Sophie Scamps's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 7 to 11), omit subsection 84AAM(4), substitute: (4) The requirements...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 7 to 11), omit subsection 84AAM(4), substitute: (4) The requirements determined under subsection (3) must include the following: (a) a requirement to hold particular qualifications in nursing; (b) a requirement to have particular experience in nursing; (c) a requirement to be endorsed by a particular body. (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 17), after "The approval is subject to", insert "the condition that the eligible nurse prescriber does not prescribe Therapeutic Goods Administration Schedule 8 medications and". (3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (after line 11), after section 84AAN, insert: 84AANA Additional requirements for authorised nurse prescribers (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine requirements that authorised nurse prescribers must meet. (2) The requirements may relate to: (a) participating in relevant real time prescription monitoring; or (b) making contributions to the National Medicines Record. (4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 28), at the end of subsection 84AAP(1), add: ; or (e) has failed to meet a requirement determined under section 84AANA. I wholeheartedly support the intention of this bill, as it responds to a clear need to improve access to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medications, ease workforce pressures and provide better access to health care for people living in rural and remote areas of Australia. However, serious concerns have been raised by key medical professional bodies regarding elements of this legislation. The amendments I have moved today seek to address those concerns. Both the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association have expressed strong reservations about the bill in its current form. Their concerns go directly to whether the framework provides adequate protections for patients. Specifically, these amendments address three main concerns, including, firstly, that designated nurse prescribers should not be permitted to prescribe schedule 8 medicines, otherwise known as drugs of addiction, under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; secondly, that there is currently no requirement for an eligible nurse prescriber to participate in real-time prescription monitoring or to contribute to the national medicines record; and, thirdly, that, unamended, the bill allows the minister to determine eligibility as a nurse prescriber by reference to one or more professional requirements, rather than requiring that all relevant clinical and professional standards be met. The amendments I'm moving today will do three things. Firstly, they specify that designated nurse prescribers cannot prescribe schedule 8 medicines under the PBS, making this a condition on the minister's power under section 84AA. This is a strong recommendation of both the RACGP and the AMA. Schedule 8 medicines are classified as controlled drugs and include opioids such as morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, which carry a high potential for misuse, dependence, addiction and harm. These drugs are subject to strict regulatory controls. Nurse practitioners are authorised health practitioners within collaborative prescribing frameworks. However, they do not possess the same depth or breadth of training as medical practitioners. Training in pharmacology, diagnostics, interpretation of test results and ongoing medication monitoring differs significantly between nurse practitioners and general practitioners. For this reason, the range of medicines that may be prescribed by nurse practitioners or nurse prescribers must be carefully balanced to ensure prescribing remains safe and appropriate. Given the high misuse potential associated with controlled drugs and the risk of increased fragmentation of care, schedule 8 medicines—the most dangerous and addictive drugs—should be excluded from the list of medicines that nurse practitioners can prescribe under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. These amendments would do just that. Secondly, these amendments require that all the professional conduct attributes listed in section 84AAM form part of the definition of an eligible nurse prescriber. As the bill is currently drafted, the minister may determine eligibility by reference to one or more of these attributes. However, professional medical bodies would reasonably expect all nurse prescribers to meet all these requirements as a matter of course, including holding particular qualifications in nursing, having particular experience in nursing and being endorsed by a specified professional body. Thirdly, the amendments add further safeguards by requiring nurse prescribers to participate in relevant real-time prescription monitoring systems and to make contributions to the national medicines record. Real-time prescription monitoring plays a critical role in identifying and preventing prescription misuse, prescriber shopping and unsafe combinations of medications, particularly where controlled drugs are involved. These amendments respond directly to the concerns raised by professional medical bodies and ensure that any expansion of prescribing authority under the bill is balanced by robust and appropriate safeguards. Of course, it must be made easier and more affordable for people to access the prescriptions and treatments they need; equity of access to health care is an essential goal. However, it is also essential that we do not cause unintended harm by undermining patient safety. We must ensure we maintain a safe, strong and well-regulated medical system.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable...
