Helen Haines's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Victoria: Bushfires | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management. Bushfires are still burning in Victoria, and thus far over 75 per cent of homes lost and private land burnt is in my electorate of Indi....
My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management. Bushfires are still burning in Victoria, and thus far over 75 per cent of homes lost and private land burnt is in my electorate of Indi. My electorate is grateful for the support provided by the government to date, but so much more is needed. Minister, what further support, beyond that already announced, can communities in my electorate expect from the Commonwealth?
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I rise to support the member for Bradfield's amendments. These are good and sensible amendments. In my electorate of Indi and north-east Victoria we are lucky enough to have locally owned,...
I rise to support the member for Bradfield's amendments. These are good and sensible amendments. In my electorate of Indi and north-east Victoria we are lucky enough to have locally owned, locally loved and nationally renowned breweries no matter where you turn. In Beechworth, Bridge Road Brewers are celebrated for their Beechworth Pale Ale, a craft staple in pubs across the country. They're also a leader in the zero-alcohol market, with their popular Free Time pale ale now accompanied by a full range of alcohol-free stouts and hazy ales. Their raspberry sour was recently crowned Australia's best non-alcoholic beer. Bright Brewery, a little further into the mountains, certainly know how to put on a family friendly party. This terrific venue beside the Ovens River is the place to be, no matter whether it's the Bright Rod Run or the Brighter Days Festival. Back in the High Country we have Mountain Monk Brewers and Crank Handle Brewery in the upper Kiewa Valley in Mount Beauty, both popular destinations after a big day on the slopes in snow season. Mitta Mitta Brewing Company is a great stopover on your way to the High Country, while King River Brewing Co have an impressive range and hold their own against the famous wineries of the King Valley. In Wangaratta, Pedal Slowly are demonstrating that a regional microbrewery can achieve in a small place, while On Point Brewing in Alexandra is a must-visit for those travelling through Murrindindi shire as it recovers from devastating bushfires. Breweries aren't just a nice place to visit; they're vital supporters of local industries. When a local brewery thrives, it creates jobs, engages local agriculture and helps sustain the visitor economy. Local, independently owned breweries are strong contributors to the social and economic fabric of many regional communities, with the sector being worth more than $3.5 billion per year. Independent breweries reinvest profits in local wages, local suppliers and local infrastructure rather than overseas shareholders and multibillion-dollar corporations that often pay little tax. If we want locally owned breweries to sustain this contribution to local employment, tourism and community life in rural and regional Australia, then policy settings must reflect the outsized benefits they deliver back into their communities. While I overall support this bill, I express the same frustrations as my colleagues and the independent brewing sector that this measure will only apply to draught beer. I've spoken with the Independent Brewers Association and small brewers right across the electorate of Indi, and they tell me clearly that, while any change to excise to ease cost pressures is welcome, the government's decision is still only a drop in their proverbial ocean, because they mostly sell packaged beer, not draught tap beer. The simple fact is this bill will take 10c off the cost of a beer or $36 if you had a pint every single day for the next year. While the benefits to consumers are small, the benefits of this $95 million tax break will mostly benefit big international beer conglomerates, because the draught beer market is overwhelmingly dominated by three major brewers who control around 90 per cent of the market. They buy up local Australian brands, market them as Australian and then ship their profits offshore. While I try to avoid colloquialisms in this place, this is the appropriate time to say, as my colleague has just said, that this one absolutely does not pass the pub test. When foreign entities have such a strong hold on the sector, it's hard to understand why the government is passing a measure that will disproportionately benefit their bottom line, when it could have designed this tax break benefit for Australian companies. I believe that a targeted pause in excise for independent Australian producers is a fair and sensible way to back local jobs, local investment and local ownership. They argue, and I agree, that such a pause would not only help stabilise a sector under real strain but also support greater investment in domestic production and in the independent retail market, where small brewers have more opportunity to get their products on shelves and on tap. If we want a vibrant, competitive beer industry in Australia with strong local producers and retailers in regional communities, like those in Indi, then we must be prepared to rethink the excise settings in a serious way and not just tinker at the edges to benefit big business.
Victoria: Bushfires | Constituency Statements | House debates
I acknowledge the words of the Attorney-General. The Longwood fire in the south and the Walwa fire in the Upper Murray have burned through hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, national...
