Anne Webster's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move: (1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add: 37 Application of amendments (1) The amendments made by this Schedule apply only if a declaration under subitem...
I move: (1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add: 37 Application of amendments (1) The amendments made by this Schedule apply only if a declaration under subitem (2) is in force. (2) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, declare that the amendments made by this Schedule apply on and after a day, or throughout a period, specified in the declaration. (3) However, the Minister may make a declaration under subitem (2) only if: (a) a trial of nurse prescriber treatments (within the meaning of the National Health Act 1953) is conducted in at least one State or Territory; and (b) after the end of the trial, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia conducts a review of the trial; and (c) the review demonstrates a suitably supportive evidence base for the safety and effectiveness of the amendments made by this Schedule. I rise to speak to the amendment circulated in my name to the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill seeks to enable eligibility for PBS rebates for medications prescribed by a new category of prescribers, 'authorised registered nurse prescribers'. It acknowledges the essential role nurses play in our health system, especially in the regions, and the important work they do. It also acknowledges that nurses are the largest component of the health system and the most well-distributed workforce in regional Australia. The Nationals want to see improved access to health care and progress for the nursing profession and for multidisciplinary care more generally. However, I am moving an amendment because implementation of new policy must have appropriate testing to ensure it is safe, effective and won't have unintended consequences. The Nationals have two key concerns. The bill is not evidence based, as it fails to follow normal processes where testing of any new model of care occurs in a state or territory in Australia prior to the application of PBS rebates, and this bill does not have a funding model to enable registered nurse prescribers to work in primary care as no funding model or structure has been developed. It is important to differentiate the new RN prescriber model from existing master's qualified nurse practitioners who are autonomous prescribers. My amendment is that this legislation should not be enacted until there has been a trial or pilot of this new model of nurse prescribing in a state or territory which is then reviewed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia to ensure suitability and a supportive evidence base for safety and effectiveness of the model. This is about following due process, ensuring accountability and transparency for Australian consumers and making good use of Commonwealth funds. There must be clear evidence that any new model of nurse prescribing will improve access to high-quality care, especially in the regions, and will not have negative unintended consequences for patient safety or continuity of care. RN nurse prescribers will still require an autonomous prescriber in primary care, such as a GP or a nurse practitioner, to oversee that prescriber. The problem is that there are not enough GPs or nurse practitioners in the regions now. How is this going to work? The process of a nurse practitioner gaining PBS access was debated in the late 2000s, and nurse practitioners had already been prescribing under state and territory law for many years from the mid- to late-1990s. Governments, therefore, had real world prescribing data, independent evaluations, patient outcome studies and safety audits. These formed the evidence base for Commonwealth reform which enabled PBS access to commence from 2010, though restricted. Major reforms to PBS access for nurse practitioners have occurred only very recently. PBS access for nurse practitioners was based on extensive safety and effectiveness evidence in states and territories. That evidence was synthesised nationally. It directly informed the Commonwealth's decision to grant PBS access in 2010. PBS access was therefore an evidence based policy decision, not simply a political concession. While it arguably took many years too long, PBS access for nurse practitioners was a thoroughly evidence based policy decision, and this amendment seeks that the same evidence base be produced before implementation of the bill currently under consideration. I urge the House to support this amendment.
Cost of Living | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
It's $7 in the Hunter. There you go. The member for Hunter probably knows. The fact is that people can't afford to go out to a cafe any more. If they want to purchase a meal at a pub, the price...
It's $7 in the Hunter. There you go. The member for Hunter probably knows. The fact is that people can't afford to go out to a cafe any more. If they want to purchase a meal at a pub, the price is through the roof. I know because I take my family to the pub. Then we go into all the subsidies. What drives this 13th rate increase? It comes because inflation is out of control. And guess what? It's on this Labor government's watch. It was not happening under the coalition. It is happening under this Labor government. They need to take responsibility for continually giving out subsidies. We've now got a new subsidy for EVs—another $50 million. 'That's not going to hurt anybody!' Yes it will, because it comes out of taxpayer pockets. The way this government spends money to make up for or to put a bandaid on what is a broken economy is appalling. It will only cost taxpayers more. It will only continue to see inflation rise. I actually feel a little sorry for the RBA and for its chair. These are the stories they have to keep coming out to tell the Australian people while trying not to annoy the current Labor government, which is where the responsibility needs to sit. Then we've got things like policies, great policies, like the gun buyback—$15 billion, Member for Hunter! Where's that going to come from? Oh, the Australian taxpayer. One more time: a terrible policy that was just simply a repeat of 1996, when John Howard was doing the right thing. Here we have a government and a Prime Minister who have made a decision for gun buybacks because he wanted to cover over a massacre that should never have happened on his watch. The fact is this government is responsible. It needs to take responsibility. We will continue to work to make it take that responsibility seriously.
This MPI is about the government's reckless agenda, which is driving up the cost of living for Australian families. It's not actually a question. It is a statement that the policies that this...
This MPI is about the government's reckless agenda, which is driving up the cost of living for Australian families. It's not actually a question. It is a statement that the policies that this government has brought in since 2022 are hurting Australian families. When families are paying, on a $500,000 mortgage, $23,000 more since Labor have come into office, that hurts. That hurts families. We have more families who cannot even think about purchasing a home because the housing market can't give them a home at a price they can afford. The policies that this government has implemented are hurting Australian families. When they go to the supermarket—I'm not going to say the names. When they go to any supermarket, the prices that they're paying for eggs and for bread and for milk and for all the ordinary daily needs of a family are through the roof. Sixteen per cent is the current figure. Then you add in the electricity costs. Electricity is something that people need. In our society, people need electricity. Costs are up 40 per cent—40 per cent! How is that reasonable? For the government—from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—to go on with the hubris and the arrogance that we've listened to today, it shows that they are all, every one of them, singing from the same hymn sheet: 'Not our fault. Not our fault. Don't look at us. It was actually those 10 years of waste and deficit.' It's 'the dog ate my homework'. This government needs to take responsibility. They've been in government for four years. When are they going to take responsibility? Australian families are hurting. Whether it's paying school fees, whether it's putting fuel into their cars, it doesn't matter which way they go. They can't afford to live. A cup of coffee in 2022 was $4. How much is it now? It's $6 for the average latte, and that's a small one.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The Prime Minister has been at pains to tell us repeatedly that the only card that we need take to a medical appointment is the Medicare card. He's told us that the Labor government's changes to...