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable registered nurses, or RNs, who meet specified criteria to prescribe certain medications under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The bill implements reforms identified by the government's Strengthening Medicare Taskforce and Unleashing the potential of our health workforce: scope of practice review. These explored the system changes and improvements needed to support health professionals and multidisciplinary team members to work at their full scope of practice. The aim is to deliver best practice primary health care. The Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation has welcomed this bill that removes barriers and finally allows highly qualified nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives to work autonomously to their full scope, providing people with better access to quality care without the need to visit their GP or a hospital emergency department. The federation has pointed to the success of nurse led clinics in Tasmania and the ACT that have empowered more nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives to work to their full skill set, thereby expanding the provision of health care in those communities. There is a clear need to enable future designated nurse prescribers to prescribe PBS medications within their scope of practice and as part of collaborative prescribing agreements. However, despite endorsing the intentions of this bill, serious concerns have been raised by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the RACGP, and the Australian Medical Association, the AMA. Both of these professional medical bodies believe this bill, in its current form, does not provide sufficient protection for patients. Specific concerns include, firstly, that designated nurse prescribers should not be able to prescribe schedule 8 medicines, otherwise known as drugs of addiction, under the PBS; secondly, that there is no requirement for an eligible nurse prescriber to undertake relevant, real-time prescription monitoring or to make contributions to the national medicines record; thirdly, that PBS prescribing reforms should not occur before nurse practitioner accreditation standards scope boundaries and professional safeguards are finalised; and, lastly, that the definition of an authorised practitioner is not limited to a medical practitioner, which poses the risk of unintended consequences, including cross-jurisdictional inconsistency and safety gaps. Currently in Australia, to be able to prescribe medications, a health practitioner must meet certain criteria, including having completed accredited prescribing education and training that is consistent with their scope of practice, being registered with the national board of their speciality, being approved under the National Health Act 1953 for prescriptions of PBS or Repatriation PBS medicines, and being approved under relevant state and territory legislation and regulation. In September last year, a new registration standard for nurse practitioner prescribing came into effect under AHPRA, the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency. This standard, called the 'endorsement for scheduled medicines—designated registered nurse prescriber', sets out how suitably qualified RNs can qualify to prescribe scheduled medicines 2, 3, 4 and 8 in partnership with an authorised health practitioner. The Australian College of Nursing has stated that this standard aligns Australian nursing with international best practice, following successful implementation in countries such as New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. The intent of this bill, and the expansion of the integral role that nurse practitioners play in healthcare delivery, has also been welcomed by professional doctors' groups, including the RACGP and the AMA. However, as previously mentioned, these professional medical bodies also have several serious concerns with this bill in its current form. Neither group supports the prescription of schedule 8 medicines by designated nurse prescribers. Schedule 8 medicines are those that have a high potential for abuse, dependence, addiction and harm, including opioids like morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl. The RACGP and the AMA recommend the bill explicitly prohibit designated nurse prescribers from prescribing schedule 8 medications. With my 20 years of experience as a GP and emergency doctor, I wholly concur that there is serious risk in significantly expanding the number of prescribers of S8 drugs. There can be enormous pressure for prescribers to provide scripts for these drugs of addiction. Some people will go to extreme lengths to ensure their stories are highly convincing and backed with manufactured evidence. Increasing the number of people who can prescribe these addictive medications, paired with a possible fragmentation of patient care, will mean more opportunities for these medications to be erroneously prescribed. Another serious risk identified by the RACGP is the absence of a requirement that nurse prescribers undertake real-time prescription monitoring—a national system designed to monitor the prescribing and dispensing of controlled medicines with the aim of reducing their misuse in Australia. This should be absolutely necessary. The RACGP has also raised the concern that the definition of an 'authorised practitioner' is not limited to medical practitioners. This poses a risk of unintended consequences, including cross-jurisdictional inconsistency and safety gaps. While nurse practitioners would be classified as authorised health practitioners within prescribed agreement frameworks, the RACGP points out that nurses do not undergo the same breadth or depth of training as medical practitioners, including in pharmacology, diagnosis, the interpretation of tests and medication monitoring. As such, the RACGP urge that the medicines prescribed by nurse practitioners need to be carefully selected to ensure patient safety is maintained. Because state and territory legislation defines who can prescribe what, the RACGP and the AMA warn that a vague 'authorised practitioner' label will create cross-jurisdictional inconsistency and safety gaps. They assert that the definition is too broad and ambiguous and that supervising or partner prescribers must have extensive prescribing experience. In practice, these prescribers should be medical practitioners—not a wider group that could include other, non-medical practitioners. Prescribing agreements for designated RN prescribers must clearly document the roles of the RN and the authorised practitioner. There needs to be clarity that this role is medically led and auditable by the organisations in which designated RN prescribers work and/or by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. Where RN endorsement involves mentoring, there must be certainty that the mentors are clearly qualified for broad prescribing and are accountable within robust clinical governance. While the College of GPs support strengthening the Professional Services Review to ensure consistent oversight of designated RN prescribers, they warn that proceeding with PBS prescribing reforms before nurse practitioner accreditation standards, scope boundaries and professional safeguards are finalised would risk undermining patient safety and the integrity of collaborative care models. The college also warns that reforms to nurse practitioner accreditation standards have removed some of the existing safeguards. This includes the abolition of collaborative arrangements which legally required nurse practitioners and midwives to work in structured partnership with medical practitioners. This mandatory requirement was abolished in November 2024. Admission criteria to nurse practitioner training programs have also been relaxed significantly to reduce the prerequisite total hours of clinical and advanced nursing experience as an