I acknowledge the words of the Attorney-General. The Longwood fire in the south and the Walwa fire in the Upper Murray have burned through hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, national park, private property and small rural towns. Earlier fires in December destroyed homes and agricultural land in places like Goomalibee and Markwood. The bushfire season is far from over. As I speak, emergency services personnel are still on the ground protecting lives and communities. On behalf of the people of Indi, I say thank you to each and every one of you. Bushfire disaster is something the people of Indi sadly know all too well. As I've travelled through affected towns in recent weeks, I've seen the same thing I always do: communities showing up for each other, town halls turned into relief centres, neighbours helping neighbours, people giving all that they can. But our resilience is not limitless. For many communities, this is the second or third catastrophic disaster in just a few years. What were once-in-a-century events are now happening once-in-a-decade, or even more often. This is the lived reality of my electorate. In Strathbogie Shire, 455 properties have been affected, with 115 homes destroyed or made uninhabitable; more than 13,500 hectares of pasture burned; 2,400 kilometres of fencing lost; and thousands of livestock killed. In Murrindindi Shire, a community still living with the trauma of Black Saturday, more than 190 homes have been lost—the highest number in the state. At the Yarck Town Hall, I met Sandy Keath. Her husband, Andrew—known as Spud—has worked relentlessly since the fire, facing the heartbreaking task of disposing of 300 sheep. Sandy told me that farmers like them are exhausted—but they keep going. They need mental health support that meets them where they are in ways that work for their lives. In the Towong Shire, farmers like David and Tara Brewer lost nearly a million dollars in fodder and infrastructure, along with years of regenerative Landcare work. And beyond the fire front, entire towns were cut off for days without power, roads or telecommunications. I want to thank Minister Kristy McBain for coming to Indi and for her engagement. These communities need substantial, ongoing, huge Commonwealth and state support to recover, more support to build the infrastructure that can withstand the next disaster, more protection for power and telecommunications—sustained assistance for people who have lost almost everything. The scale of loss in these communities is substantial, and the government's support absolutely has to reflect this and must be there for the long haul. Recovery certainly doesn't end when the flames die down.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Business | House debates
I rise to make a brief contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. I acknowledge the member for Moreton, who's given us such an elegant...
I rise to make a brief contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. I acknowledge the member for Moreton, who's given us such an elegant explanation of what this bill is about, what this bill aims to do and what I feel very confident this bill will achieve. I thank her for her acknowledgement of nurses right across Australia, many of whom are old former colleagues of mine, and I thank her for her very clear recognition and understanding of the work that nurses do. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow authorised registered nurses to prescribe medications under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In doing so, it adds the final piece to an important reform that's been under development for almost a decade. This isn't a flash in the pan. This isn't something that someone's just come up with. This has been a long time in development, and that's because it's important to get these things right. I highlight that this is about authorised registered nurses. This is about nurses who have undertaken significant further education and training to enable them to expand their scope of practice now to prescribe a formulary of medications. The introduction of registered nurse prescribing is the result of extensive coordination and collaboration between the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, the Australian and New Zealand Council of Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officers and the health ministers across all Australian jurisdictions. The member for Moreton laid out the extensive training that's required in order for authorised nurses to prescribe schedule 3 and 4 medications, and made it quite clear that this is part of a bigger suite of reforms to strengthen Medicare. I was involved many years ago, in Australia, in the very beginning of nurse practitioner education and training. It was part of my role, leading the education of a cohort of 14 aspirant nurse practitioners in a rural and regional health service to assist them with their education and training in pharmacology and other elements of the higher training they required in order to meet the scope of practice that was critical to becoming an endorsed nurse practitioner. I've spent more than three decades working in health care, and one of the most extraordinary evolutions I've seen is how nurses' scope of practice, and, indeed, other health professionals—allied health, too—has grown over the last decade to respond to the growing requirements of our population, particularly our ageing population. This initiative, just like the nurse practitioner pioneers, is especially important to me as a regional MP and as a former nurse and midwife. I know, because I've seen it and lived it, that regional, rural and remote Australians—and you know it, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour—have a higher burden of disease than our metropolitan counterparts. We know that our health care is dictated by our postcode, and in my electorate of Indi—which is a regional electorate, but it has some remote areas too—we experience conditions such as asthma, arthritis and heart disease at rates way above the national average. This piece of legislation enables fully authorised and educated nurses to prescribe medications in categories that will absolutely make a difference to timely care in these chronic diseases. This bill is really important to me because I can give confidence to anybody in this House that this will make a difference to people who suffer from chronic disease, most particularly in rural and regional Australia. When I talk about chronic diseases being above the national rate and rural, regional and remote Australians dying earlier than their metropolitan counterparts, I do that knowing many of the people who have, in fact, died prematurely because they simply had not had access to the care that they needed. To make matters worse, we have healthcare workforce shortages in the regions that make it practically harder to effectively manage chronic health conditions and illnesses. Now, while this bill doesn't directly address the issue of healthcare workforce supply, I do want to spend a little moment talking about this, because it is part of the broader picture. It's really important that we situate this legislation in the broader reality of health care in the regions. Of course, this legislation isn't restricted to nurses who work in the regions—it's across Australia—but I'm highlighting why it matters to communities like mine in particular. Regional communities absolutely struggle to access healthcare, including the prescribing of medications. To be clear, I want to say that the healthcare workforce in regional Australia is absolutely fantastic, filled with highly competent professionals, of whom the biggest group are nurses, and so many of them had not been able until more recent times to work to their full scope of practice. These problems aren't their doing. There's simply not enough workforce to meet our healthcare demands. So, with the workforce that we have, we need to ensure absolutely that we're providing the opportunities to access the training and education they need to expand their scope of practice and work closely with the people who need them most. Further to that, when I think about health workforce in rural and regional Australia, it's not just a matter of attracting workforce; it's also a matter of retaining them. One of the challenges for many nurses is job satisfaction—the frustration of seeing a patient who needs further care and the restrictions on nurses in being able to provide that care. That's why this bill, again, is really important in a sense of expanding scope of practice and really building on job satisfaction for a nurse. The reasons for workforce shortages in rural health are many and complex. Certainly there is inadequate resourcing of regional health systems. Training pathways make getting regional experience difficult or unaffordable. Housing and childcare shortages prevent talented professionals from moving to regional Australia. We really do have a wicked problem, and there isn't just one policy to solve it, but this piece of legislation is part of that puzzle, and I really welcome it. The truth is that, if we're going to address workforce challenges, we do need to come at it from all angles, and that includes making sure that every single healthcare professional is supported to work at their full scope of practice. This bill supports a reform that does precisely this. In Victoria, the number of nurses is actually relatively consistent in proportion to population across major cities, inner and outer regions and remote communities. In fact, as I said before, nurses make up the highest number of healthcare professionals in the bush, and, where we do have the workforce in rural and regional Australia, we need to make sure that we're not putting unnecessary handbrakes on the care that they can provide their communities. I've been in that situation many times in my long distant past, working in a bush nursing hospital where I have waited on the phone, trying to get on to a medical practitioner to come and prescribe what is a pretty basic repeat medication for a patient who's driven for several hours to come to the hospital to get that medication. It all could have been sorted in a very short time if a nurse had this additional capacity. Enabling registered nurses to expand their scope of practice through additional training endorsement—really, it's a commonsense national solution and one I hope will materially improve access to health care in the regions. We've heard this evening that this isn't Robinson Crusoe; this is happening in many other parts of the world, most recognisably in the United Kingdom. Right now there are people in my electorate of Indi who spend half a day travelling or wait weeks for GP appointments just to get that repeat prescription, and I'm hoping this legislation is going to be a godsend for them. It'll make a real difference to their lives if they can get their medications a little sooner and a little closer to home. I'm absolutely alive to concerns from some other members of the health team about fragmented care. I'm the first to say that we really must make sure that our communication and digital tools are sufficient to enable us to ensure that we do not have fragmentation. Debate interrupted.
