the Opposition, and our laws remain fundamentally broken. They aren't working for the environment or for industry. These new laws are a targeted and balanced package of reforms to the EPBC Act, centred on three pillars. No 1. is stronger environmental protection and restoration. No. 2 is more efficient and robust project approvals. And No. 3 is greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. These are stronger environmental protection and restoration laws that won't just deliver better protections for our special places but also will restore and regenerate them for future generations. There will be more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals that will allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities like the renewable energy transition and the housing that we need. There will be greater accountability and transparency in decision-making to give all Australians confidence that good decisions are being made. Let's work through some of the changes. First of all is the National Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. Under the proposed reforms we'll establish the first ever national EPA, delivering on an election commitment that was proudly campaigned for by my branch members and by many other people in my community: the Labor Environment Action Network, or LEAN; the Blue Mountains Conservation Society; Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action; the Australian Conservation Foundation in my local area; the Macquarie Alliance for Climate; the GetUp members in the Macquarie electorate; and the Hawkesbury Environment Network. They all want to see this change. The EPA would exercise a range of powers independently of the minister, such as compliance and enforcement of the laws and project conditions and the auditing of state and territory processes for project assessments and approvals against the new national environmental standards. What are they? Well, reforms will allow the minister to make national environmental standards that set boundaries for decisions so they deliver improved environmental outcomes. Their aim is to protect, conserve and restore important environmental areas and species to genuinely make up for the environmental damage that's done and deliver a net gain for the environment to support better decision-making and to help the public understand and comment on projects. We recognise that some impacts can't be approved unless the project is in the national interest. The reforms include a new definition of 'unacceptable impact' specific to each protected matter. Among other things, they'll provide a safeguard against impacts that cause irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage and clearly define what types of environmental harm must be avoided and cannot be offset. That includes World Heritage areas like the Blue Mountains. It includes threatened species and it includes wetlands of international importance. Significantly, this bill ensures that projects must leave the environment better off by introducing the concept of net gain for environmental offsets. This is a shift from the current rules, which focus on no net loss. Projects will be required by law to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters wherever possible. Any residual significant impacts on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a net gain for the environment. That's the improvement. The net gain can be achieved either by the proponent directly delivering an offset or through an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund. This shifts the dial towards avoided impacts and restoration, giving our native populations the opportunity to regenerate, recover and become more resilient. I want to give a bit more detail about environmental offsets. Sometimes, projects can harm the environment in ways that can't be avoided. When this happens, this is how we offset to compensate or make up for the damage. Under the proposed changes to the EPBC Act, it will require project managers to avoid harm in the first place—that's No. 1—and then offset that remaining impact to deliver the net gain. The proposed changes will allow certain biodiversity certificates issued under the nature repair market to be used for environmental offsetting. So project proponents have some options. They can deliver an offset themselves, they can pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or they can do a combination of both. A new restoration contributions holder will manage the funds to deliver the net gain and ensure transparency. The reforms also introduce new emissions disclosure requirements. In keeping with Professor Samuel's recommendations, there's no climate trigger in this bill, but major emitting project proponents will be required to disclose estimates of scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of gaining federal environmental removal. Proponents will also be required to disclose their plans to reduce those emissions and explain how those measures are consistent with government laws and policies.
Telecommunications | Private Members' Business | House debates
It's really good that we're here talking about connectivity and about old technology being phased out for new. I appreciate the member for Mallee's concerns about 3G, but, essentially, the needs...