RN. Of particular concern is the proposal for nurse practitioners to be subject to only 30 hours of continuing professional development annually. This does not align with the minimum 50 hours of continuing professional development annually that GPs must undertake. The AMA has also consistently advocated that any prescribing of schedule 2, 3 or 4 medications must only occur within medically led, delegated team environments and always under an active prescribing agreement with a medical practitioner. While the AMA notes that not all their concerns have been addressed, they acknowledge that the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia has incorporated several important safeguards into the national prescribing framework introduced under the new registration standard. These include that designated RN prescribers, firstly, can only prescribe a limited range of medicines only for defined conditions and only within their scope of practice; must have at least 5,000 hours of recent clinical experience; and must complete an Australian Qualifications Framework level 8 qualification and have accredited training aligned with predetermined competencies. They must also have a six-month mentorship and a documented collaboration protocol within the prescribing agreement. The AMA also joins the RACGP in its concern that the bill does not clearly define the term 'authorised health practitioner'. They are concerned that one of the approval criteria allows prescribing agreements to be established with one or more PBS prescribers. This potentially opens the door for non-medical practitioners, including pharmacists or podiatrists, to act in this supervisory role in the future. The AMA argues strongly that only medical practitioners or nurse practitioners acting within their scope are suitably qualified to supervise prescribing. The AMA warns that permitting agreements with other professions risks undermining the collaborative model. They stress that doctors and nurses need to work together within defined protocols and safeguards. When care moves away from collaboration towards independent prescribing, risks multiply due to the fragmentation of care, gaps in clinical oversight and reduced continuity of care for patients. What is clear from the evidence presented by both the RACGP and the AMA is that prescribing is not an administrative function; it is a clinical responsibility grounded in deep training, broad diagnostic expertise and ongoing professional oversight. Australians rightly expect that the medicines they are prescribed, particularly higher-risk medications, are supported by robust safeguards and delivered within a model of care that protects continuity, safety and accountability. I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of this bill to expand access and support a more flexible and responsive primary healthcare workforce. But intent alone is not enough. It is one thing to extend access to medical care, but we must absolutely be resolute in ensuring that this greater access does not undermine patient safety and outcomes. For these reforms to succeed, the safety concerns of professional medical bodies with deep experience in the field of prescribing and patient care must be heeded, and the safeguards they urge must be implemented.
Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Business | House debates
Yes, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Curtin for moving this motion and also Senator Thorpe for moving it in the other place. It is only by sheer luck that a bomb lobbed into the thick of a crowd at a peaceful...
I thank the member for Curtin for moving this motion and also Senator Thorpe for moving it in the other place. It is only by sheer luck that a bomb lobbed into the thick of a crowd at a peaceful rally of First Nations people in Boorloo on 26 January did not detonate, and it was only sheer luck that nobody was killed or seriously injured. This deeply disturbing event and the following response, or lack of it, raises many concerns and questions that need scrutiny and a response. The reality is a home-made bomb was thrown into a peaceful public gathering where families, elders and children were present, gathering in a way that was their democratic right to express their own views. This was a potential mass casualty event and it was avoided not because the risks were managed but because the device failed. And yet, in the aftermath, the response from much of the political leadership and media was muted to the point of seeming indifference. Of particular note was the fact that the leader of Western Australia's opposition Liberal Party, Basil Zempilas, took three days to even mention it publicly. Where was the outrage? Where was the urgency, the clear and immediate condemnation, the sustained attention and the decisive action? Instead, there was minimisation and there was delay. It was only after First Nations leaders and communities pushed for answers that WA Police confirmed they were investigating the incident as a potential act of terrorism, but that response did not seem to happen automatically—it had to be demanded—and that should concern us. This incident reflects how far racial hatred against our First Nations people has been allowed to mushroom, and how emboldened people now feel to act on it. The slow and muted response is also sadly indicative of the institutionalisation of racism against our First Nations people, and this incident has not happened in isolation. The attempted bombing at the Invasion Day rally at Boorloo follows a pattern of racism and violence directed at our First Nations people that so often does not make it into the media as it should and does not receive the response that it should. Just last year in August, the Neo-Nazi attack on the Camp Sovereignty in Naarm, a sacred Indigenous site for healing, ceremony and protest, was similarly muted. Four people were injured that day, two seriously, with head injuries requiring hospitalisation. Again, this incident was initially underreported and minimised. The City of Melbourne had been warned of the potential threat against that camp, but those who made that warning received no response. These events reflect an escalation in racism and threats against First Nations people that too often goes unnamed. Too often it is left to First Nations people themselves to fight for the recognition of the seriousness of these attacks, to ensure they are not again overlooked by the media, politicians and law enforcement, and to force a response that should have come immediately and automatically. There is a clear step that the government can take. More than a year ago, the National Anti-Racism Framework was delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission. It sets out practical measures that can be used to address racism against First Nations peoples: truth-telling for First Nations people, support for self-determination, a nationally recognised definition for First Nations cultural safety and coordinated action across health, media, justice, the arts and data. It recognises that racism in Australia is systemic and structural. The government hasn't yet responded to this proposal, it has not yet funded the framework and it has not yet implemented it. That is a decision. If the government is serious about preventing violence against Australia's First Nations people, rather than simply reacting when it nearly costs lives, then it should urgently fund and implement the National Anti-Racism Framework in partnership with First Nations communities across the country.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 22 (after line 19), after paragraph 114B.4(1)(a), insert: (aa) either: (i) the person...