I wish to thank the member for Curtin for bringing this important motion to the House and to Senator Thorpe for bringing the motion in the other place. I commend this motion, and I condemn the...
I wish to thank the member for Curtin for bringing this important motion to the House and to Senator Thorpe for bringing the motion in the other place. I commend this motion, and I condemn the attempted bombing attack on First Nations people on 26 January in Boorloo, Perth. This was a deliberate and terrifying act designed to murder innocent people—innocent, ordinary Australian people. And it is rightly being investigated as a potential act of terrorism. Every Australian should pause and sit with what could have happened when this homemade bomb was hurled into a peaceful rally. As a nation, we should be outraged. I'm outraged. Around 2,500 people had gathered peacefully for an Invasion Day rally. This is not a one-off event. This is an event that happens year after year. If that device had detonated, the consequences would have been catastrophic. We've heard from the member for Curtin and the member for Perth, representing those constituents who could relate so meaningfully what this could have meant in their communities. This could have meant that we saw a massacre of peaceful protesters on a day that is already one of deep mourning for many First Nations Australians. And make no mistake—this was an act of hate. This was an act with racist overtures. This was an attack on First Nations people, and therefore it was an attack on all Australians. An attack on peaceful process strikes at the very heart of our democracy. It's appalling, and I think that this House is right today to speak of what could have been the most dreadful atrocity but what was an absolute and appalling act of hate. The date of 26 January, for many First Nations people, is one that marks dispossession, one that marks loss and deep grief and one that marks injustice. We must be a nation that comes together, not a nation that seeks to tear each other apart. I acknowledge the profound harm this incident has caused, and I express solidarity with everyone impacted, particularly our First Nations brothers and sisters, Australians who live daily with the threat of harm and with daily acts of prejudice and racism—many small, some big—because truly there is no place for violence or racism in Australia. There truly isn't. But what we're seeing really chills us, and this act on 26 January certainly reinforced that sense of dread. I echo the motion's calls on governments at all levels to continue to take urgent action. It's been said many times this afternoon that we can't just use words; we must use the actions that we've formulated to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against First Nations people. That action must be urgent. We have a framework that's been constituted already. It needs to be activated at its fullest level. My words are brief today because I know others wish to express their sorrow and condemn this act of violence on 26 January. It's important that we do so, but, most importantly, we must act. Anything else would be a failure of our responsibility and ultimately a failure of our humanity.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. The horrific attack on Jewish people celebrating in peace on 14 December ignited...