It's really good that we're here talking about connectivity and about old technology being phased out for new. I appreciate the member for Mallee's concerns about 3G, but, essentially, the needs of Australia's modern economy and the broader community outgrew the capabilities of 3G. It's not the first time we've had to shift technologies and it's not the last time that we're going to have to shift technologies. So that's what I want to focus on. It is really important that we learn the lessons from every one of these experiences. They're all going to be different, and 3G certainly had its challenges, but I have to say it isn't the biggest challenge in connectivity my community faced then or now. There continue to be challenges in staying connected. This government believes that there should be coverage that is reliable and resilient, and I want to see that reliable and resilient coverage across the 4,300 square kilometres of the electorate that I represent. It is vital when there is a bushfire or a flood or a big storm that you have that connectivity. I don't say that just as someone who can look at it objectively and say, 'Oh, it must be really important.' I've actually been in the circumstance where I needed to use mobile coverage to contact my then 18-year-old, when he was at home with a bushfire burning very near to him, to work out how quickly he could get out and what he had time to take. Yes, he took the cat. That was a good thing! But those conversations are not hypothetical for people who live in the Blue Mountains or Hawkesbury, whether it's fire or flood. They are conversations that many of us have had, and we've only been able to have them because we have connectivity. In the case I experienced—this is going back to 2013—we could not communicate by voice, repeatedly. Texts had a better chance of getting through. Lines were very busy. You didn't actually know if your text message was getting through. They are really scary times for people, and that's why I had always known, theoretically, how important connectivity was. But it is absolutely a life-and-death matter in electorates like mine that the network is connected, reliable and resilient, and that's what I've been fighting for the 15 years I've been in politics but most particularly nearly 10 years I've been in this parliament. When I was in opposition I pushed hard to have that additional mobile funding we needed to deal with some of the black spots. When the Liberals gave up and took away a new mobile phone tower from Mount Tomar, which is on the Bells Line of Road that heads west from Sydney, the telcos decided it was a bit hard to install, so the Liberals agreed for them to take it away from our community, after we had fought—I thought—to get it back. I am very pleased to say that I understand the connection to power is imminent and that community and everybody who passes through that busy stretch—years and years after it should have——will soon have mobile coverage across that whole section. When fires and flooding in the Macdonald Valley in the northern part of my electorate of Macquarie made it impossible for the Liberals to ignore our telecommunication needs, they provided funding to the Hawkesbury council. Hawkesbury council had minimal experience and expertise in mobile phone installations. However, that was a decision and a commitment the Morrison government made, and then they lost that election. On coming to government, even though we had been assured that things were in place, no movement had happened on that—the funding hadn't even been properly secured—so we worked hard to secure the funding and to bring council and Telstra together, along with some very savvy Macdonald Valley association members, to deliver some improvements. Even now, we are still waiting on two parts of the project in the valley and one section of a project on the Bells Line of Road at Berambing. They weren't completed before the funding expired. I am still to this day fighting to get that one back on track because my community needs those bits all linked up. We have Hawkesbury Heights with a new tower operating, Yellow Rock is about to get its new tower, and those things are the difference between life and death. (Time expired)
Ausify | Statements by Members | House debates
Don't you hate it when you've been listening to a favourite Missy Higgins song on your music app, and, instead of it taking you to another great Australian singer, it shifts you to an overseas...
Don't you hate it when you've been listening to a favourite Missy Higgins song on your music app, and, instead of it taking you to another great Australian singer, it shifts you to an overseas artist? Well, that's the algorithm. Sixty-six per cent of Australians say they want to listen to more Australian music, but, currently, less than 10 per cent of music streamed by Australians comes from local artists. The algorithm just isn't geared to make Aussie music easily discoverable. That's why Music Australia has launched Ausify, a national campaign to help listeners get more Aussie music out of the algorithm. Backed by artists from around the country, Ausify makes it easy to search for local artists on streaming services. There'll be a daily playlist of Australian music right through November, which is Ausmusic Month. They've also created 'Ausifyer', a unique live generator serving up a constant stream of great Australian music recommendations to help overcome the discoverability gap. Tell the algorithm where to go, and take back control by discovering and supporting local artists. Head to ausify.com.au. Every local artist you seek out, play, follow, save, share, request and see live helps our musicians rise. By choosing Aussie music we can shift the algorithm, support artists and help our local scene thrive.
Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
If there's one thing that businesses and individuals have complained about regularly over the 15 years I've been involved in politics, and the 20 years before that that I was in small...