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 22 (after line 19), after paragraph 114B.4(1)(a), insert: (aa) either: (i) the person intends the training to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or (ii) the training is likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and (2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 23 (after line 9), after paragraph 114B.5(1)(a), insert: (aa) either: (i) the person intends the funds to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or (ii) the funds are likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and (3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 24 (after line 15), after paragraph 114B.6(1)(a), insert: (aa) either: (i) the person intends the support or resources to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or (ii) the support or resources are likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and All Australians, including Jewish people, have the human right to feel safe in Australia, and, over the last two years, we've witnessed a deeply troubling escalation in antisemitism that has left many Jewish Australians feeling vulnerable to violence in their own communities. This bill seeks to respond to that reality. Whilst I fully support efforts to criminalise the incitement of racial hatred and to prohibit organisations that actively promote or encourage such hatred—these are important and necessary steps—we must also, while seeking to protect one right, ensure that we do not erode others. Our response must be proportionate, well calibrated and firmly grounded in human rights principles. I note the rushed nature of this debate and the lack of time in being able to get across this bill adequately, as well as the compressed nature of the bill. I also note that I had a second reading amendment that I would have liked to have introduced, but debate was curtailed, so I was not able to do that. That amendment noted that the Australian Human Rights Commission introduced a National Anti-Racism Framework in November of 2024 and the government has not responded. During the very limited consultation on the original exposure draft, numerous significant concerns have been raised, including by the Australian Human Right Commissioner. Many of those concerns remain unresolved in the current version of this bill. One particular area of concern relates to the proposed prohibited hate groups framework. As identified by the Australian Human Rights Commission, this framework is overly broad, lacks essential procedural fairness and risks criminalising people on the basis of association rather than on their conduct or their intention. It is this critical aspect of the bill that this amendment addresses. In criminalising a wide array of activities, such as attending training or providing support after a group has been listed without clear evidentiary thresholds or fair-listing processes, the laws could capture people engaged in an activity that had nothing to do with promoting hatred or violence. Under this bill, a person could be prosecuted simply for receiving training from a listed organisation, even if the training had no connection to hate motivated conduct and the individual had no intention to be involved in hate motivated conduct. The threshold is extremely low for offences of such gravity. Remember that this could result in a person spending several years in jail. This amendment clarifies that offences relating to training, funding or support would apply only where the conduct is intended to facilitate or is likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime. This amendment responds to the recommendation of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It provides better balance, better targeting and better alignment with human rights principles, and, for that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert: (2) Schedule 2, page 86 (after line 6), at the end of the...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert: (2) Schedule 2, page 86 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 8 — National Firearms Safety Council 217 National Firearms Safety Council There is established a National Firearms Safety Council (the Council). 218 Constitution of the Council The Council is to consist of: (a) the Chair; and (b) at least 7, but no more than 10 appointed members. 219 Function of the Council The function of the Council is to provide independent, evidence-based policy advice to governments on any matter relating to firearms and harms that may arise from their use by: (a) collecting, analysing and publishing national firearms data, including licence and firearms numbers and types, firearms categorisation, firearms access laws and practices, and trends across jurisdictions, through regular public reporting; and (b) commissioning and coordinating public health and criminological research into firearms-related harm, including suicide, domestic and family violence, accidental shootings, theft, and crimes of violence; and (c) developing national best-practice standards and benchmarks for firearms regulation, including licensing, storage, training, inspections, and risk screening; and (d) monitoring and reporting annually to the Parliament on jurisdictional compliance with the National Firearms Agreement, and the effectiveness of legal frameworks for the regulation of firearms in Australia, including identifying regulatory failures and making recommendations; and (e) identifying conflicts of interest and regulatory capture risks; and (f) promoting transparency and integrity in firearms governance and advisory processes; and (g) developing harm prevention and education initiatives; and (h) other matters as requested by the Minister. 220 Appointment of Council members (1) Each Council member is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument, on a part-time basis. (2) An appointed member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 4 years. Considerations of appointment (3) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Council unless: (a) the Minister first appoints a selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and (b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria: (i) the person has substantial expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following: (A) injury prevention; (B) public health; (C) policing; (D) public or community safety; (E) domestic and family violence; (F) suicide prevention; (G) invasive species; (H) regulatory policy; (ii) integrity; (iii) does not have a current or previous interest in, or represents or has previously represented, any industry, business, organisation or person that has or may benefit financially from changes to firearms regulation, or has a commercial interest in such matters; and (c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and (d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c). 221 Chair of Council The Minister must appoint a Council member to be the Chair of the Council if that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subitem 220(3). Today I'm introducing an amendment to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 that would require the government to establish a national firearms safety council based on the principles of public health and public safety. Australia's firearm management framework, forged in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996, is recognised around the world for saving lives. But, for almost 30 years, our laws have not evolved to keep pace with changes in firearm technology, patterns of ownership or emerging risk factors. Regulatory approaches between states and territories have drifted apart, and national oversight mechanisms have weakened. Our gun laws are only as strong as our weakest jurisdiction. In the wake of the Bondi attacks, Australians have been alarmed to realise that, since the Port Arthur massacre, firearm ownership has not decreased but grown significantly, with more than one million firearm owners and four million registered guns—a 25 per cent increase from 1996, with some individuals owning over 250 firearms. The rise in licences and guns has occurred especially in urban areas. In my own