I rise to speak to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. The horrific attack on Jewish people celebrating in peace on 14 December ignited demands for strong and decisive action in response to this act of hate driven by violent extremism and carried out with firearms. There is much I wish to say about these reforms. While I welcome the government's decision to split the bills and allow each to be debated on its own merits, we have in fact been given very little time as a parliament to speak on them. There are deep concerns being flagged by constitutional experts, civil society, faith leaders and the public, not only about the substance of these reforms but about the process. In his submission on the bill, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism raises concerns that elements of the bill are inconsistent with Australia's international human rights obligations and, in relation to the rushed process, observes: It is the experience of the Special Rapporteur's mandate worldwide that hasty law-making is prone to lead to over-reach, unintended consequences, and violations of human rights law, which does not well serve the victims of terrorist attacks or protect society. There is widespread confusion and misinformation about what these reforms do and what they don't do. Rushing the legislative process only deepens that uncertainty. These reforms carry far-reaching consequences. As legislators, we must hold ourselves to the responsibility that poorly drafted or poorly examined laws may not actually make Australians safer. I welcome the increased penalties for threatening force or violence, which appropriately reflect the seriousness of these crimes. I also welcome the new aggravated offences for hate preaching and grooming, which recognise that hate crimes are especially abhorrent when they're committed from positions of trust and influence. I agree with the intent of the new aggravated sentencing principle, but it should not be limited to a small subset of attributes, and I support the member for Wentworth's proposals to ensure that all forms of hatred are treated consistently. Unfortunately, we have had limited opportunity to build consensus about the balance and proportionality of these laws. The hate speech provisions are technically complex, and a wide range of concerns have been raised about the way they are drafted and how they will operate, including the kinds of speech and conduct that may be captured. There are legitimate questions about things like procedural fairness, constitutional validity and the potential for unintended consequences. In addition to criminal amendments, the bill amends migration law to significantly expand the minister's powers to cancel or refuse visas, and we have not been presented with compelling evidence about why this is needed or how the current framework falls short. The statutory review of these reforms is essential to making sure they ultimately work as intended. In many respects, I can live with the haste of this. I did not come here with the intention of standing in the way of immediate action on the serious issues this bill is intending to address. But the reality is that the report of the inquiry into this bill was only tabled this morning. The consequence of haste as a legislator is the missed opportunity to carefully consider and improve this significant legislation. That leaves me with considerable risk concerns. It truly does. I recognise that acts of antisemitism have left the Australian Jewish community living in terrible fear. I've spoken with Jewish leaders, and I understand the urgency of the parliament acting. I take my responsibilities as a legislator very seriously. I do have genuine concerns, but I have heard the call for urgent action.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I rise in support of the member for Mackellar's very sensible amendments, notwithstanding what the Minister for Home Affairs has just said, because closing a knowledge and evidence gap in our...
I rise in support of the member for Mackellar's very sensible amendments, notwithstanding what the Minister for Home Affairs has just said, because closing a knowledge and evidence gap in our national gun laws is absolutely critical. The prevailing question from people in my electorate, in relation to killers such as those who perpetrated the horrors in Bondi, is: how can one of them have been a registered gun owner? It speaks to the critical elements in the legislation that I've just voted for, around bridging these evidence gaps, closing the problems that we have and assessing who is out there trying to get their hands on guns. These laws aren't about law-abiding gun owners, many of whom live in my electorate and many of whom have written to me about their concerns around these laws. These are people in my electorate who, indeed, are trying to manage pests on farms and national parks, who are tragically having to euthanise sheep and cattle, or who are sporting shooters. But the key point they make to me, which I have listened to so carefully, is that every gap that we possibly have that allows people with criminal intent to get their hands on guns must be closed. So I support legislation which does that. I support what the member for Mackellar is trying to do. I want to put on the record that the truncated debate that we have had this morning in regard to such important laws as these is really frustrating for us as legislators. As a member of parliament from a regional area who could not get on the speaking list, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the member for Mackellar's amendments, which I think are sensible ones. I welcome the government working on this council. I want to see that succeed, because ultimately I want guns in this country to be used for the purposes for which they are intended, with law-abiding citizens using them as a tool of trade or for sporting intent with complete safety. Question negatived. Bill agreed to.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
On behalf of the people of Indi, I rise to offer my deepest condolences to families, friends, Jewish Australians and the community of Bondi, as we mourn the loss of 15 innocent lives at the...
On behalf of the people of Indi, I rise to offer my deepest condolences to families, friends, Jewish Australians and the community of Bondi, as we mourn the loss of 15 innocent lives at the Hanukkah celebration on 14 December. I acknowledge the victims-survivors, and the family and friends who have been in the parliament today. I have followed many condolences that have been made today. I particularly want to acknowledge the member for Wentworth, in whose electorate this act of terrorism took place and who stands steadfastly beside her shocked and grieving community. I want to acknowledge our Jewish parliamentarians: the member for Isaacs, the member for Macnamara, the member for Berowra and the member for Macarthur. Shalom. I want to acknowledge the member for Chifley and the member for Cowan, who have been such voices of peace in this parliament. The iconic beach of Bondi is a long way from the mountains and valleys and small towns of Indi. Bondi looks nothing like Barnawartha, Benalla, Boorhaman or Bright. But the 15 people so callously murdered that day are indeed just like every one of us—everyday people enjoying gathering together on a summer evening. In Indi, our links to Jewish Australians are strong. The very first member for Indi, Sir Isaac Isaacs—a storied Jewish Australian, an attorney-general and later a justice of the High Court and our first Australian born governor-general—was raised and educated in and worked in the towns of Yackandandah and Beechworth, and we are so proud of his legacy. In Bondi, anyone can throw down their towel and enjoy a refreshing dip. It's a place where children play, where families picnic and where tourists flock, and, just like on that tragic December day, it's a place where people gather to celebrate important events. On that night, Jewish Australians were doing just that, and it was because of their Jewishness that they were singled out. A day that should have been marked by joy in the Jewish calendar was instead marred by violence, grief, terror and the most unimaginable loss. Australians have been left shaken and confounded by the senseless taking of human life and the deep wound this event has inflicted on our shared humanity. But, even in these darkest moments, we see the very best of our nation. At Bondi, we saw Boris and Sofia Gurman, two North Bondi locals who attempted to stop one of Australia's most deadly terrorist attacks before a bullet could even be fired, and they would pay for that bravery with their lives. We saw Reuven Morrison charge at the shooters, picking up objects to hurl at them, and he too paid the ultimate price for his courage. We saw Ahmed al-Ahmed bravely confront a gunman, tackling him unarmed. We saw 30-year-old Gefen Bitton run back from safety to help Ahmed. We saw a pregnant mother, Jessica Rozen, using her own body to shield a stranger's child. We heard about a young woman, Tash Willemsen, at the petting zoo, protecting beautiful young Matilda Britvan's little sister, Summer. We saw a lifesaver running barefoot into danger to deliver medical supplies. We saw our police and paramedics respond with courage and skill—countless others too. It was our Jewish Australian brothers and sisters and these people who I see right now. In a show of strength and solidarity in one of the nation's darkest moments, Lifeblood donor centres across the country were inundated as people sought ways to help, replenishing blood supplies used to support Bondi patients—close to 50,000 donations and 120,000 additional appointments made beyond that. On 21 December, far away from Sydney but a few short miles from where Sir Isaac Isaacs lived and worked, I joined with people across Indi and people across our nation on a day of remembrance to light a candle in honour of those who lost their lives, to reject hatred and division, and to commit that light will overcome darkness. As I drove to Canberra yesterday, I carried with me a condolence book just delivered to my office a couple of days ago from one of our aged-care centres in Indi. Here in this hallowed parliament of Australia, may we, as leaders in our communities and as national leaders, demonstrate that we can be a beacon of light and that we model the social cohesion we seek of our citizens—not that we shy away from the difficult and passionate debates and not that we wave through law without earnest endeavour, but that we engage with graceful intent to do everything we can to respond courageously, powerfully and decisively to terror. May light guide us all towards a stronger community, one that is more compassionate, curious of difference, courageous and kind. May the memories of 15 beautiful lives be a blessing.