If there's one thing that businesses and individuals have complained about regularly over the 15 years I've been involved in politics, and the 20 years before that that I was in small business—and it's something that we all pretty much agree on—it's the need to reduce red tape. It seems like such an obvious thing to do, but many governments have tried and failed to reduce duplication and inefficiency. Not only does this bill achieve what many have failed to do but it does it in a context of improving productivity. In fact, it does so much more than that. The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 is the latest example of tangible reform to come out of the Economic Reform Roundtable, which identified that fit-for-purpose regulation is a key enabler for Australia's economic potential. This bill takes a whole-of-government approach to amending regulation to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in this the 21st century. The government understands that regulation that is not fit for purpose or that duplicates processes frustrates Australians and also drives up the cost of doing business. So the aim of these changes is to improve productivity and support economic resilience, without reducing necessary protections. The bill contains 60 measures that amend 28 acts, repeal two acts and affect the operation of 13 Commonwealth agencies. It reflects our commitment to connecting government services so that Australians can get the help they need faster. But one of the most important things this bill does is provide a first step towards the implementation of a 'tell us once' approach to government services. It supports this idea of just telling us once within Services Australia, reducing the number of times that Australians will be asked to provide the same information across the agency's programs. I became a big fan of the 'tell us once' principle a few years ago after a visit to Estonia. Estonia has led the world in ensuring that its citizens have a very smooth interaction with government agencies. Now, it isn't appropriate to replicate everything they do, but one of the key things they did was adopt a principle that you have to give a piece of information to government only once. In fact, they go even further, saying that the piece of information has to be useful to at least two government agencies. They have an extraordinary digital system, based on this idea that they call the once-only principle. In fact, the state is not allowed to ask citizens for the same information twice. In other words, if you give your address or a family member's name to the census bureau, the health insurance provider won't ask you for it again later. And no department of any government agency can make citizens repeat information that is already stored in its database or that of some other agency. Of course, we're not in a position to go quite as far as Estonia has. We have three tiers of government. We have a very different population. But that principle of 'tell us once' is underpinning some of the changes we are supporting here in this bill today. I want to give some specific examples—and I promise, I'm not going to go through the 28 different acts that are amended and the 60 measures, but I am going to give some tangible examples of what's involved. One example of the measures in this bill is about removing barriers to digital evidence of Australian citizenship. In order to do that, we need to amend the Australian Citizenship Act and the Electronic Transactions Act to remove barriers to digital evidence to show that you're an Australian. This paves the way for Home Affairs to develop a technical solution which is going to allow for the issue of digital evidence of your Australian citizenship, making it easier and a more reliable proof of citizenship, obviously reducing the costs, and giving further security for citizens. So the development of a digital solution will be required before digital citizen certificates can be issued to Australian citizens, and of course privacy impacts will be considered during this process. But to achieve the outcome we have to fix two acts because of stuff that's in them, one that was made in 1999 and one that was made in 2007. That's an example of just one of the 60 changes this bill deals with. Another example—and I've been through them all; there are a number that relate to healthcare identifiers. They're quite technical, so I’m choosing the ones that are reasonably straightforward. This is one I really like, called 'Simplifying information sharing for connected service delivery'. This one involves changes that address a limitation that means that certain officers in Services Australia can't share protected information for the purposes of a Centrelink program or a Medicare program, and that means it limits their ability to deliver programs that meet the end-to-end needs of their customers. So, the change ensures that legal arrangements for sharing protected information are brought into a more contemporary operational structure. It also ensures that the arrangements for recording, disclosing and using protected information for other Centrelink programs and Medicare programs are aligned with the arrangements already in place for a whole lot of other programs. I'm going to give you an example of this one, because this one involves amending one of the 1999 tax acts, the Paid Parental Leave Act, the Student Assistance Act 1973, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 as well as the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, which I think I've mentioned twice there. Let's bring it alive with an example. Let's take Michael. He is a mutual customer of both Medicare and Centrelink. He receives a family tax benefit for his seven-year-old child and has a current bank account recorded with Centrelink. He hasn't updated his bank account details with Medicare. Now, he is one of approximately 980,000 Australians who are owed unpaid Medicare benefits totalling more than $270 million. Legislative changes can allow Medicare to access the payment destination information of the current mutual Centrelink customers for the purposes of delivering that unpaid Medicare benefit to people who may not even know that they are eligible for these funds. With these changes, Medicare staff will confirm with Michael that the bank account is the same as the one he has recorded for Centrelink, and he then receives a refund for previous medical costs and appointments. A tiny part of our system where one bit doesn't talk to the other means that we cannot give this streamlined approach through