urban Sydney electorate, there are at least two individuals that have around 200 guns each; they are not dealers or collectors. The recent Bondi attack, with 15 innocent people murdered and many more injured, was a devastating reminder of the consequences when regulatory systems fail. Authorities have confirmed that the weapons used were legally owned. This exposes serious deficiencies in licensing, firearm categorisation oversight and national coordination. The gradual erosion of the National Firearms Agreement has occurred under sustained pressure from powerful vested interests and cashed-up gun lobby groups in Australia. The Bondi tragedy demands a national response to address these failings. A YouGov poll commissioned in December found that 92 per cent of Australians support stronger gun laws. Strong gun laws are not only critical to reducing the potential for massacre events; they are also crucial in the fields of domestic violence and suicide and accidental death prevention. In recent years we've also seen the tragic murders of several police officers in the course of their work. Gun harm is a public health and public safety issue, and yet, to date, the voices of these sectors have been largely drowned out. Whilst I support the provisions in the government's bill to strengthen gun laws today, we must also ensure that, over the years, our National Firearms Agreement evolves to remain fit for purpose. That's why I'm proposing the establishment of an independent, evidence based national firearms safety council, a body designed to ensure Australia's firearm laws continue to evolve and keep Australians safe. Australia must not wait until the next major tragedy before again taking action. This proposal stems from the work of the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, which includes Gun Control Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Alannah & Madeline Foundation. It would embed community voices, public health expertise and transparency into national firearms policy. And, crucially, it would operate independently of industry influence. Among its responsibilities, the council would collect, analyse and publish national firearms data including licence and firearm numbers and types, approvals and refusals, and emerging trends; monitor and report on jurisdictions' compliance with the reformed 2026 National Firearms Agreement, identifying gaps, inconsistencies and regulatory failures; provide independent, evidence based advice to governments; commission and coordinate research into firearm related harm including suicide, family and domestic violence, accidental shootings, theft and crimes of violence; and develop national best-practice standards for licensing, safe storage inspection and risk screening. It would also evaluate firearm access pathways to ensure they do not undermine genuine-needs assessments. It would support community focused harm prevention and report to parliament annually to ensure transparency and accountability. A national firearms safety council would strengthen national coordination and ensure our regulations keep pace with emerging risks and ultimately save lives. These amendments are a practical, evidence based measure that honours Australia's longstanding commitment to preventing gun harm. I commend these amendments to the House and urge all those who care deeply for the safety of Australians to support these amendments.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
The horrific events of Bondi on 14 December marked a heartbreaking end to 2025. That day marked the worst mass shooting in Australia in 30 years. Fifteen innocent people were killed, 40 injured...
The horrific events of Bondi on 14 December marked a heartbreaking end to 2025. That day marked the worst mass shooting in Australia in 30 years. Fifteen innocent people were killed, 40 injured and thousands directly and indirectly impacted by grief and trauma—scars that will be with them for life. On behalf of everyone in Mackellar, on the northern beaches of Sydney, I send our love to the Jewish community and our neighbours in Bondi. We send our deepest condolences to everyone who is grieving. We stand with you in grief, in solidarity and in resolve, and we will not forget. A summer evening that should have been filled with joy has been forever etched in our national memory as a moment of profound shock, horror and loss. This was a sickening act of antisemitic violence that targeted the Australian Jewish community on a day that should have been one of hope for them and a celebration of light prevailing over dark. This is not the Australia we know; it is not the Australia we will accept. All Australians should feel safe and welcome in this country. The day of 14 December was also a day of extraordinary courage and care, heroism and love—love for our neighbours, for fellow Australians, for fellow human beings. So I would like to extend a number of enormous thankyous on behalf of the people of Mackellar. Firstly, thank you from the bottom of our hearts to all the bystanders and first responders who put their own lives at risk to save others that day. I cannot imagine the level of relief of those injured when people arrived to help them so quickly. Our heartfelt thanks go to the police officers, paramedics, ambulance officers, healthcare workers and emergency services. Special thanks must also go to the local lifeguards and lifesavers, many of whom ran into live fire to help. Their bravery and composure saved lives in unimaginable circumstances. Thank you to all the incredibly brave bystanders—people of different faiths and backgrounds—who, against all natural instincts, ran towards danger, not away from it, to respond with courage and compassion. This is the true Aussie spirit, and you made us beyond proud. Amongst the many incredible acts of heroism, I want to make special mention of the actions of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a Syrian born Muslim man who acted to disarm one of the shooters. Like others, he understood full well that he could be killed that day, saying to his cousin, 'I'm going to die. Tell my family I saved people's lives.' Acting out of compassion for his fellow humans, Ahmed not only saved innumerable lives that day but also helped prevent the further fracturing of our social cohesion, by unintentionally preventing the collective blame of an entire community. This is absolutely critical because, as Ali Kadri said in his article on 17 December, identity based suspicion does not make society safer. It fractures trust, deepens resentment and creates the very conditions in which violence becomes more likely. I also want to make special mention of 22-year-old Mackellar local Probationary Constable Jack Hibbert, who graduated just four months earlier. He was one of the first police officers to respond. Even after being critically injured, Jack continued helping others. His actions were driven by an unwavering commitment to protect the community, even at great personal risk. Jack has undergone multiple surgeries and has lost the sight in one eye. Jack helped save lives that day, and all Australians are eternally grateful. Thank you, Jack, for your courage, professionalism and selflessness. In Mackellar we were all so relieved when we heard that Jack had made it home from hospital in time to celebrate Christmas with his family. This tragedy is a stark reminder that we must actively protect our fundamental Australian values of fairness and tolerance. We must renew efforts to eradicate antisemitism and all forms of prejudice. This is a time for unity—to come together and strengthen what is good in this country and not allow hate to weaken us. The day of 14 December displayed the worst of humanity, but it also displayed the best. The countless acts of selflessness and courage showed us that light is stronger than dark after all. On that dark day of 14 December, the light of humanity also blazed powerfully.