The Prime Minister has been at pains to tell us repeatedly that the only card that we need take to a medical appointment is the Medicare card. He's told us that the Labor government's changes to incentivise bulk-billing would make primary health care free to all those who need it. But across Mallee my constituents are lucky if they can get an appointment with a GP at all, let alone not pay a gap fee. The average GP gap fee, or out-of-pocket cost, is now over $50. The national out-of-pocket GP costs have more than doubled, from $780 million in 2021-22 to $1.66 billion in 2023-24. Out-of-pocket costs have risen steadily across all socioeconomic areas according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Bulk-billing, under the coalition, was at 88.9 per cent in 2021. Despite Labor rhetoric, it has fallen. In 2024-25, the latest figures, it was 77.6 per cent. That's an 11 per cent drop in bulk-billing. The fact is remote, outer regional and inner regional areas have lower bulk-billing rates than major cities. So your Medicare card is not all that you need, Prime Minister. That is another fabrication from this arrogant and secretive Labor government. This is a government that is all about the headline or the catchy three-second hook on social media to halt the doomscroll but not so much about doing the hard yards and policy grunt work to make lasting change. The Nationals' perspective on health care, the Mallee experience—when I asked my electorate of Mallee late last year about their biggest concerns, I received more than 5,300 responses, with Mallee residents telling me their No. 1 priority was better hospitals and access to health care. When asked about primary health care, the top concern of my constituents was wait times to see a doctor, followed by out-of-pocket costs and then wait times to see allied health professionals. Health care access and affordability is front of mind for my constituents and regional Australians more broadly. But this Labor government is forever letting them down and putting their needs out of sight and out of mind. The Nationals want to rectify the poorer health status of regional Australians, a status driven in large part by poorer access to health services. Rural and remote Australians have higher morbidity and mortality rates than those in major cities. This is a known fact. In very remote areas potentially avoidable deaths are 2.8 times higher than in major cities. Rural Australians receive less service delivery per capita despite higher need and worse outcomes. How is this okay? This Labor government promised to govern for all Australians, but clearly they are not for rural Australians. The National Rural Health Alliance published a study in August last year which showed that less money is being spent per person in rural and remote regions than in the city. In 2021, the spend was $848 less per person than for city people. But it gets worse. The latest available data suggests that this underspend has blown out to over $1,000 per person in regional and remote areas. Poorer health access is driven in large part by the lack of health workforce in the regions. Here are the facts. In 2023, small rural towns had the lowest number of GPs and specialists per capita. But it's not just GPs and specialists. Small rural towns also have less than half the allied health workforce per capita that major cities have. The Nationals are committed to supporting regional communities and driving policies and programs that will improve the health status of regional Australians. In the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025, the Labor government says it is trying to address healthcare accessibility issues due to workforce challenges by expanding the scope of practice of registered nurses. Nurses are the largest component of the health workforce in Australia. There were 329,000 registered nurses in 2024 compared to 122,000 doctors, making up just over 44 per cent of the total health workforce. There are more nurses in small rural towns, remote areas and very remote areas than any other kind of practitioner. It is great to focus on and support nurses. I have a daughter who is a nurse. We know they do wonderful work and they are the bedrock of our health system. The problem with this bill is that having a new category of nurse, nurse prescribers, provide pharmaceutical benefit schedules is not evidence based. It's not evidence based policy making nor is it addressing the core issues driving poor access to health care and core health outcomes, particularly in regional Australia. This is lazy policy making, driven by this government's blind allegiance to Labor state governments with abysmal fiscal restraint and failing health systems who, no doubt, want to employ authorised nurse prescribers in urgent care clinics in cities and larger regional centres. Labor are seeking quick wins with little effort to address policy complexity. What will this bill seek to do? It seeks to grant eligibility for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme rebates on medications prescribed by a new category of prescribers—authorised nurse prescribers. The government's proposed authorised nurse prescribers will be registered nurses with additional training who work in a collaborative arrangement with an autonomous prescriber, a professional who can already prescribe independently. Now, that means GPs and nurse practitioners. Our position as the Nationals on this bill is cautious. We are cautious about the legislation due to the lack of real world testing of this model in Australia and, therefore, the lack of robust evidence. Applications for registered nurses to become endorsed for prescribing were only declared open last month via the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia under national law. The first prescribers are anticipated under this new arrangement from mid-2026—so we're talking July onwards—but require additional changes to state and territory laws. I want to point out, though, that the usual process is that states or territories run a trial or a pilot first on a new prescribing model without PBS eligibility, to ensure the model is tested and safe. A state or territory trial has not happened. Therefore, the clinical governance, safety and responsibility framework of this new system is untested. It needs to be tested before it is supported by Commonwealth taxpayer funds. I also want to highlight that the time difference between endorsement for prescribing and PBS rebate access has generally been lengthy for other prescriber groups, so who knows when nurse prescribers will be able to prescribe with PBS rebates. A pilot program should occur within a state or territory without PBS rebates before national rollout of PBS rebates. That is a responsible approach that this government just has not looked at. Secondly, there is currently no funding mechanism to adequately remunerate these authorised nurse prescribers in primary care settings, which is where they are actually needed. Medicare does not currently fund this approach, and the Workforce Incentive Program, commonly known as WIP, and the Practice Incentive program, PIP, are not adequate or appropriate to fund this model of care. If registered nurses who have engaged in additional study to gain endorsement for prescribing cannot be appropriately remunerated, they will not work in primary health settings. If the services of authorised nurse prescribers are not affordable—in other words, if people have to pay out of pocket—patients simply won't seek them out. Funding mechanisms for this proposed model need to be determined and tested before PBS eligibility is rolled out. This bill is putting the horse before the cart. Who would have thought? Thirdly, the Nationals are sceptical because this bill does not address key drivers of poor access to health care and health status in the regions, including the lack of a primary healthcare workforce with the ability to prescribe autonomously—that is, GPs and nurse practitioners who will oversee the work of authorised nurse prescribers. If you don't have enough GPs and you don't have enough nurse practitioners out in the regions, how is this program actually going to benefit the regions? I would argue it won't. The funding models do not adequately meet the financial pressures of primary health care in the regions or facilitate the provision of multidisciplinary care. We're talking about block funding. ACCHOs and NACCHOs have block funding. The only way that this government can ensure that this rollout will work is under a state funded basis, under public health. I don't think Australians want to have their choice removed. And so the funding mechanism itself must be sorted out, along with the governance of this program. Fourthly, this legislation risks adding to the workload of the limited primary healthcare workforce in regional Australia, adding strain rather than bringing in and training up a workforce who can autonomously assess, diagnose and treat with medications on its own. This negative unintended consequence has not been considered. The Albanese Labor government has made repeated decisions that disadvantage regional Australians when it comes to health care, especially primary health care, including changing the Distribution Priority Area rules that govern where overseas doctors have to work when they come to Australia, making it possible for them to choose to work in metropolitan areas and large regional centres at the expense of rural and remote areas. This was the very first decision that the Minister for Health made, funnelling excessive amounts of money into inefficient and costly urgent care centres in metropolitan areas and large regional centres but unwilling to address the specific needs of rural towns and remote areas, who are rarely served by these clinics. It is a metro-centric approach—make no mistake. The Labor government has also failed to tackle the desperate need for complex funding change in primary health care in regional Australia that would incentivise the provision of multidisciplinary health care in small rural towns and remote areas and appropriately address the higher cost of providing care in these regions. They are failing to address a need and evidence base for end-to-end training of medical and other health professionals in the regions to grow our own workforce. In conclusion, the Nationals are all for positive changes in our health system that will improve access to high-quality care when and where people need it. I acknowledge the essential role nurses play in our health system, especially in our regions, and the very, very important work that they do. But I will always advocate for evidence based policy that is set up to succeed and to address the core issues that my constituents are concerned about. This bill is lazy. It is politically driven policy that does not address the root causes of the problems in our health system. It has not been tested and is being set up to fail.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I do note the Prime Minister's comments that, as people around Australia raise a glass in a pub, the price won't go up for the next two years. If it were only dependent on this excise freezing,...
I do note the Prime Minister's comments that, as people around Australia raise a glass in a pub, the price won't go up for the next two years. If it were only dependent on this excise freezing, that would be one thing, but we know that wages have gone up. We know that electricity has gone up. We know that the cost of living continues to rise under this government, so beer will go up. It's just the excise that will be frozen for the next two years. We commend this bill. We support this bill, but we think it should go further. We think it should actually include—and I endorse the member for Cowper's amendments that will be asking for or recommending that we also freeze the excise on spirits in pubs, hotels and clubs. Our pubs and our clubs do incredible work in our community. They really become the beehive, if you like, of social connection for so many people. Whether it's sporting clubs or whether it's families wanting to go out for a cheap meal, it's no longer cheap. I'm just stating the facts. When I take my family out, I can assure you, it costs me well over a hundred and something dollars—sometimes $200—just to go to a pub meal. To pretend that this excise freeze for the next two years is going to solve all the problems is complete and utter rubbish, and every Australian knows it. I think about the cost of coffee. When Labor came to government in 2022, the cost of a cup of coffee or a latte at your favourite cafe, which we all enjoy, was around $4. Now, we're paying $6 for a cup of coffee. 'Nothing to see here,' says the Labor government. 'Nothing to see here,' says the Prime Minister. Let's just talk about freezing the excise on pouring beer in pubs. Don't get me wrong, I support absolutely that our pubs and clubs need this support. They need more support than that though, and this government is absolutely not supplying it. I don't want to talk about every pub in my electorate, because, believe you me, there are far too many. I'm bound to leave out about, I don't know, 250 or 300, so I'm not going to name any, but I certainly have my and my family's favourite places to go. They are very, very valuable small businesses. Largely, they are small businesses, who are doing it so tough. Whether it's red tape, whether it is the cost of producing anything thanks to energy price rises or whether it's wage increases or regulation more generally, it is tougher to run a small business now. Who do we thank for that? The government of the day. I support this bill and I support the amendments that the member for Cowper is going to make, and I'm going to leave it there.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
It's with profound sorrow that I rise today to speak about the horrific events of 15 December at Bondi Beach and to acknowledge the grieving family members who have been in this House. Bondi...