Services Australia. I've asked, 'Give me tangible examples of how this will actually affect everyday Australians,' and here's another example of this change. Let's take Jane, who's left her family home to escape family and domestic violence. She is afraid that her ex-partner might find her and her child. She changes both her and her child's surnames, moves to a new house and creates her own new bank account. She needs to tell all the government agencies about her updated name, address, bank account and relationship status. Implementing the changes in this bill will support streamlining that information sharing. Instead of needing to contact Centrelink, child support and others separately, she can update her details once and consent to them being updated for other programs also. This is the practical result of just some of the changes contained in this bill. I want to give one example of this tell-us-once approach which is an amendment to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. This will allow the implementation of initial changes to reduce the need for people to provide the same information to Services Australia multiple times, and it may also improve the speed at which their claims are assessed. Currently, in some cases, when a Services Australia customer wants to transfer from one social security payment to another, more appropriate one, they're required to submit a new claim and provide information that has previously been provided. They need to replicate that. When they're processing transfers, staff must conduct checks relating to many elements of the claim. This is—as it was the first time the customer did it—a very time-consuming process both for the person involved and for the staff. It can, and I know it does, cause frustration for my constituents who've had to do this, to provide information they've already given—people literally say to us, 'But they already have that; they already know that information about me'—even if it's the same agency but they're seeking a different payment. By improving the legal arrangements for transferring customers between payments, we can alleviate these frustrations for both my constituents and also the people who work so hard at Services Australia. These are just some of the examples in this omnibus bill. Hopefully, I've got time to finish with one other example, which relates to an area that every MP knows is highly sensitive: childcare subsidisation and child wellbeing. This is about changing language in our legislation. It's an amendment to one of the family assistance tax system acts. It relates to a child at serious risk of abuse or neglect, but it changes that phrase to 'a child in need of wellbeing support'. Let me explain what this is. We want to encourage families who may have been deterred by the stigmatising language in the act to apply for the additional childcare subsidy, which would support their child to get greater access to early childhood education and care. It's designed for vulnerable children. Research conducted by the Department of Education highlighted issues with the additional childcare subsidy child wellbeing language, particularly for people from First Nations backgrounds and domestic violence victims. The language in the act literally says you have to say that your child is at serious risk of abuse or neglect. Changing that to the phrase 'a child in need of wellbeing support 'is far less stigmatising language. If something like that can provide better access to families, especially to those children, to get into early childhood education and have the benefits of quality early childhood education—it might sound small to many people, but that is one of the really significant things in this very large bill. It's something that was also highlighted by the Productivity Commission's 2023 review into early childhood education and care. There are many, many more, but time prevents me from going into the detail. There'll be a whole lot of people who really love the one amending the Marriage Act so that there can be further uptake of digital ID services for people getting married rather than all the paper stuff. There are a whole lot of things that drag these bills into the 21st century, that recognise we have incredible capacity digitally and that will increase productivity, using our data and digital technologies to improve access to government services. I think it is worth remembering that the context of all of this is allowing government, individuals and small businesses to be more efficient and productive—doing more in the same amount of time—so I commend this bill to the House, the first of a series of reforms that will improve productivity across government and the economy.
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The opposition is surprised that I would describe question time as a performance. It is a performance for us all, and we have a press gallery watching us very closely. The committee space is one...
The opposition is surprised that I would describe question time as a performance. It is a performance for us all, and we have a press gallery watching us very closely. The committee space is one where we work alongside each other rather than in an oppositional way. We don't always end up exactly on the same page, but we work closely together, collegiately, wherever that is possible. That applies equally to Independents and the minor parties. As I said, when this bill was put forward last year, it was rejected by the Senate because of disagreement over committee membership. We were very disappointed to see that the Liberals—who were keen to support the concept of the committee—chose to vote against the legislation. I really urge them to not fall down that hole again. I think this is something that will be significant. It builds on the work that Bob Hawke's government did in the 1980s—I think it came in just after I left the press gallery in Canberra back in the 1980s—to oversee ASIO. That was the first version of this we had. It was then worked on in the early 2000s, and the PJCIS became closer to what it is today. I think this is a really natural evolution that provides not only greater scrutiny but also greater confidence to the people of Australia that our defence organisations are transparent and accountable so that we know they are doing the very best for our communities. At that point, I would really like to commend particularly my Richmond and Glenbrook RAAF personnel and the other defence personnel who live in the electorate of Macquarie, and thank them for the work they do every single day to keep Australians safe.