Commonwealth Prac Payment | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
On 1 July students in nursing, teaching and social work became eligible to be paid while undertaking mandatory placements as part of their studies. The Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme is a...
On 1 July students in nursing, teaching and social work became eligible to be paid while undertaking mandatory placements as part of their studies. The Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme is a critical step in reducing financial barriers to higher education, but nurses, teachers and social workers are not the only ones who complete placements. Students in medicine and allied health also complete hundreds and sometimes thousands hours of work—and it is work, especially in the final years of their studies. Students are like apprentices, practising the very skills they will soon use as healthcare professionals. While they are on placements, students can't do much—if any—paid work. Their income drops but they still have to pay for food, rent and other bills. In fact, they often have extra expenses related to their placements. For many students, it is absolutely unsustainable. That's why I secured an amendment to the legislation to make sure that when the scheme is reviewed the government must consider expanding it to other students. But a review in the future will not do anything to help students who are experiencing placement poverty right now. I am regularly contacted by allied health and medical students who are struggling to stay afloat because of placements. They tell me they are working all night on night shifts, borrowing money from friends and family, delaying subjects and making hard choices between their financial security and their future careers. Darcy O'Shannessy from Wangaratta in my electorate is going into his fourth year as a physiotherapy student. In 2026, Darcy will need to complete 25 weeks of full-time unpaid placement to finish his degree. We have a shortage of physiotherapists in regional Australia, so it is terrific that Darcy is so close to completing his studies. Next year will be great for Darcy's career but, by gee, it will be tough on his bank balance. He will have to give up his part-time job and will earn nothing for every week he is on placements. Darcy has had to up stumps and move back home so he has any chance of making ends meet and completing his degree. A recent survey by the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy found 95 per cent of medical radiation science students are not confident they can manage to support themselves financially during full-time placement. Worryingly, almost 10 per cent say they plan to skip meals, sleep in their cars, defer subjects or drop out entirely. The statutory review set a deadline, but the government could choose to act sooner to prevent students from having to take such drastic steps. Across my electorate of Indi, more than 2,000 students are finishing Year 12. Many will be looking ahead to further study, wondering if they will need to move away from home and how they will support themselves if they do, and it is troubling to know that some will choose not to pursue a career in health care because, on top of everything else, they cannot afford to work for free. And it is not just school leavers. Older students with established careers, families and financial obligations find it very hard to do unpaid placement. This is all the more urgent given that healthcare workforce shortages are rampant across the country, especially in rural and regional Australia. Expanding the prac payment scheme to include medical and allied health students would help in two ways. Firstly, it would allow more students from regional and rural areas, who already face higher costs for further study, to go into these fields—fields we desperately need. Secondly, it would encourage students from metropolitan areas to come to regional and rural Australia for their placements. I have heard of students being forced to turn down such opportunities because they cannot afford to temporarily relocate if they are not being paid. We know that students who do placements in rural and regional areas are significantly more likely to work in those areas after graduation. Making these placements financially viable means more medical and allied health students will return to build their lives and careers across electorates just like mine in Indi. As a former nurse and midwife, I understand the importance of hands-on experience and of taking what you have learned in the classroom out into the real world. Students should not be penalised for choosing to study subjects that involve practical training. The government knows this and has taken a step in the right direction with the Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme but it must not stop there. I urge the government to immediately expand the Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme to all allied health and medical students.
Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence | Questions without Notice | House debates
It's on relevance. I appreciate the Prime Minister's response in regard to gender based violence, which I know we all care about and the Prime Minister deeply cares about, and the government is...