Fossil Fuel Industry | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Resources. Minister, more than 80 per cent of Australia's gas is used for exports, tripling domestic gas prices and doubling electricity prices. In 2011,...
My question is to the Minister for Resources. Minister, more than 80 per cent of Australia's gas is used for exports, tripling domestic gas prices and doubling electricity prices. In 2011, Santos's Gladstone LNG joint venture signed export contracts, despite not having sufficient gas reserves, forcing gas to be diverted from the domestic market. Can the minister confirm that this egregious export contract will not be extended beyond 2031 when it expires, as recommended by the ACCC?
Peninsula Senior Citizens Toy Repair Group | Statements by Members | House debates
For the last 50 years the Peninsula Senior Citizens Toy Repair Group in Mackellar have been bringing joy to children locally and around the world by restoring and recycling toys. Last week I...
For the last 50 years the Peninsula Senior Citizens Toy Repair Group in Mackellar have been bringing joy to children locally and around the world by restoring and recycling toys. Last week I thoroughly enjoyed visiting their toy workshop, which is filled to the rooftop with toys, to celebrate their 50th anniversary and to see firsthand the amazing work they do. They held a hugely successful toy drive to mark the occasion. Peninsula toys was established in 1975 with the goal of creating a local organisation that would benefit the community by providing an engaging activity for senior citizens, bringing joy to underprivileged children and contributing to toy recycling efforts, thereby reducing landfill waste. Today, over 30 dedicated retirees, both male and female, devote countless hours each week to ensuring that children in need have access to toys, books, games, puzzles and more. Santa's elves have nothing on peninsula toys, who work all year round distributing thousands of restored and recycled toys to countries such as Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Ghana ,Tonga and Fiji. They also provide toys to drought-stricken farming families through Rotary and Lions clubs, to First Nations communities in Sydney and Brewarrina and to children in hospital. I congratulate them on their 50th birthday and thank them for their dedication and commitment to bringing joy to so many.
Domestic and Family Violence | Constituency Statements | House debates
Yesterday marked the launch of the UN 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. In Australia in 2024, a woman was killed every four days, and intimate partner violence contributes to...
Yesterday marked the launch of the UN 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. In Australia in 2024, a woman was killed every four days, and intimate partner violence contributes to more death and disability in women aged 25 to 44 than any other preventable cause. This is simply astounding. And these are not just numbers; they are lives cut short. The ongoing ramifications of domestic and family violence are devastating. It rips families apart, and the ripple effect on our society is endlessly damaging. In 2024 in my electorate on the northern beaches of Sydney we had the second-highest increased rate of domestic violence related assaults in New South Wales—and these are only the reported cases. This underscores the urgent need for government investment in prevention, culture change and more support and accommodation services, including in Mackellar. The recent, shocking Guardian investigation into the response of Queensland police in the deaths of three women in that state lays bare just how much work there is still to do on changing the culture around domestic and family violence in this country, especially for our frontline responders. In Mackellar, the Northern Beaches Domestic Violence Network brings together local providers and community organisations to support victims-survivors of domestic and family violence. On behalf of the northern beaches community, I extend the most enormous and heartfelt thankyou to you for your tireless care and compassion. These organisations include the Zonta club, the Women's Resilience Centre, Lifeline Northern Beaches, MoWaNa Safe Space and the Northern Beaches Council. Other key members, the Northern Beaches Women's Shelter and Women & Children First, are trusted specialist providers of crisis accommodation for mothers and children fleeing violence. These charitable organisations have delivered thousands of nights of safety and support to those in need, and yet on average both organisations turn away between 40 and 50 families a month due to a lack of capacity. The wait for social housing for families in New South Wales can extend to 10 years. Despite this, across the northern beaches there are only 10 government funded crisis rooms available for women and children escaping domestic violence, and none at all suitable for mothers with boys over 12. For many women and children, sadly, the approaching holiday season does not bring a sense of joy and relief. It brings a heightened sense of fear and a risk of abuse. The wish of many women and children this Christmas is simply to be safe from harm and to know that, if they do reach out for help, it will be there. Quite frankly, it does not seem like much to ask.
Commonwealth Prac Payment | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I too welcome the member for Indi's topic for debate today, because it truly is a matter of public importance. I really appreciate, as well, the contributions from those opposite who obviously...