I'm very pleased to speak on this bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which is coming before the parliament. It's very similar to a bill that we put...
I'm very pleased to speak on this bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which is coming before the parliament. It's very similar to a bill that we put forward in the last parliament, and I'm pleased that it's coming to the parliament again. This bill is about establishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, the PJCD. People who come in halfway through this will have little idea what we're talking about, I suspect, in these debates. But it's modelled on a committee we already have, which is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This one will provide a mechanism for classified parliamentary oversight of defence, and I want to talk about why it's needed before I get to exactly what it is. We know that Australia faces an increasingly complex and constantly evolving strategic set of circumstances, and they're challenges. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will allow an enhanced transparency, an enhanced accountability, and a better oversight of defence decisions, capability, development and strategic planning. It really fills a gap in the current committee structure and oversight framework that we have, by allowing scrutiny of classified matters in a really secure setting. This is something that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security already does for those matters. I want to go into some of the journey I've had for the government to get to this point. It's been really worthwhile, being part of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Defence Subcommittee, which did an inquiry, in our last term of government, into a range of matters relating to accountability and transparency, which were triggered by a desire to really look at war powers and what war powers—what the processes were; how they could work differently. In the course of that, one of the things that became clear was that there were some gaps that could be dealt with. I really want to pay tribute to the member for Bruce, who was the chair of that inquiry and thought very carefully about the recommendations that our committee put together as a result of the evidence that we took. Things we learned led us to recommend that this sort of committee be established. We looked at the existing committees that were there: the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; plus the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security. They all have different functions, but none of those committees were specifically empowered to examine matters relating to major armed conflicts or war, or warlike operations, and neither of the two defence-portfolio-related committees were empowered or equipped to receive classified information. Instead, those committees are currently confined to examinations of the Defence portfolio via inquiries or consideration of the department's annual report, and, of course, via Senate estimates. So that was where we found ourselves. We looked at the model that the PJCIS provides, which really is: how to ensure a balance of providing oversight and accountability while maintaining appropriate controls on sensitive material. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has a particular composition and functions that are laid out in legislation, just as this committee's will be, and it establishes limits to the committee's roles and powers. For instance, unlike most parliamentary committees, the PJCIS's enabling legislation does permit the release of classified information to its members in order to fulfil its legislated mandate, but it does place restrictions on members and secretariat staff regarding disclosure or publication of that information. Breaches of those restrictions are liable to attract a penalty of up to two years of imprisonment. That's the level of detail it has, and you'll see that it provides a model for how the government is moving forward with this this new Defence committee. During the inquiry, a range of advantages and benefits which would flow from having something similar for the defence space were highlighted to us in the evidence that we took: improving parliamentary oversight of Defence related matters, which was a key benefit; providing a venue for Defence to provide and give classified briefings to the parliament, where it was required and appropriate; and an increasingly informed accountability and scrutiny by the parliament over Defence related matters, particularly by committee members, through the ability to interrogate issues which are otherwise difficult due to classification issues. The subcommittee report put forward took this as a proposal and noted the importance of Defence oversight by parliamentary committees. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that, when the community is confident that there is deep scrutiny and transparency, it actually provides much greater support for the work that that agency or organisation is doing—so we see this as a really positive thing for the important work that our Defence Force does. There are things already that I learn in committee—which I obviously can't share with people—that give me confidence, and there are things that I want to ask more about, but there is only a certain layer that we can go to. All round, from the more transparency and the greater accountability we have comes greater confidence from not only parliamentarians but the constituents who we represent. I should say that during our inquiry we absolutely recognised, respected and accepted that there are certain Defence operational, intelligence and security matters that should be classified and should have very reduced public disclosure. There is embedded into the way this committee has been designed an absolute recognition of that, for a whole lot of reasons, there are things that cannot be publicly aired. This new committee we're putting forward, which I really hope will have the support of the parliament in this term of government—unlike the last time we put forward the proposal—creates a committee which will oversee the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and key Defence portfolio agencies including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial. In terms of the functions of the committee, it includes the oversight of administration and expenditure; strategy; planning; capability development and personnel; war, warlike or major non-conflict operations; responses to royal