It's with profound sorrow that I rise today to speak about the horrific events of 15 December at Bondi Beach and to acknowledge the grieving family members who have been in this House. Bondi Beach is an iconic Australian landmark that should symbolise joy, freedom and unity. Instead, it became the scene of unimaginable tragedy. Fifteen innocent lives were stolen by Islamic extremists driven by hatred and intent on inflicting maximum harm. This was not just an attack on Jews; it was an attack on every Australian and our way of life. It was the worst terrorist atrocity in Australia's history, and it has shaken every one of us to the core. What happened that day is utterly unthinkable. Families who had gathered to celebrate Hanukkah, a festival of light and hope, were gunned down in cold blood—children, parents and grandparents all targeted simply because of who they are: Jewish Australians. We watched in horror as the news unfolded, moving from disbelief to grief and then to haunting questions. How could this happen here? Why such hatred? Who could commit such evil? This is not Australia. This is not the nation I grew up in and that we cherish. Since 7 October 2023 antisemitism has surged alarmingly across our country. We have seen Jewish Australians harassed, threatened and vilified; homes graffitied; cars and synagogues firebombed; and businesses coerced into closure. Synagogues and schools and childcare centres have been forced to tighten security as fear grips the community. Our fellow Australians, our neighbours, our friends, now feel like strangers in their own home. It is disgraceful, it is unacceptable and it must stop. Equally disturbing are the scenes of aggressive mobs in our streets, celebrating violence, chanting hatred. This is not free speech. This is incitement. It corrodes the very fabric of our society. When any group is targeted, whether for their faith, ethnicity or identity, it is an attack on all Australians. We cannot and must not stand by, because the standard we walk by is the standard we accept. Islamic extremism must stop. Neo-Nazism must stop. Antisemitism must be eradicated. We owe it to every Australian to ensure that our country is a place of safety, acceptance and peace. To every Jewish Australian and to every family shattered by the Bondi Beach attack, I extend my deepest condolences. Your grief is our grief. Your fear is fear. Australia is your home. You belong here. You deserve to live free from terror, free from hatred and free from fear. As Australians we are bound together by our shared humanity and our commitment to justice. Let us say with one voice: never again, not here, not anywhere.
Mallee Electorate: Energy | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise to express my great pride in the farmers of Mallee. They are facing an uphill battle right now. They have the Victorian government and their tentacle subgroup TCV, Transmission Company...
I rise to express my great pride in the farmers of Mallee. They are facing an uphill battle right now. They have the Victorian government and their tentacle subgroup TCV, Transmission Company Victoria, coming onto farms. Well, that's what they want to do; they want to enter farms. Instead we have farmers standing inside the fence saying, 'Access denied.' Access is denied to TCV and to the Victorian government for seeking to railroad my communities. These farmers are on the edge of harvest. They are literally about to start harvest. We also hear in this space that we have Chinese made brake pads with asbestos in them. Asbestos is illegal. It is illegal to bring it into Australia. But here we have companies all over Australia who are bringing in wind turbines with asbestos as part of the works of each turbine, creating biosecurity hazards, I would suggest. I'm not an engineer, but, if a wind turbine goes on fire, what happens with that asbestos? There is food growing under these turbines. It is an absolute disgrace that the Labor government has allowed these turbines to come into Australia with no checks and balances. What is going on is that these products are all over Australia now, by the thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands. Renewables absolutely cost farmers. I have farmers in my electorate, and I'll name a few of them: Andrew Weidemann, Ross Johns, Julie Weir, Marcia McIntyre, Ben Duxson and Gerald Feeny. All of these farmers and the myriad that are coming to support them are standing at the gate, stopping TCV coming in. Now, TCV don't actually have court orders to be able to enter the properties. They have no right. But, I tell you what, they're intimidating and they're bullying our farmers. It is outrageous—at the beginning of harvest. We hear today that the Victorian government have put out a consultation about the five new RESes—I think there are six now—doubling the gigawatt hours that they require to put on farmland. Seriously? That's a consultation over a harvest period right through to February, when farmers are at their busiest and they are tired, and now they have to do what we know already is a sham consultation. It is a disgrace. Both the federal Labor government and the Victorian Labor government should be held to account, and that's what we are doing on this side of the House.
Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise this afternoon to speak about the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. As the member for Mallee and the shadow minister for regional development, I emphasise...
I rise this afternoon to speak about the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. As the member for Mallee and the shadow minister for regional development, I emphasise how agriculture—particularly horticulture in Mallee—relies on migrant workers. Workforce shortages are a fact of life in regional Australia, and Mallee is no exception. Businesses in Sunraysia—in Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill—and even further south in the Wimmera, in Horsham and beyond, need migrant workers, especially during seasonal peaks in workload. Without these migrant workers, our region would not be the productive powerhouse that it is. Speaking of which, tonight, at the Australian Export Awards, Select Harvests from Wemen are up for the Regional Exporter award for 2025. They are a finalist, and I will be there cheering them on. They are a local success story, with a $116 million turnaround last year and record sales—the best almond prices they have ever received. I come to this debate familiar with the migration portfolio area, having been the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the 47th Parliament. I worked closely, in a healthy and bipartisan way, with the then-chair and now retired Labor member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou. I was proud to take the migration committee for a public hearing in Robinvale, in my electorate, in May 2023 to contribute to the committee's report, Migration, pathway to nation building. We met with the council for the Robinvale area, the Swan Hill Rural City Council, and with horticultural businesses and associations. Key themes we heard in that hearing were the following. Workforce shortages were structural, not temporary, and regional industries—including agriculture, horticulture, food processing, health, aged care, transport and hospitality—were facing acute labour shortages. Employers consistently reported they could not fill roles locally, even after advertising widely. Labour shortages were a constraint on business viability, productivity and regional economic growth. In many regions, migration wasn't optional but essential. Regional communities were increasingly reliant on migrant labour to sustain essential industries. Witnesses emphasised that many sectors could not operate without migrant workers. Migrants were not only filling low skilled seasonal jobs; they were also filling critical skilled roles as nurses, doctors, mechanics, food processing specialists and farm supervisors. The migration system was not well designed for regional labour realities. Employers described the system as slow, complex, costly and highly bureaucratic. Small and regional businesses were especially disadvantaged compared to large city employers. Existing safeguards were failing too many workers. Attraction without retention is a revolving door, and reform should prioritise transparency, fairness, regional needs and long-term settlement. Key findings of the 2024 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration,Migration, pathway to nation building, showed that migration is a nation-building tool that needs a long-term, long-range strategy, not a piecemeal policy. Migration should strengthen Australia's skills base and economic capacity. Migration policy must help sustain regional population and workforce needs. The current system is too complex, slow and difficult to navigate. Temporary migration should feed into stable and permanent nation-building outcomes. A fair system must protect vulnerable workers while maintaining integrity. Migration success depends on integration, not just arrival. Policy should be grounded in measurable outcomes and future workforce planning. There are other issues across Mallee related to the migrant workforce. I note that the United Workers Union, the UWU, has a vested interest in trying to recruit migrant workers. There are stories of the UWU travelling to neighbouring Pacific countries and hauling people in to their unions before they even arrive in the country. The ABS has an inability to devise a way to count the seasonal workforce and the population of visa overstayers in the census in Robinvale. This results in a significant underestimation of the demands on local services and infrastructure and makes local planning and obtaining adequate funding incredibly difficult. The background to that story is that, in the ABS, Robinvale has a population of around 4,000. In real terms, through other research, we know that the population is around 11,000. That creates a phenomenal problem, in terms of the health workforce, health workforce needs and health needs generally—health services. It also creates a problem in terms of education. You can imagine that the infrastructure demands on that small community are extremely stretched because the workforce population is not counted. I know of one school in Robinvale where, when I went to visit them—this is a couple of years ago now—I asked what percentage of the students were from undocumented workers. They said that it was 25 per cent of the school. That's a problem in terms of meeting the needs of the students, the parents and the community itself. Across Mallee, and particularly in Sunraysia, there is an issue with some labour hire operators. It's fair to say that this bill will, if passed, provide the data to enable states and territories, who are responsible for regulating labour hire companies, to pick up bad and exploitative behaviour by rogue labour hire companies. Under this bill, labour hire companies will be the published sponsors. However, the limits of federal jurisdiction might come into play if there are labour hire subcontractors that actually contract out the workers. This is not to say that every labour hire contracting company is bad. I know of some excellent ones who, phenomenally, have a data platform, a technological platform, where workers can be matched so that farmers know that the person who is standing in front of them is actually the person who has the correct visa and that it is appropriate for them to be on that farm. I personally think investment should be made into these kinds of features—using our technology wisely. Let me explain why