It's on relevance. I appreciate the Prime Minister's response in regard to gender based violence, which I know we all care about and the Prime Minister deeply cares about, and the government is doing a lot to respond. But the question went to the relationship between gambling advertising and gender based violence.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, 16 Days of Activism is a powerful and unified campaign to eliminate gender based violence. Family violence is three times more likely to...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, 16 Days of Activism is a powerful and unified campaign to eliminate gender based violence. Family violence is three times more likely to occur in families where there is problem gambling. In 2024, the government's rapid review of evidence based approaches to prevent gender based violence backed up the Murphy report with a recommendation to restrict gambling advertising, leading to a total ban. Prime Minister, when will the government act to ban gambling advertising?
Ethnic Religious Minorities | Private Members' Business | House debates
Is there a seconder for the motion?
United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women | Motions | House debates
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Shanahan, Dr Lucie | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise today to honour the life and legacy of Dr Lucie Shanahan. Lucie was a widely respected Indi healthcare executive, academic and public health leader, whose contribution to the wellbeing of...
I rise today to honour the life and legacy of Dr Lucie Shanahan. Lucie was a widely respected Indi healthcare executive, academic and public health leader, whose contribution to the wellbeing of communities across Albury-Wodonga and our wider region was both substantial and enduring. Across her distinguished career at Albury Wodonga Health, Dr Shanahan held several senior positions, including Executive Director of Public Health, Mental Health and Wellbeing and as Chief Allied Health Officer. In every role she brought integrity, clarity of purpose and a deep commitment to equitable access to high-quality care. I had the great privilege of working with Dr Shanahan around the huge challenges we face locally to address eating disorders. I saw firsthand her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, where, at a time of profound uncertainty, she provided measured judgements, strategic foresight and genuine compassion. Dr Shanahan wrote her doctoral thesis on adolescence and brain injury, reflecting her lifelong concern for vulnerable adolescents and their families. Her legacy endures in the public health strategies she shaped, the mental health services she strengthened and the allied health leadership she championed. To her partner, Mark; her mother, Ann; her brothers Matt and Tim; and all who mourn her passing, I offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences. Vale, Dr Lucy Shanahan.
Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise today to oppose the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025. First introduced by the member for New England in his individual capacity, this is now the official stance of the coalition. This bill would...
I rise today to oppose the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025. First introduced by the member for New England in his individual capacity, this is now the official stance of the coalition. This bill would unravel Australia's emissions reduction framework without putting anything else in place. It would close the Net Zero Economy Authority, which supports the workforce transition across regional Australia. It would repeal vehicle efficiency standards that drive down fuel costs. Turning away from renewables would jeopardise almost $10 billion in direct payments to farmers and landholders by 2050. It would rob regional communities and councils of another $1.9 billion in community benefit-sharing programs. It would threaten the thousands of jobs expected to be created in the next five years. There is no alternative proposal nor positive vision for the future—just repeal, rescind and omit. This bill is a missed opportunity to make sure Australia's path to net zero delivers substantial, tangible and lasting benefit to regional and rural communities such as those that I represent. I support the transition to a net zero economy, but not blindly. It must be done with regional and rural development front of mind. That's why, when I identified serious deficiencies in the community engagement on renewable infrastructure projects, I didn't just stand on the sidelines. I went to the government and I worked with the minister to secure the Dyer review, which is helping shape best practice and will ultimately lead to community benefit. In Indi and across regional Australia, people are ready to share in the benefits of the energy transition. These are communities who want fair warning, fair process and fair intergenerational community benefit. Their demands for meaningful engagement should not be contorted into blanket opposition, because there is support. Recent polling shows strong support for the transition to renewable energy across regional Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, including in New England. The member for New England may be interested to know that the majority of respondents in his own electorate support Australia shifting to renewable energy and agree that investment in renewables will be a good thing for regional Australia. While the member for New England says no to net zero, his own constituents are actually saying yes. The energy transition is an opportunity for regional Australia. Many of us in this chamber represent regional towns whose origins trace all the way back to the gold rush. Australia's unique geography drove a wave of prosperity that changed our nation's fortunes and future. Today, regional Australia is on the cusp of another gold rush, powered not by what is under the ground but by the energy sources of the 21st century: solar, wind and hydro. Dynamic regional communities are seizing the opportunities. One of the largest local governments in New England, the Armidale Regional Council, is establishing a multimillion-dollar future fund to put revenue from renewable energy straight back into the community. Rural Goorambat in my electorate has secured support for a new mobile phone tower as well as a $2 million community benefit fund, and Hay Shire Council has negotiated community benefits amounting to $26 million over the next 30 years for one of its projects. I want all communities contributing to the transition to share in the benefit. In 2021, we were told: We cannot pretend the world is not changing. We were warned: If we do, we run the risk of stranding jobs … especially in regional areas. Who said that? It was the Morrison government's then minister for energy and emissions reduction, the member for Hume. He was right; we cannot pretend that the world is not changing. Business and industry have made it clear they want policy certainties, not U-turns. Last week the Australian Energy Council released a survey confirming that the sector is committed to net zero. CEOs agree it is too late to turn back. It's been a little over a week since the Leader of the Opposition confirmed the coalition had abandoned net zero. I say this to my northern neighbour, the member for Farrer: it's not too late to reconsider. Instead of denial and division, I invite the coalition to bring constructive policies to the table. I invite the National Party to consider how to best promote the interests of their communities. I should not be the only regional MP pushing to make sure net zero works for regional Australia and results in intergenerational net benefit.