commissions relating to Defence; and the performance of key statutory roles including the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. The committee will not have oversight on certain things. It will not have oversight of intelligence agencies in the Defence portfolio, which already full under the functions of the PJCIS. It's also important to think about what the committee will be able to do. What does all that mean? What will the committee be able to do? It will be able to consider publicly released documents dealing with Australian Defence tragedies, and planning and contingencies such as the biennial national defence strategy. It will be able to scrutinise Australia's defence capability—that includes acquisitions and sustainment—on things like the Integrated Investment Program. It will be able to examine and be apprised of war or warlike operations and ongoing conflicts in the event of a decision by the executive to enter into armed conflict. It will also be able to monitor the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations both at home and abroad. Obviously receiving access to classified information is crucial to carrying out these new functions and these oversight functions. Along with the opportunity to access information obviously come huge responsibilities for the members of that committee. Similar to the PJCIS, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint 13 members to the committee. That will be seven government members and six non-government numbers from both the House and the Senate. This gives the government the flexibility to appoint crossbenchers should it wish to do so. That was certainly a sticking point for the opposition in the last parliament, when this legislation last came to the parliament. I hope that they have moved on from their opposition to that, because that's what we would like to see in this bill. As I mentioned, there will be strong protections on the information that parliamentarians receive, as it should be. The bill includes strict criminal offences for unauthorised disclosure of protected information, including operationally sensitive material and information that could prejudice national security or Defence operations. These provisions apply to committee members, their staff and any other individuals involved in the committee's work. Disclosure of such information—even for it be disclosed to the PJCD—will require ministerial authorisation, and the minister may issue binding certificates to prevent its release during committee proceedings. To uphold confidentiality and integrity, the bill introduces criminal offences for unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information. That applies to committee members, staff and attending members of parliament. These provisions will be modelled on the Intelligence Services Act 2001. This is a really significant piece of legislation. Some people might go, 'Oh, it's just a committee,' but in fact the way our committees work in parliament is that we work across the parliament, often in an absolutely bipartisan or multipartisan way, as we're exploring issues and trying to understand what is really happening. You don't see in these committees what you see on the floor of the parliament in question time. These are not performance spaces; these are spaces where we diligently work through—
Youth Voice in Parliament | Constituency Statements | House debates
Every year Raise Our Voice invites young Australians to tackle the big questions shaping our future. This year's Macquarie winner is Rohan, and I'm delighted to read part of his speech, which...
Every year Raise Our Voice invites young Australians to tackle the big questions shaping our future. This year's Macquarie winner is Rohan, and I'm delighted to read part of his speech, which focused on the challenges ahead of us domestically and internationally in trade, human rights and the environment. He says: The future of young Australians depends on what we do today. It's our responsibility, as a global leader of non-major nations to rally against these challenges. We cannot compromise on human rights, even when it is the most difficult option. We must defend the freedom of the press and the rule of law, which are so often threatened in the name of national security, to allow our youth to grow up in a safe, democratic and dynamic nation where rights and freedoms are protected. However, all of this will come to naught if future generations inherit a destroyed world or, may it never be, that they fail to lead. The government must provide Australia's youth the education and opportunities needed to develop through enhanced critical thinking in the face of AI and misinformation, an understanding of basic principles of economics, history and culture, and a reduced voting age to empower those most at stake to defend themselves without their interests at heart. If we fail to act we leave our youth an unjust, unsafe and unprepared world. Those are Rohan's words. I also acknowledge the efforts of Harper, Mieke and Bronte, who wrote about the importance of access to school sport, quality education and policies focused on the younger generation. I commend them all on their thoughtful and worthwhile contributions to this debate. There was another young person's speech delivered in parliament this week. This one was by 11-year-old Theo Carson-Drevers from the Blue Mountains, who spoke with confidence to a room full of politicians. It's part of an annual event where children with hearing loss from across Australia and New Zealand come to parliament. This year's theme, 'the power of my team' highlights the life-changing role of early access and team based care in helping deaf children build confidence, communicate and thrive. I introduced Theo, who was the New South Wales representative, to the health minister just before the event, and Theo assured the minister that he was not at all nervous. Indeed, his speech was delivered with humour and a maturity well beyond his young years. Theo is a powerful example of what is possible when you bring together technology like cochlear implants with multidisciplinary support including speech therapy and family support. I'm sure his teachers have also played a role, and thanks to Chris Rehn, CEO of NextSense, another mountains local, who was there to support young Theo
Artificial Intelligence | Adjournment | House debates
This has been a significant week for Australia's creative industries, with the announcement by the Attorney-General that the government will not create a copyright exemption to allow broad-scale...