we as the coalition have problems with this bill and currently stand to oppose it. This bill fulfils the government's December 2023 pledge to improve transparency of approved sponsors, although it arrives nearly two years after the announcement. Time and again, we tend to grapple with whether the net is being cast so wide as to create red tape and disincentive for law-abiding people while trying to catch a particular undesirable species in the ecosystem. We do not want to deter small businesses from sponsoring for fear of their activities being disclosed on the register and therefore becoming targets. There are surely more bespoke, smarter ways to sort the wheat from the chaff. This is where the government would do well to publish draft regulations promptly and commit to disallowable legislative instruments in this space. There might be scope for regulation to target the real problems in this sector and not put the good apples in with the bad. The coalition is concerned about a number of holders of temporary visas that might be disclosed as sponsored by a particular employer. We have little information to tell us that the additional disclosure here will, within the Commonwealth's sphere of power, offer much by way of additional protection for migrant workers. Having said that, we acknowledge this legislation is intended to respond to well documented instances of wage theft and coercion in parts of the temporary skilled visa program. Again, I would state that this is not across the board. The coalition has long insisted on integrity and employer sponsorship of migrants. However, we believe this bill goes too far. The Department of Home Affairs already has robust monitoring and compliance measures in place and extensive information about sponsors' businesses. We are not yet convinced that this extra step is actually necessary. We need assurances that the Department of Home Affairs will maintain an efficient error-correction process to protect reputable firms. The register is only one element of an antiexploitation agenda. Stronger enforcement powers and whistleblower visa arrangements remain undelivered. We need an entire ecosystem change. But we in the Nationals know from regional Australia that, under Labor, farmers are increasingly demonised and talked about as rogue businesspeople. Whether it is the insinuation they exploit workers or the claim that their opposition to the renewables rollout is insincere and farmers are obstacles in the way, Labor is trying to divide city and country people like never before. Three times a day, Australians should thank a farmer for the food on their table if not also the shirt on their back. We see in this portfolio, energy and other portfolios a mentality that farmers are the enemy when they are the absolute foundation of our food security and our nation. That's one reason why I'm open-minded to how we ensure bills like this one adequately target the rogue elements like rogue labour-hire companies who bring industries into disrepute. In closing, it is clear that the challenges facing regional Australia are real and immediate. In electorates like mine, industries such as agriculture, horticulture, food processing, health, aged care, transport and hospitality are battling chronic workforce shortages that are structural, not seasonal or fleeting. Employers have told us time and time again that even after exhausting recruitment efforts they simply cannot secure the workers they need. Migrant labour is not an optional extra for regions like Mallee. It is fundamental to our productivity, economic strength and the continued viability of the communities that feed our nation and the world. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration's work in the 47th Parliament underscored the current migration system is not fit for purpose when it comes to regional realities. It is slow, complex and costly, particular for smaller employers who lack the resources of large metropolitan businesses. At the same time, some migrant workers remain vulnerable to exploitation, with insufficient flexibility and pathways to permanency. Our nation-building migration system must do better. It must strengthen Australia's skills base, support population sustainability in the regions, protect vulnerable workers and prioritise long-term settlement and integration, not just temporary arrivals. Migration policy should be strategic, coordinated and grounded in workforce planning, not piecemeal. Against that backdrop, the coalition cannot support this bill. While we are steadfast in our commitment to integrity and employer sponsorship, and acknowledge the need to combat wage theft and coercion, the government has failed to justify the public disclosure measures proposed here—particularly the publication of employer-level data on temporary visa numbers. Such disclosure risks exposing compliant employers to pressure and intimidation while offering little additional protection to workers beyond what existing monitoring powers already provide. Too much is left to regulation with no clarity on the safeguards or correction processes that reputable firms deserve. If the government is serious about protecting migrant workers, it should focus on delivering the stronger enforcement powers and whistleblower protections it has promised rather than imposing unnecessary and unproven public reporting requirements. For these reasons, the coalition opposes this bill.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert: (1A) To the extent that the report...
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert: (1A) To the extent that the report relates to the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the year of the report, the report must provide information about where that expenditure was incurred by reference to the following: (a) major cities of Australia; (b) inner regional Australia; (c) outer regional Australia; (d) remote Australia; (e) very remote Australia. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), after section 121FZO, insert: 121FZOA Publication of annual report (1) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection 121FZO(1), the ACMA must give a copy of the report to the Minister. (2) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report, upon which time it must be published on the ACMA website. This parliament is being asked to set the rules for a new era in Australian storytelling. For the first time, global streaming giants will have obligations to invest meaningfully in Australian content. This is welcome. But unless this parliament insists on proper transparency, we will never know whether those investments are genuinely supporting the breadth of Australia—not just the big cities, not just the same postcodes but all Australians wherever they live. My amendments are simple, practical and vital—transparency on where money is actually spent. My first amendment inserts subsection 121FZO(1)(1A). It requires streaming services, when they report their annual Australian program expenditure, to tell us where in Australia that money was spent—not vaguely, not selectively, but clearly and consistently—across the ABS remoteness categories, firstly major cities and then inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote Australia. This matters. Right now, we have no line of sight into whether Netflix, Stan, Disney +, Amazon and others are genuinely investing across the nation. We do not know whether regional creators, actors, crews and production companies, from Mildura to Mount Isa, from Shepparton to Alice Springs, are being given the opportunity to be part of this industry. Without transparency, there is no accountability. Regional Australians contribute to our culture, our creativity and our economy. They deserve to see themselves represented not just on-screen but in the opportunities created behind the camera. This amendment ensures that, when platforms spend their Australian content dollars, we will finally know whether regional Australians are included. My second amendment creates section 121FZOA, which requires ACMA to publish each annual expenditure report and requires the minister to table those reports in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. If streaming platforms are meeting their obligations, good—let the country see it. If they are not, then parliament, industry and the public should know. Transparency should not be optional. It should not be hidden behind bureaucracy. When companies operate in Australia, earn revenue in Australia and benefit from Australian audiences, they should be accountable to all Australians. And I emphasise that this is not red tape. This is not imposing any new financial burden on platforms. They already track expenditure. My amendment simply requires them to share where it is spent and requires the regulator and the minister to ensure those reports see the light of day. Australian content is more than entertainment; it is how we see ourselves, how our children understand their place in the world and how we preserve our unique culture in the face of overwhelming global media dominance. But, if Australian content is to be truly national, genuinely reflective of who we are, then regional and remote Australians must not be left behind. Creativity does not stop at the edge of a capital city. We have world-class talent right across this country. We have breathtaking landscapes, vibrant communities and compelling stories that deserve a platform. Transparency ensures that that opportunity is spread, not concentrated. These are commonsense amendments. They strengthen accountability, ensure transparency, empower regional Australians and improve this bill without adding unnecessary burden on industry. I commend the amendments to the House and urge the members to support clear, open reporting so that all Australians, from the cities to the bush, benefit from the streaming and screen industries of the future—and I certainly hope that the Leader of the House supports these amendments.
Disability Services | Statements by Members | House debates
I highlight an urgent situation for the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to address concerning specialist disability accommodation potentially ceasing to exist by 31...
I highlight an urgent situation for the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to address concerning specialist disability accommodation potentially ceasing to exist by 31 December, leaving vulnerable Australians homeless. Noreen is a constituent in my electorate of Mallee and is in her mid-80s. Noreen's son lives in a specialist disability accommodation service within my electorate. Noreen's son faces eviction from his specialist accommodation from 1 January due to the Commonwealth squabbling with the Victorian government, whose transitional funding ends this year for those like Noreen's son, who will soon rely exclusively on the NDIS for funding for their home—funding that doesn't go far enough for specialist homes. This feels like the government's aged-care bungling all over again. The Age reported in early September: Thousands of Victorians with profound disabilities face the prospect of eviction from their group homes and the loss of carers they have relied on for years due to a funding stand-off between private providers, the state and the federal government. Where is the minister responsible for this failed handover of accommodation and arrangements? This needs urgent attention.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise as the first shadow minister for regional communications in Australia—yet another principled position the Nationals took to ensure that, in the 21st century, there is a continuous...