I too welcome the member for Indi's topic for debate today, because it truly is a matter of public importance. I really appreciate, as well, the contributions from those opposite who obviously have a really strong passion for education and further investment in education as well. But our young people are doing it tough right now, and the lack of financial support for students doing mandatory prac placements is an important aspect of this. Today's generation of students are navigating an environment of high living costs—the costs of rent, groceries, transport and utilities—and this leaves students across the country struggling to make ends meet. On top of these financial challenges, mandatory placements are forcing students into real hardship right now, because of the inability to earn an income over long periods of full-time practical training and because of the need to pay rent, sometimes on top of their usual rent. For many the choice is stark—sacrifice basic needs or jeopardise their education. Too often, young students are skipping meals, living in their cars and making the difficult choice about whether or not to give up on their dreams and drop out of their studies completely. They are being forced into vulnerable situations. This growing economic strain threatens not only student wellbeing and safety but also the sustainability of our future health workforce. The introduction of the Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme on 1 July this year was timely, necessary and very welcome. Supporting nurses, midwives, social workers and teachers during their compulsory placements has been widely welcomed as a positive step towards addressing acute workforce shortages in schools, hospitals and aged care. While this targeted measure aims to boost enrolments and retention in these critical sectors, it disregards comparable placement demands and workforce shortages in other disciplines. For thousands of students undertaking allied health and medical degrees, amongst other things, compulsory unpaid placements mean financial stress, emotional strain and physical exhaustion. And they are not alone; it's also impacting students in veterinary sciences, engineering and agriculture, amongst many others. The focus of our debate today is allied health, so I'm going to read out some testimonials from people who are currently studying medical radiation science, dietetics and occupational therapy—professions vital to medical diagnosis, cancer treatment and chronic disease prevention and management. One student stated: I go without food, and work outside of placement hours to afford accommodation—this cycle is exhausting and restrains my time to study whilst on placement. Another said: Being able to work and support myself during a full time 36-week placement has been virtually impossible and incredibly stressful. It has had a huge impact on my mental health. Another said: I feel extremely burnt out and exhausted and struggle to apply myself on placement academically. Another said: There is an assumption that we all live at home with parents that can afford to support us, when many of us don't. I feel that financial stress has greatly impacted by grades and health over the placements these past three years. I have considered dropping out many times … Lastly, another said: There are people who are living in their car so they can afford to be on placement. These are not isolated stories. They paint a dire picture—students facing homelessness, skipping meals and living in unsafe conditions right now. We are burning out our young people before they even start their careers. How can this be acceptable? By not supporting our allied health and medical students, we are jeopardising the development of the future health workforce Australia desperately needs. Allied health professionals, collectively, are the largest health workforce in primary care. They represent the second-largest clinical workforce in Australia, after nursing and midwifery. Mackellar student Courtney, who is currently on placement in Ballarat as part of her masters of dietetics, said that many allied health students feel that their ineligibility for the prac payment is a kick in the guts that some professions are more valued than others. Let's ensure that no student is forced to choose between living in their car and their education. I urge the government to develop a roadmap that lays out a pathway to add all courses that have mandatory prac components to the scheme, including allied health and medical students. If we fail to act, we not only fail these students, but the future health of our nation.
Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games | Private Members' Business | House debates
I rise in support of the motion brought on by the member for Ryan, and I thank the member for bringing this really important issue to the House. Brisbane and Australia have a huge opportunity...
I rise in support of the motion brought on by the member for Ryan, and I thank the member for bringing this really important issue to the House. Brisbane and Australia have a huge opportunity ahead with the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games. But with that opportunity comes a responsibility to plan well, to plan transparently and to plan with the people who will live with the outcomes and the infrastructure long after the closing ceremony. We don't have to look far to understand what happens when Olympic planning goes wrong. Images of abandoned venues around the world are haunting reminders—vast structures, built at enormous expense, now rusting and empty. In Beijing the iconic birds nest dazzled during the games but has struggled ever since and is largely unused. Athens had little in the way of legacy planning, and many of its venues slipped almost immediately into disuse and disrepair. Even here, in Australia, Sydney's own Olympic Park offers lessons. Despite the excitement and the civic pride of the 2000 games, planning for post games was inadequate, and it was a heavily car-dependent destination from the outset. These shortcomings weren't inevitable but were the result of decisions made without deep community engagement or long-term vision. But there are positive examples too. London's planning for the 2012 games showed what's possible when you start early, listen carefully and think long term. Their games drove major regeneration; accelerated a city-wide transformation that was already underway; and engaged best-practice, environmentally sustainable development. Barcelona did the same for 1992, investing the majority of its funds not in sport but in lasting improvements to the city, successfully integrating a mega-event into long-term urban policy and planning. This led to a sustained economic and cultural benefit for the local community. There are already concerning signs that Brisbane may be missing the opportunity not just to host a great games but to improve the city for decades. Brisbane's initial commitment to host the world's first climate positive Olympic Games has been quietly watered down already, with the phrase 'climate positive' removed from the contract and replaced with softer language. Experts and designers have warned that, without strong oversight, Brisbane risks falling into the same traps other host cities have faced—poor planning, design compromises and infrastructure that creates more problems than it solves. There is a real opportunity here to invest in infrastructure that works for the games and continues