This has been a significant week for Australia's creative industries, with the announcement by the Attorney-General that the government will not create a copyright exemption to allow broad-scale mining of creative content by AI platforms. The proposal had been put forward by the Productivity Commission, who look at things from their angle, but any proposal to allow AI platforms to mine creative content without consent understandably creates anxiety amongst creatives. The Attorney-General's decision has real consequences for Australia's artists, musicians and writers for the protection of their intellectual property and for how Australia positions itself to harness the benefits of the AI revolution ahead. As Special Envoy for the Arts, I'm so fortunate to meet regularly with artists and arts workers, and discuss AI and copyright at length. Artists are not luddites; they are innovators. They understand the potential of AI to support their research, experimentation and productivity, but we cannot expect them to welcome the AI revolution while their intellectual property is being stolen and their livelihoods are being undermined. By ruling out this proposed exemption, the government has sent a clear message: we stand by our creatives. We will not allow their rights to be diluted or traded away. We will uphold their right to earn a fair income and to decide if and how their work is used by others. The Minister for the Arts was right to say that the unauthorised use of creative works for commercial gains is theft and that artists deserve protection from theft, as every Australian deserves protection from theft. As the Attorney-General noted, while AI brings significant opportunities for Australia and our economy, it is equally important that Australian creatives benefit from these opportunities too. Her decisions honours that balance, embracing innovation without abandoning the workers whose creativity drives Australian culture forward. The arts community has welcomed this as a vital reaffirmation of the value of their labour. In ARIA's view, the decision: … reinforces Australia's commitment to its artists and creative industries, ensuring that consent, control and compensation remain at the heart of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence. APRA AMCOS called it: … a significant moment for Australian creators and our cultural sovereignty. The Australian Society of Authors described it as: … a watershed moment—upholding copyright protections is a strong step towards setting a world-leading ethical and sustainable standard for AI development. The National Association for the Visual Arts acknowledged: This is an important win for Australian artists and the integrity of their work. A copyright exemption would have handed global tech companies free rein to scrape and profit from artists' work without consent, attribution or payment. We thank the government for listening to the arts community and standing firm in protecting artists' rights. Our creative sector could not be clearer. Artists do not reject technology; they reject exploitation. While this decision is an important step, it's not the end of the story. The capabilities of AI to ingest, analyse, synthesise and reproduce creative content are expanding rapidly. That brings extraordinary opportunity but also real risks. That's why we must keep communication channels open and ensure the arts community has a seat at the table in this policy discussion. I'm pleased that the Attorney-General has reconvened the Copyright and AI Reference Group to examine the next steps and ensure that our copyright regime is fit for purpose in the digital age. Now that legalised scraping of creative content has been ruled out, the question is: what comes next? There are trusted, time tested mechanisms for licensing creative content and frameworks that ensure permission, recognition and payment is given. I'll continue to encourage the technology sector and the creative industries to work together to build and modernise licensing systems that foster innovation while upholding creators' rights. Licensing systems can facilitate the legitimate, consensual use of content by AI and unlock new revenue streams for artists. But this decision is about more than dollars; it's about who controls culture, who tells our stories and who benefits from it. We must ensure Australia's creative voices are empowered, not absorbed into data sets without recognition or reward.