I rise as the first shadow minister for regional communications in Australia—yet another principled position the Nationals took to ensure that, in the 21st century, there is a continuous focus on regional connectivity. This bill mandates the production of Australian content, and nothing is more Australian than regional Australia. From The Flying Doctors, filmed in my electorate of Mallee at Minyip, to Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, the star of the show has been the people and the landscapes of regional Australia. As we see the capital cities grow at breakneck pace under Labor governments—federal and state—I come to this debate with an unashamed and strong emphasis on regional Australians. That is why—and I foreshadow—I will be moving an amendment to ensure transparency on how much of the Australian production proposed through this bill will actually occur in regional Australia. Let's remember the regulatory space we have here. Our media regulations were made during the 20th century of television towers and antennas on roofs. Now, builders do not even put antennas on house builds. This is the 21st century, and regulation has not caught up to the reality where many Australians—if not the majority—are digesting the bulk of their news and entertainment over the internet through the NBN broadband internet, 5G, 4G or whatever else they use. Critically, regulation hasn't caught up to the fact that we have strictly regulated the Australian broadcasters while regulation does not effectively touch the international broadcasters such as those this bill seeks to regulate. Australia's media is not a free market. This is a failed market, and the Nationals know about interventions in market failure situations all too well, as we see the need for it time and time again in regional Australia. Free-to-air television broadcasters face many barriers. There are laws and rules that apply to our commercial broadcasters that do not apply to offshore based, streaming, video-on-demand providers. SBODs, or streamers, are free to use the digital airwaves—so to speak—as they wish with no barriers. The bill is an opening step in changing that. How can we, Australian parliamentarians, in good conscience say to Australian broadcasters, 'We'll keep you under red tape but not apply the same or similar red tape to others who broadcast in Australia'? These international broadcasters are swallowing up advertising revenue that keeps Australian broadcasters on air. For example, international broadcasters can run gambling advertising that Australian broadcasters cannot, particularly at times of match play. As I said earlier, we Nationals know all too well about market failure and the need for government to intervene, as we see it all too often in regional Australia. I publicly stated in August that we have a declining regional media and lack of journalists. I don't have one single television journalist based in Mallee—which, I might remind viewers, is Victoria's largest land electorate, a third the size of Victoria. We need to see ourselves on screen and in our news services, but in streaming services as well. Of course, the investment this bill refers to is not for news or sport but for Australian creative content, including documentaries and movies. Having said that, I give a shout-out to the WIN network who, as of Monday this week, resumed news bulletins in Sunraysia, my hometown of Mildura and in Griffith in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. It is wonderful to see ourselves on TV news again. I spoke on WIN News across regional Australia last night, including—I am excited to say again—in Mildura, about streaming platforms, how they minimise their tax in Australia and how commercial broadcasters are not on a level playing field. I'll repeat what I said in August 2024 for the benefit of the House. I haven't had time to update the figures, but this is the tilted playing field we operate in—this blurred online media market space. Apple, who have streaming platform Apple TV, who earned $9.3 billion on Australian shores in the most recent reporting year I have to hand, paid just $137.3 million in tax, which was only 1.5 per cent of their Australian revenues. In 2018, Netflix reportedly had an effective tax rate of 0.05 per cent in Australia, despite $1 billion in revenue, and paid just $342,000 in tax. That figure rose to $868,000 in 2022 but is still far short of its revenue and impact on Australian society. Netflix's tax avoidance smarts aren't limited to Australia. In the USA, during the life of the Trump administration, Netflix paid US$81 million in corporate tax, despite earning $10.5 billion over that period. We've seen the news in the last 24 hours of US officials warning the Commonwealth we could be hit with more tariffs if we keep pushing on the media bargaining incentive—what was the media bargaining code under the coalition government—on the social media bans for under 16s, on this initiative to require Australian content and on more. As elected representatives of Australians as the Australian parliament, it is now our sovereign right and duty to act in the national interest. Let me tell you a few Australian stories streaming platforms might want to look into to fill their Australian content quotas. Regions are out of sight, out of mind for the Albanese Labor government. The radical pursuit of net zero at all costs railroading regional communities—Victorian Labor government said, without offshore wind, 70 per cent of Victorian farmland would be needed. Can you imagine the documentary—the headline? It would play potentially all over the world—railroading of farmers without social licence. On Monday 24 November, the Victorian government issued a draft renewable energy zone order for five onshore renewable energy zones, including several in my electorate. What we know is that, under Victorian Labor, the word 'draft' actually means 'final'. Even though there is apparently a consultation until February, we know that, in Victoria, it means nothing. VicGrid attempted, earlier this month, to access properties at Greens Creek and Bunguluke, in my electorate, using powers the Victorian Labor government energy minister Lily D'Ambrosio gave them. Farmers are starting harvest very shortly. They don't have time to be protesting, but they are because this means so much to them—farmers like Rod Reading and Greg Bladwin, who spoke with Wimmera Mallee News earlier this week about how they face compulsory access from VicGrid in the near future. This is about Australian stories, and all of Australia needs to hear Australian stories—whether it's documentaries, whether it's creative films—and streaming platforms need to invest in Australian stories. That is what this bill is about, and I will be moving amendments to ensure this happens.
Aviation Industry | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) under the Government two regional airlines have collapsed and the domestic aviation sector has become more concentrated with just two airline groups...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) under the Government two regional airlines have collapsed and the domestic aviation sector has become more concentrated with just two airline groups representing 98.3 per cent of the market; (b) major airlines have centralised activities, withdrawing staff, service provision and investment from the regions, closing bases and maintenance facilities in Mildura, Tamworth, Hobart and Canberra; (c) the Government has committed up to $160 million to extend the Regional Express airline in administration but remains unable to guarantee regional services or affordability, nor whether regional creditors will be paid; (d) programs to support regional airlines investing in capital upgrades and security screening services have been withdrawn; and (e) the Government has botched the transition of air services for Australia's island territories; and (2) calls upon the Government to ensure regional Australians retain access to competitive, affordable, sustainable and safe aviation services. Air travel is part and parcel of life in regional Australia. My home town of Mildura is the most remote regional centre in Victoria. It is more than six hours drive from Melbourne and almost 4½ hours drive from Adelaide. Sunraysia's geographical isolation means that there are many instances where road travel takes far too long, is just not appropriate and, can I say, dangerous. Air travel is essential not least to access health care and to visit family and friends but also as a connector and driver for our regional businesses and economies. Under this Labor government, two regional airlines, Bonza and Regional Express, have collapsed, leaving the domestic aviation sector more concentrated than ever. Nationally, just two airline groups, Qantas and Virgin, now represent 98.3 per cent of the market, according to the latest data. This duopoly strangles competition, drives up fares and abandons regional routes to the whims of big city boardrooms. Not only this; also under Labor's watch, major airlines have ruthlessly centralised activities, withdrawing staff, service provision and investment from the regions. Qantas is closing bases and maintenance facilities in Mildura, Tamworth, Hobart and Canberra. In Mildura, Qantas confirmed on 1 October 2025 that it would shut its longstanding pilot and cabin crew base, forcing dozens of loyal local workers, many with decades of service, to relocate to Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane or lose their jobs. This is not progress. It is the deliberate hollowing out of regional Australia. As I said directly to Qantas Link, this decision is a profound insult to the Sunraysia community that has supported Qantas for generations. The government has committed up to $160 million to prop up Rex in administration, yet it remains utterly unable to guarantee ongoing regional services, affordability for passengers or even whether regional creditors, including airports like Mildura, will ever be paid. Instead, we have a Commonwealth grant program, where creditors might hope to be paid. Under Labor, programs designed to support regional airlines with capital upgrades and security screening have been withdrawn without any explanation. And let us not forget how this Labor government has botched the transition of air services for Australia's island territories, including the handover from Virgin Australia to Qantas for Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which commenced only on 3 November 2025 after Virgin services ended on 31 October. This chaotic switchover risked stranding remote communities, disrupted essential freight and passenger links and has had financial implications for small island businesses who have contacted me. One stakeholder told me recently about events on Monday 17 November: … weather stopped Qantas departing, but then all the passengers were effectively left without accommodation. They used to get sent to the ABF accommodation on the island, but this time.. nothing. … sadly- large groups of people, who just experienced a world event of the crab spawning, nature's greatest migration, will only talk about Christmas Island and being delayed, no food at the airport (as Commonwealth won't sign a lease with a supplier) with no accommodation, transport and pouring rain. One of the tour operators ferried people to a restaurant and another purchased food for 30 people! … and the next morning provided a tea and coffee urn. Labor's mismanagement of the flight arrangements to these remote islands yet again highlights this government's inability to manage critical aviation lifelines for our most isolated Australians. The ACCC has repeatedly warned of the dangers of our concentrated airline market—sky-high fares on regional routes, frequent cancellations and reduced reliability. The human cost is devastating: Mildura's patients missing critical medical appointments in Melbourne, businesses struggling to attract staff and families separated by unaffordable flights. These services are not a luxury. They are essential. (Time expired)
Communications, the Arts and Sport Committee; Reference | Committees | House debates
(): I second the motion. I spoke recently in this House about Christine from Cumnock in New South Wales, who had to travel an additional kilometre after a car accident to call triple 0...