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; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave, I move amendments (1) to (19), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 168, page 69 (line 12) to page 70 (line 22), omit the item. (2) Schedule 1, item 194, page 85...
by leave, I move amendments (1) to (19), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 168, page 69 (line 12) to page 70 (line 22), omit the item. (2) Schedule 1, item 194, page 85 (line 10), at the end of subsection 87(5), add: ; and (c) the national environmental standards dealing with community engagement and consultation, First Nations Peoples and community consultation and environmental impact assessment have been complied with as relevant. (3) Schedule 1, item 320, page 158 (lines 17 and 18), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days". (4) Schedule 1, item 323, page 161 (line 18), at the end of subsection 177AD(2), add: ; (g) high value agricultural land; (h) drinking water catchment areas. (5) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (after line 22), after paragraph 177AL(1)(a), insert: (aa) a copy of the bioregional plan strategic assessment report prepared in accordance with subsection (1A); and (6) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (line 25), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days". (7) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (after line 25), after subsection 177AL(1), insert: (1A) Before the Minister publishes a draft bioregional plan under subsection (1), the Minister must prepare a bioregional plan strategic assessment report that identifies the conservation and recovery priorities for the bioregion and considers the cumulative impacts of any proposed activities under the bioregional plan, and meets the requirements prescribed in the regulations. (8) Schedule 1, item 323, page 169 (line 8), at the end of section 177AP, add: ; (g) that the bioregional plan does not compromise high value agricultural land or drinking water catchments. (9) Schedule 1, item 323, page 175 (lines 7 and 8), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days". (10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 182 (line 24), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days". (11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 182 (line 31), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days". (12) Schedule 1, item 323, page 187 (line 5), omit "regulations." substitute "regulations; and". (13) Schedule 1, item 323, page 187 (after line 5), after paragraph 177BN(2)(d), insert: (e) be accompanied by evidence of compliance with the national environmental standards dealing with community engagement and consultation, First Nations Peoples and community consultation and environmental impact assessment. (14) Schedule 1, item 323, page 195 (line 16), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days". (15) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (line 14), omit "may", substitute "must". (16) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (after line 15), after subsection 514YD(1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the national environmental standards must deal with the following: (a) community engagement and consultation; (b) First Nations Peoples and community consultation; (c) environmental impact assessment; (d) other standards the minister determines. (17) Schedule 1, item 571, page 316 (after line 15), at the end of section 514YD, add: (7) The national environmental standard dealing with community engagement and consultation must set out engagement and consultation processes required to be undertaken for: (a) a referral seeking streamlined assessment under Division 5A of Part 8; and (b) a request to be made to take a priority action in a development zone specified in a bioregional plan under section177BN. (18) Schedule 1, page 342 (after line 27), after item 587, insert: 587A At the end of Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 23 Add: 525A High value agricultural land and drinking water catchments In this Act: drinking water catchment has the meaning prescribed by the regulations. high value agricultural land has the meaning prescribed by the regulations. (19) Schedule 1, item 678, page 385 (lines 5 to 10), omit the item. My amendments seek to do three main things: (1) embed best-practice community engagement and consultation through the EPBC Act, (2) protect high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments within bioregional plans, and (3) stop minor or preparatory works from starting on projects still pending assessment as a controlled action. Graeme Samuel's 2020 review rightly identified the need to improve community participation in decision-making processes. My amendments will require the minister to create national environmental standards for community engagement and consultation and First Nations participation and engagement, and to create an environmental impact assessment. Firstly, the community engagement and consultation standard will need to set out a process for engagement and consultation for referrals seeking streamlined assessments and priority actions in development zones. Furthermore, priority action projects seeking approval within a development zone will be required to provide evidence of their compliance with this standard. Quick approvals under streamlined assessment processes and as priority actions should not brush over community engagements. My amendments give a clear signal to developers that community engagement is important and necessary to receive project approval. I know there is an industry appetite for this. Ultimately, it encourages project developers to do better and get a result faster. It also lays out a procedure to give guidance to developers and communities on what to expect in the community engagement process. As these bills currently stand, the timeframe for allowing community consultation on draft or changed bioregional plans is neither sufficient nor fair for communities to give considered feedback. My amendments will increase the timeframe allotted for community feedback from 30 days to 60 days. Community engagement and consultation offers additional knowledge and perspectives and improves the qualities of decisions made. This must be prioritised. These amendments are good for communities, good for proponents and good for the environment. Secondly, my amendments aim to ensure that bioregional plans are truly strategic and effectively prioritise competing land use demands. They will require the minister to consider the conservation and recovery priorities as well as the cumulative impacts of any proposed activities when creating bioregional plans. Importantly, my amendments also require the minister to consider high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments, defining development zone boundaries within bioregional plans. Our land is a precious and limited resource, and we must be strategic in how we prioritise its use. Finally, my amendments remove a loophole the government is seeking to add to the EPBC Act that would allow proponents awaiting assessment on a controlled action to start 'minor or preparatory' works before the minister's assessment. The only requirement for this work to commence is a note from the minister. There are huge swathes of ministerial discretion in this legislation. This additional discretionary power is not necessary and poses unjustified risks to the quality and integrity of environmental assessments. My amendments will improve trust and integrity in the EPBC Act, which is important. They are made constructively and in good faith. I call on the government to support these amendments to help get our environmental reforms right. While I acknowledge that the government won't be accepting these amendments in this House today, I have had really good conversations with the minister, and I really value those. He has listened carefully. So, while I understand that the amendments won't be accepted at this point, I do urge the government to keep looking at this, thinking about it carefully and consulting on it. I hope I see some amendments of this nature happen throughout the Senate process.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Report from Federation Chamber | Bills | House debates
To assist the House, I thought it would be useful to give some explanation, given that these amendments were debated last night in the Federation Chamber and there may be many members who didn't...