(): I second the motion. I spoke recently in this House about Christine from Cumnock in New South Wales, who had to travel an additional kilometre after a car accident to call triple 0 on a landline at a nearby house because she didn't have mobile phone reception. I also mentioned Joe from Meckering in Western Australia, who called in while I was on a Perth radio station, saying he has regular visitors at his home on the transcontinental highway asking to use his landline because, contrary to network indications, there is no mobile phone reception on his section of the highway. Like it or not, landline services remain essential to connectivity in regional Australia. They enable people to access emergency services in times of need. They give people the ability to work or run a business, access health care and essential government services, and maintain social connection. Affordable fixed-line voice services—in other words, landline services—may no longer rely on the copper wiring, but the fixed voice services remain critically important. Mobile connectivity remains sketchy at best in large swathes of regional Australia, and it has been made worse by this Labor government's abysmal failure to manage the 3G network shutdown effectively. While the country has been rightly shocked at the devastatingly tragic outcomes of Optus's recent triple 0 outage—and I hear there has been another one this afternoon—I feel compelled to highlight the fact that large parts of our vast country have no access to triple 0 at all on their mobile phones. That is because they don't have any mobile phone service. The point is often overlooked, but it is not lost on people who live in the regions. Thankfully, redundancy has been built into the telecommunications system for the most part, due to legislative provisions like the universal service obligation and the statutory infrastructure provider regime, to ensure minimum service levels for fixed voice and high-speed broadband. The Nationals are acutely aware of the urgent need to update the USO and the SIP for this day and age, and landlines currently remain vital for regional connectivity. I turn now to the text of the motion that my colleague has brought and to the ACCC's draft determination on declared voice interconnection services, including the fixed terminating access service, FTAS; the fixed originating access service, FOAS; and the mobile terminating access service, MTAS. As explained by the shadow minister for communications, the ACCC's determination varies the fees charged when a customer on one telecommunications network calls a customer on another for the handover of that call. Stakeholders, including fixed-only providers, have expressed concern that the ACCC's proposed reductions could undermine service continuity, competition and investment in these essential networks. Communities that are most at risk of being impacted by the ACCC's draft proposal are—and I know this will shock the House!—those in regional and remote areas— An honourable member: There's a theme there. there is theme—where there is limited redundancy in the system. I am concerned about what this ruling could mean for competition. While the ruling theoretically entices new market entrants, it jeopardises the viability of existing smaller operators that have footprints and staff in Australia already. Australia has, arguably, the most concentrated telecommunications market in the developed world. Given that the ACCC's remit is to promote competition, protect consumers, support fair trading and regulate national infrastructure to make markets work for everyone, why propose changes to network charges that hinge on a hypothetical rather than reality and potentially reduce competition? It makes no sense to me. Two submissions to the inquiry—Aussie Broadband and Venture Insights—model that the draft determination equates to a 75.6 per cent reduction in the fixed termination rate, which they say would disproportionately hit fixed-only providers and erode competition. The size of the proposed fee reduction and the speed at which it would be implemented poses a significant threat—a threat large enough to compromise business viability and trigger flight from the market. I highlight that these recommendations— (Time expired)
Regional Australia | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
That's right, everybody knows what I'm talking about. They're going back to those because they haven't got connectivity. This is a huge problem and it's on this government's watch. What are they...
That's right, everybody knows what I'm talking about. They're going back to those because they haven't got connectivity. This is a huge problem and it's on this government's watch. What are they doing about it? They've got Accenture doing a report and a review with some mapping using Australia Post trucks. That'll be excellent! The report will come out in 2027. Thank you for that. In the meantime, three years will go by and people won't have connectivity and will have to find other means and ways to call their loved ones or call 000 when they need it. It is seriously and absolutely not good enough, and it is completely on this government's watch that these failures have taken place. Lastly, I want to briefly reference the hopelessness of the 'reckless renewable rollout'. Brett Hosking of the VFF, whose farm is in the line of TCV, is featured in theWeekly Times. I don't have time to quote him, but I tell you what: Labor should look his story up.
It has been highly entertaining, listening to the minister—my counterpart, in point of fact. I first want to address how this government is devastating regional...
It has been highly entertaining, listening to the minister—my counterpart, in point of fact. I first want to address how this government is devastating regional communities—effectively, abandoning regional communities. I particularly want to point out that the minister's statement regarding the lowering of default speed limits is actually not accurate. I have in front of me the department of infrastructure consultation that we are referring to, which clearly says that—as to this consultation on potentially lowering the default speed limit on sealed and unsealed regional roads which are unmarked—one of the benefits is to reduce fatalities. Nobody is going to dispute that we all want to see fatalities reduced. Also it's to reduce fuel consumption costs. I didn't know they cared! And, thirdly, it's so that emissions from fuel consumption will be lower. Now, seriously! I've heard them say, 'This is not a climate change issue at all.' I'm sorry—as I have said several times this week, this has the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's fingerprints all over it. What this consultation actually shows is that the cost to those who live in the regions is going to be about slower travel time. Really? Is that actually accurate? Yes. Parents will take longer to get their kids to school. Parents will take longer to get their kids to sport. Parents will take longer to take their children to the doctor. This is the cost of this ridiculous notion. Now, I have spoken to the member for Riverina about this very consultation, which, I would like to clearly say, we did not implement, because it is so foolish. I will be very interested to see what the consultation paper—and we called for it to be extended, because it was brought out under the cover of darkness; nobody knew that this consultation was taking place until this last week. It is an incredibly ridiculous notion—to make people in the regions just simply drive slower, rather than expending money on roads. On that point, I would speak to the minister again, although she has left the chamber, and say that, while Labor continually say that they have doubled the dollars to Roads to Recovery, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't happened yet. Like everything, we have a great announcement, but where's the follow-through? The money has not happened. The roads are still broken. And everybody in regional Australia knows it. In terms of how this government has betrayed those who live in the regions, I have to talk about the 3G shutdown. What a debacle! Twelve months ago, on this government's watch, the 3G shutdown occurred. Telstra, Optus, TPG—everybody was involved, but the minister approved the shutdown. The problem was that the promise was made that there would be no harm done and everybody would be fine. The reality is that many, many people—we don't know how many—have no service. They cannot connect. Forget about calling triple 0. That is absolutely not available. People are now putting Starlink on their roofs and finding other ways. They're going back to ham radios—is that what we call the ones truckies use, ham radios? You know what I'm talking about.
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the member for Solomon there will be a 20 per cent decrease in power bills over the next decade?
Stephen Crawford Memorial Golf Day | Constituency Statements | House debates
This Friday, 7 November, the beautiful Riverside Golf Club in Nichols Point, in my electorate of Mallee, will host the Stephen Crawford Memorial Golf Day. The event is run by the local community,...
This Friday, 7 November, the beautiful Riverside Golf Club in Nichols Point, in my electorate of Mallee, will host the Stephen Crawford Memorial Golf Day. The event is run by the local community, for local tradies and others, supporting men's health and the Movember Foundation. The golf day, proudly supported by Total Tools Mildura, honours Stephen Crawford, taken too soon by bowel cancer in February 2022. Since the first golf day in 2021, this event has raised more than $100,000 for the Movember Foundation. The Stephen Crawford Memorial Golf Day honours a Total Tools team member's husband, and quickly became something much bigger. Total Tools and the team saw an opportunity to make a real community impact, and they have. It's more than just a golf day; it's a testament to what a small community can achieve when they come together with purpose. The team's efforts were recently recognised with a nomination for a Movember award. I had the pleasure of attending this magnificent charity event for the first time last year, in my previous role as the shadow minister for regional health. I promoted preventive health measures in my electorate, where we have higher morbidity and mortality rates from preventable diseases. I assisted this year by facilitating provision of free health checks via self-service machines provided by SiSU Health. Novo Nordisk has generously funded the provision of these free health checks. The public will be able to come and access a health check even if they are not participating in the golf day—good news for all the wives, perhaps. Another Mildura local taken too soon was Scott Umback, lost in 2019 of a heart attack, aged just 42. His wife, Katrina Umback, is a passionate and driven advocate for improving access to preventive care for men to ensure others do not experience the same loss she and her boys have endured. Katrina teamed up with La Trobe University to secure a Medical Research Future Fund grant to research and co-design a kit for rural Australians to check their heart health at home. The kit features portable devices for measuring blood pressure, fasting glucose and cholesterol. Katrina says: This study is a gamechanger for rural and regional Australians, especially those in a city like Mildura, with no Catheterisation Lab or accessible heart disease screening programs. I'm looking forward to being out at Nichols Point again on Friday morning, promoting preventive heart health and men's health in Sunraysia.
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
This bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, and the related bills come as we grapple as a nation with tumbling productivity. Under Labor productivity is down five per cent. Green tape...
This bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, and the related bills come as we grapple as a nation with tumbling productivity. Under Labor productivity is down five per cent. Green tape has been identified as a major impediment to major projects going ahead. On this side of the House we are concerned this bill package is introducing even more green tape, not less. I'll talk further about productivity in a moment, but I want to begin by talking about what the Nationals put forward on Sunday, just days ago, as sensible energy and, in turn, environmental policy. As part of our proposal for cheaper, fairer and better energy, we will do environmental stewardship our way. We will reward landholders for regenerating their land. We will strengthen Australians' connection to nature through use, not locking farmers out. We will expand access to nature for recreation, hunting and fishing. We will empower local communities to lead real environmental action. The Nationals will bring back the Emissions Reduction Fund, which rewarded farmers, landowners, communities and industries for finding smart ways to cut emissions, such as planting trees and improving soil. The potential to store carbon through these initiatives is significant and can alleviate the burden of our energy system to reach better environmental outcomes. We all know Labor can't reach their 2030, 2035 or 2050 emissions reduction targets—it's fantasy. Labor are throwing regional Australia under the bus so the Prime Minister and the climate change minister can strut at an international climate conference. There's no problem for Aussies at home, apparently. Those opposite like to paint regional Australians as dopey, but I surveyed over 5,000 of my Mallee electorate voters, and they have worked this government out. A total of 67 per cent of them oppose net zero by 2050, while 82 per cent do not want to pay more than $50 a year for it. Well, what they don't understand is that they're already paying far more than that every year. Net zero has been a drag on our productivity because energy is the economy—we keep saying it. It is not the cheapest form of electricity, and a rapidly growing number of Australians know it. On productivity, today the Reserve Bank of Australia kept interest rates on hold and we saw the RBA recently downgrade its productivity estimates to 0.7 per cent a year, rather than one per cent. The RBA advice from August, which they put in bold type, said: Productivity is the key driver of growth in living standards over time. The cry I hear all the time from every sector is to 'please reduce red and green tape'. Yet this bill package comes with pages that are double the size of this year's budget papers. Can you imagine? Is it workable or does it create a lawyer's picnic—or, let's face it, a banquet—where lawfare already bogs down our productive economy? It's a rhetorical question. We're also being asked to debate this bill package today, despite an approximate 1,500 pages to consider, and a bill introduced on 29 October, just six days ago. The government wants this bill package through this House and passed by the end of the year, even though a Senate inquiry is underway and will not report until March 2026. Just to be clear, we have one week and two days left of sitting. In my electorate of Mallee, I've had to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face that farmers are environmentalists. They care about their local environment. They are not the villains that others make them out to be in the environment debate. Concerning this package of bills, on 30 October the National Farmers' Federation said: Farmers manage more than half of Australia's landmass. They live and breathe environmental stewardship every day … Their budget depends on it. The welfare of their animals depends on it. Their crops depend on it. In fact, farmers and regional community members have come to me very upset about the destruction of migratory bird, snake and other habitats—in the name of what? Saving the planet, would you believe! When it comes to the environment in Mallee, we have seen the environment thrown under the bus because of Labor's reckless renewables-only energy approach to reach unattainable energy targets, creating immense environmental, social and economic harm—and I've spoken to two farmers this evening about this very fact. In my home state of Victoria, in the electorate of Mallee, we have seen community concerns about the environment tossed to one side because the Allan Labor government—who are delusional about the future of gas in our energy mix—claim there's no gas onshore. They gaslight Victorians that it's renewables or bust. It isn't. And who's busting under Labor? It's regional Australians, their concerns about the environment set to one side, with the minister wielding enhanced powers to sideline proper planning processes in order to force transmission lines, wind turbines and blanket solar panels onto regional communities. And that's without adding in mining. I refer again to the NFF statement on 30 October. They say: Concepts like bioregional planning, offsets, net gain and 'unacceptable impact' tests need to be properly explained and practically tested. Otherwise, we risk creating confusion and unintended consequences. Further, we are very concerned about fast-tracking renewables, critical minerals or housing developments that could target agricultural land. Any push for projects impacting agriculture must come with genuine consultation with farmers and regional communities. We must get the balance right between achieving environmental outcomes, social licence and keeping farmland in production. Well, how sensible is that! I want to zero in on key phrases there that get lip-service from those opposite: social licence and genuine consultation. Labor's track record on this front is absolutely abysmal. Labor's version of consultation on their reckless rollout of renewables is a toot of the horn, if you're lucky, before the policy bulldozer comes rolling through your gate and onto your property—and farmers in my electorate know this. Make no mistake. We need to reform the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As a coalition of parties that represents and listens to regional committees, small businesses and Australian businesses, the coalition are the best agents to reform the act. That's why, when she was Minister for the Environment, the now leader of the opposition commissioned the Samuel review in 2020—to frame the debate. The home truths about the need to reform environmental laws in the name of productivity and jobs have claimed one minister, Minister Plibersek, and now have the current minister for the environment and water, Minister Watt, hoping he doesn't get rolled by a Labor premier like Premier Cook in Western Australia—as his predecessor did. I was in Western Australia last month, and, let me tell you, they are very happy that the resources industry is getting a fair go. A woman in Broome, quite unprompted, urged me to crack on with Woodside opening up development in the state. She believes it will deliver more jobs and opportunities for all Western Australians. I have to add that we also have a serious fuel security problem. Productivity is one thing; our national security is another, and that is why a workable, national interest test through this legislation is critical. Australia's fuel reserves are critically low, with a reported 28 days of petrol left, according to reports last month, and just one months worth of jet fuel or diesel in storage. Leaving aside the existing contractual arrangements for fuel exports, we need to ensure we have a domestic fuel supply chain. Much as Minister Bowen might cross his fingers and hope otherwise while he throws eye-watering amounts of subsidies at Australians who can already afford to buy an EV, the reality is EV take-up targets will not be met. Labor are absolutely hopeless at picking winners. Consumer demand is not enticed by the subsidies. They want hybrids or diesel vehicles, particularly the latter in regional Australia. We need to fully investigate biofuels, not just for our aviation sector but as a potential addition or even substitute for petrol or diesel. Tractors, harvesters, mining machinery and many more types of productivity-driving machinery cannot abide the glorious coming of Bowen's batteries. Productivity depends on fuel, and we have dangerously small amounts of it on shore. Coalition governments understand productivity and job creation, and the resources sector is the economic golden goose in Western Australia that delivers them marvellous royalties and relative economic security. The construction on the Burrup Peninsula is a marvel to see, and it's an economic miracle that development has proceeded given the lawfare engaged in by groups like the disgraced Environmental Defenders Office, which Labor to this day continues to fund with taxpayer money. What a disgrace—an estimated $15 million by the end of this decade. Labor has not fully investigated the significant funding that the EDO receives from donors around the world and whether its connections to any of a vast network of international donors have breached Australia's foreign interference laws. In January 2024, the Federal Court outed the EDO for its conduct and activities in a Federal Court case relating to Santos's pursuit of its Barossa gas pipeline project—the infamous songlines case. Justice Natalie Charlesworth found that the EDO's legal team disgracefully manipulated and coached a number of witnesses and fabricated evidence in the case, and their claims were so lacking in integrity that no weight could be placed on them. Given Labor's form with the EDO, it is a worry that it might enable a potentially activist new National Environmental Protection Agency, if the vetting process isn't up to scratch, to be unaccountable to the minister. As one major stakeholder told me on Friday, constant unjustified lawfare is the No. 1 enemy of industry, with endless lawsuits and stop-work orders making industry unviable. We need to be vigilant when the prospect is a Labor-Greens slapdash deal before Christmas. The last thing Australian productivity and job-creating businesses need is more green tape, not less. On this Melbourne Cup Day, Labor has a shocking record for picking winners, and I won't apologise for holding this Labor government accountable so we get this right in the national interest. The last thing Australia needs is for Labor to claim they have a winner because they hobbled the productivity horses. Basically, this legislation can only be described as a 6-7.