To assist the House, I thought it would be useful to give some explanation, given that these amendments were debated last night in the Federation Chamber and there may be many members who didn't have a chance to hear that debate. In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability, these amendments are particularly important because they go to the question of the expansion of cabinet exemptions. Under the bill that is before us, the test of exemptions is elastic and will be stretched in practice, meaning the public's right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. While you can appeal, many people will simply give up on that. It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room, and years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. I fully respect and support the principle of cabinet solidarity. There must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed, but, under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition, which referred specifically to deliberation and decision-making. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous 'dominant purpose' test will be replaced by a 'substantive purpose' test, increasing the threshold even higher. Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform the minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. I believe, and I think many people do—civil society organisations from right across the nation say that this is a long bow, way too long. This is a serious extension of what is considered cabinet confidentiality. My amendments seek to remedy that issue, and I really ask members of the House to think very carefully about what we're doing under these freedom-of-information laws, consider their vote and support these amendments.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I rise in support of the Attorney-General's amendments. I think these are sensible amendments. I recognise that we had a conversation in her office some time ago which included a conversation...
I rise in support of the Attorney-General's amendments. I think these are sensible amendments. I recognise that we had a conversation in her office some time ago which included a conversation about such measures to improve the bill. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing these changes to the chamber. Question agreed to.
I thank the Attorney-General for her response. I feel, though, that I need to ask the Attorney-General to respond in particular to the Law Council opinion on cabinet exemptions and the explicit...
I thank the Attorney-General for her response. I feel, though, that I need to ask the Attorney-General to respond in particular to the Law Council opinion on cabinet exemptions and the explicit advice that they've given in regard to the robodebt royal commissioner's recommendation. I don't feel that the Attorney has addressed that and I have real concerns about that, so I'd ask, respectfully, that the Attorney address that particular concern with this bill.
by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) as circulated in my name together: (3) Schedule 7, Part 1, page 59 (line 2) to page 60 (line 9), omit the Part. (4) Schedule 7, Part 2, page 61 (line...
by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) as circulated in my name together: (3) Schedule 7, Part 1, page 59 (line 2) to page 60 (line 9), omit the Part. (4) Schedule 7, Part 2, page 61 (line 1) to page 63 (line 8), omit the Part. In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability in our government, the amendments proposed in schedule 7 are perhaps the most egregious changes proposed. The amendments I'm moving today seek to repeal both the changes to cabinet exemptions as well as new powers to refuse FOI requests without even consulting the relevant documents. First, on the summary refusal of request. This part of schedule 7 would enable decision-makers to refuse a request when 'it would clearly be exempt' under the relevant section of the act. This means that a decision-maker can refuse a request without ever checking whether it is actually an exempt document. Simply believing it would be exempt will be enough to refuse a request. I'll say that again, just to make sure everyone has got this straight: you're right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. That doesn't pass anybody's pub test. It's lazy, at best. The test of 'clearly exempt' is elastic and it will be stretched in practice. That is not a fair contest, and it will discourage legitimate scrutiny. It will result in worse outcomes. Now while you can appeal, most people will simply give up. It's just another way that freedom of information will be harder to access. Second, on cabinet exemptions. It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room. Years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. Now, I fully support the principle of cabinet solidarity, and I agree there must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed. That's not my argument. However, I think most people today believe that the balance has shifted too far against disclosure—and that's under the current arrangements! But now the government want to go further and extend cabinet exemptions to more documents, many of which were never created to go to cabinet or even to directly inform cabinet deliberations. Under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition that refers specifically to deliberation and decision-making. Now this matters. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous dominant purpose test will be replaced by a substantive purpose test. Words matter. This will make the threshold even higher. Words matter, and that's why they're in the bill! Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform a minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. It is a long bow; I contend that it is too long. It's hard to imagine anything that this couldn't include. Finally, these amendments to expand cabinet exemptions are in direct contravention of the concluding recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. As I said in my speech yesterday—it's important these things are recorded in Hansardthis government's proposals seek to reinforce a culture of cabinet secrecy that, in part, allowed robodebt to persist for so long. So concerned am I about this that I asked the Attorney-General about these proposed changes in question time in an attempt to understand why the government was rejecting the concluding recommendation of its own royal commission. Unfortunately the Attorney-General's answer did not inspire me with confidence—suggesting that the proposals were merely a clarification of what happens now and would reflect the policy intent of the existing exemptions. But this simply isn't accurate. Yesterday the Centre for Public Integrity published a fact check on key claims made by the government in relation to this bill. The fact check said that it is misleading to suggest that this bill simply clarifies the existing cabinet exemptions. In fact the opposite is true. The Australian Law Council, in its submission, said: … the effect of the proposed amendments … will be to broaden what is captured by the cabinet documents exemption and further limit access to information. This contradicts the closing observations of the Royal Commission. The Law Council goes on to recommend that these amendments be rejected. So I seek to repeal these sections of the bill because they will make our democracy and our government less open, less accountable and less transparent, and we don't want that.