Telecommunications | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the 3G telecommunications network was switched off on the Government's watch in 2024; (b) the interim report of the Senate inquiry into the shutdown...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the 3G telecommunications network was switched off on the Government's watch in 2024; (b) the interim report of the Senate inquiry into the shutdown made clear recommendations about the impending shutdown, recommending that the Government delay the shutdown until it was satisfied that 'the 4G network provides coverage equivalent to or better than the coverage provided by the licensee's 3G network'; (c) the Government relied on the assurances of commercial operators to ensure equivalent mobile coverage after the shutdown but despite promises, regional Australians have been detrimentally affected and thousands of consumers have been left with worse, or no, coverage at all; (d) furthermore, there have been reports of poor handling of consumer complaints about their loss of service post 3G shutdown; and (e) the Government has failed to take responsibility for the fallout of the 3G shutdown in regional Australia, and its response to the final report by the Senate into the shutdown was again lazy and noncommittal, failing to agree to any new actions; and (2) calls upon the Minister for Communications to take responsibility for the botched 3G shutdown and its impact on the connectivity of regional Australians by: (a) providing transparency regarding the crowdsourcing component of the National Audit of Mobile Coverage and expanding it to include off-road areas (including on private land such as farming and grazing properties) to ensure an accurate picture of the impact of the shutdown on mobile coverage is attained; and (b) thoroughly addressing the first recommendation of the final Senate inquiry report to 'establish a program to help customers that have lost mobile phone coverage since the 3G shutoff'. The shutdown of the 3G telecommunications network in 2024 has been nothing short of a disaster for regional communities, and the government's response has been woefully inadequate. I rise today to speak on behalf of regional Australians across this country, who have been left behind again by the Albanese Labor government when it comes to access to telecommunications services. Let me be clear: while the decision to shut down the 3G network was made by commercial operators—TPG in January 2024, followed by Optus and Telstra in October—it was the Albanese government's responsibility to ensure that regional Australians would not be worse off. The Senate inquiry into the shutdown made that abundantly clear. The government should have delayed the shutdown until it was satisfied that the 4G network provided coverage equivalent to, or better than, 3G. But, instead of taking action, the government relied on the promises of telcos—promises that have proven hollow. Thousands of Australians, particularly in rural and remote areas, now face worse coverage or no coverage at all. Phones drop to SOS mode. Medical alarms have failed. Farmers are left without connectivity on their properties. This is not just inconvenient; it is dangerous. The impacts have been widespread. Devices that relied on 3G, such as ag tech tools, security systems and life-saving medical equipment, have been rendered useless. People are forced to install expensive satellite systems, like Starlink, just to stay connected—all of this during a cost-of-living crisis, where regional Australians pay the same for mobile plans as city dwellers but receive a far inferior service. The government's response to the Senate inquiry's final report was lazy and non-committal. Labor have failed to agree to any new actions. They have failed to take responsibility and they have failed regional Australians. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman received over 51,000 complaints from regional consumers between 2021 and 2024. These complaints ranged from poor service quality and outages to accessibility barriers and unresolved faults. Some constituents have reported faults for years without any improvement. Others were misled into signing up for services that simply don't work where they live. This is unacceptable. The Senate committee made two key recommendations in their final report that must be acted upon immediately by Minister Wells and the Albanese government: The first was to establish a program to help customers who lost mobile coverage due to the 3G shutdown. This program should be co-funded by government and industry and include subsidies for connectivity equipment—boosters, satellite services and replacements for obsolete devices. Secondly, they should expand the national audit of mobile coverage to include off-road areas, including private land such as farms and grazing properties. This data must be collected from consumers, cross-referenced with telco data and published in an accessible format. I call on the Minister for Communications to take responsibility for this botched shutdown. We need transparency, we need action and we need a government that listens and acts for regional Australians. The Prime Minister likes to say, on repeat: 'No-one held back. No-one left behind.' We all know the saying. But every regional Australian knows he doesn't mean it. When it comes to mobile connectivity—a bit like roads—we have been held back; we have been left behind. It is time for the Albanese government to stop ignoring the regions and start fixing the mess they helped create. Regional Australians deserve better. They deserve reliable mobile coverage. They deserve to be heard.
Regional Australia: Roads | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) condemns the Government's lack of transparency in its proposal to slash default regional road speed limits from 100 kilometres per hour to as low as 70 kilometres per...
I move: That this House: (1) condemns the Government's lack of transparency in its proposal to slash default regional road speed limits from 100 kilometres per hour to as low as 70 kilometres per hour, including its attempt to quietly progress the policy without proper public scrutiny; (2) notes that the Government was forced, at the eleventh hour, to extend its abysmally short 28-day consultation period only after strong intervention from the Opposition; (3) warns that the Government's proposal is a lazy, damaging approach that will slow regional Australia to a crawl, and drive up freight times and costs for farmers, transport operators and small businesses; (4) highlights that instead of fixing the roads by funding maintenance for line-marking, road shoulders, rumble strips and pothole repairs, the Government is cutting the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program from 1 July next year; and (5) calls on the Government to commit to consultation and genuine road safety improvements that protect lives without crippling regional productivity and national supply chains. I rise today to speak on an issue that strikes at the very heart of regional Australia: our roads, our livelihoods and our way of life. The Albanese Labor government has quietly launched a proposal to slash the default speed limit on regional roads from 100 kilometres per hour to as low as 70 kilometres. Let me be clear: this is not a road safety initiative. It is lazy, shortsighted policy that punishes regional Australians for the government's failure to maintain our rural roads. This proposal was buried in a consultation process that began on 29 September without a press release, without public engagement and with an abysmally short 28-day window for feedback. It was only after strong pressure from the coalition that the government reluctantly extended the consultation to the standard 42 days. Even then, the extension was made quietly with no announcement—just a subtle change on the departmental website. This is not how good policy is made. This is not how you treat Australian people who are keeping our country moving. Let's be honest about what this proposal really means. It means longer travel times for families trying to get their kids to school, to sport or to the doctor. It means longer travel times and higher freight costs for farmers and small businesses already doing it tough. It means regional tourism takes another hit, as visitors are deterred by longer and slower journeys. And for what? Because the government can't be bothered to fix rural roads. Instead of investing in proper maintenance—line marking, road shoulders, rumble strips, pothole repairs—Labor's solution is to simply slow everyone down. It's a bandaid on a gaping word. It's the easy way out. While the government claims this is about safety, the truth is more ideological. Deep in the detail of the consultation documents, the true motivations for this proposal are revealed: reducing fuel consumption and—guess what—cutting emissions. Now I ask, since when did slowing down regional Australia become foundational to Australia's climate policy? It's clear that Minister Bowen's fingerprints are all over this. Having failed to meet his own unattainable emissions targets, he's now looking for shortcuts, literally. But regional Australians should not be made the scapegoats of Labor's desperate scramble to fudge the numbers. This is not just about speed limits; it's about priorities. And Labor's priorities are clearly to cut funding to the regions, shifting responsibility from their own emission reduction failings, increasing our road toll on their own watch and then hoping no-one notices. Let's look at the facts. The government has cut the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program from July next year. They've cut Commonwealth funding for regional road projects from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. They've scrapped the Roads of Strategic Importance program. Across the nation, more than $30 billion in infrastructure projects have been cancelled, delayed or cut. In New South Wales alone, nearly $6 billion is gone. In Victoria, it's $5.5 billion. In Queensland, it's almost $3 billion. And the list goes on. Regional Australians are not asking for much. They're asking for safe roads. They're asking for fair funding. They're asking to be heard. We do not want to see a single life lost on our roads, but reducing speed limits without fixing roads is not the answer. It's a lazy substitute for real investment and real leadership. So today I call on the government to abandon this misguided proposal. I urge every transport operator, every farmer, every small-business owner and regional council to make their voices heard before the consultation closes on 10 November. We are sending a clear message: regional Australians want and deserve safer roads, not slower roads. We want real solutions, not ideological shortcuts. And, above all, we want a government that listens, invests and respects the people who keep this country running.