serving local people well after 2032, both in Brisbane and around Australia. There's an opportunity to invest in sustainable mass transport, including zero-emissions buses and electric ferries; to create better walking and cycling links, especially for those first and last miles; to convert the athletes village into desperately needed social and affordable housing after the games; and, of course, to make sure small and medium local businesses benefit too. This isn't just about Brisbane either. If we're serious about creating a lasting Olympic legacy, we need long-term planning across all our key sporting venues nationwide. The Sydney Academy of Sport and Recreation in Narrabeen in my electorate of Mackellar, as an example, offers immense potential to be a world class facility for team accommodation, training and competitions across a multitude of sports including athletics, swimming, rowing, basketball and even sailing. This enormous site on the outskirts of Sydney has huge potential but remains rundown and underutilised. If we get the planning right, the legacy lasts. If we don't, we risk repeating mistakes that other cities and our own city have already lived through. That's why meaningful engagement is absolutely essential. The Queensland government must genuinely engage with Brisbane residents, with local community groups and with experts in planning, architecture, sustainability and transport. The Australian Institute of Architects has put forward a comprehensive set of recommendations for the government, highlighting risks and also offering solutions. One of their key suggestions is the creation of an Olympics design integrity panel. It's commonsense and the kind of expert oversight that we should welcome. I welcome the member for Ryan's motion, and I support her call for the Queensland government to engage openly, to listen to the experts, and genuinely involve Brisbane communities in the planning for 2032.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ending Online Wagering on Greyhound Racing) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the motion. I start by thanking the member for Clark for his tireless advocacy for animal welfare and for bringing compassion and common sense to this parliament. There is widespread...
I second the motion. I start by thanking the member for Clark for his tireless advocacy for animal welfare and for bringing compassion and common sense to this parliament. There is widespread support for ending greyhound racing in this country. I've heard it consistently in my own electorate of Mackellar since I was elected in 2022 and I've seen it reflected in the national polling. The greyhound racing industry is one built on animal cruelty. In 2015, following the ABC Four Corners expose about the industry, a special commission of inquiry into greyhound racing in New South Wales was undertaken. The report described overwhelming evidence of systemic animal cruelty, including the mass killing of greyhounds, the widespread practice of live baiting, racing deaths and injuries, and the mistreatment of the dogs. The then premier of New South Wales, Michael Baird, acted swiftly to ban the industry in New South Wales, but this was soon overturned due to political pressure to give the industry another chance to reform itself. The industry has now had 10 years to reform itself. So where do we find ourselves a decade on? Sadly, it seems, not much has changed. Last year a handover report by New South Wales former chief veterinary officer Dr Alex Brittan claimed that some dogs were being raised at a 'barbaric' intensity, that rehomed animal figures were inflated and that some dogs were locked in metal cages. In the report, Dr Brittan wrote: There are cases of extreme distress, deep claw marks gouged all over the inside of metal cages and recent pools of blood from toenails that had been ripped off from clawing at the cage door in distress. The New South Wales Minister for Gaming and Racing, on reading the report, stated: This level of animal distress is appalling and can neither be condoned or excused. Last year, a new independent inquiry was undertaken to again look at greyhound racing in New South Wales. The report was handed to the racing minister early this year but is yet to be made public or acted upon. As we've heard, last year alone there were 128 recorded track deaths and a shocking 11½ thousand track injuries. Astoundingly, as the member for Clark has noted, Australia will soon be one of just four nations in the world that maintains a legal operating greyhound racing industry. The industry has had 10 years to reform itself here in New South Wales, and it has failed dismally. We've heard of other examples in Tasmania and around the country. If we want to ensure that the way we treat animals reflects modern Australian values, then this outdated and cruel practice must stop. Australians want this industry to stop, so I commend this bill to the House to end online wagering on greyhound racing.
Health Care | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The Northern Beaches Hospital in Mackellar has provided both public and private services under a public-private partnership. Following the...
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The Northern Beaches Hospital in Mackellar has provided both public and private services under a public-private partnership. Following the private operator Healthscope entering receivership in May this year, the announcement that public services would be transitioned to NSW Health was indeed very welcome. However, there is great uncertainty about the continuation of the world-class private services delivered there. Minister, what reassurance can you provide my community regarding ongoing access to all the private services at Northern Beaches Hospital?
National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (34) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 20), after...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (34) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 20), after "Agency,", insert "establishes the Board of NEPA". (3) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "This Act establishes", insert: The Board's functions include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions. (4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 2), omit "the CEO and". (5) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 3 to 5), omit "the CEO's independence by directing the CEO in the performance or exercise of the CEO's functions or powers", substitute "the Board's or the CEO's independence by directing them in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers". (6) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 17), after the definition of advisory group, insert: Board: see section 11A. Board member means a member of the Board and includes the Chair and Deputy Chair. (7) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of CEO, insert: Chair: see subsection 11D(5). Deputy Chair: see subsection 11D(5). (8) Clause 5, page 3 (before line 28), before paragraph (a) of the definition of entrusted person, insert: (aa) a Board member; or (9) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 3 to 6), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of entrusted person, substitute: (d) a person engaged under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the Board under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the Board's functions or the CEO's functions; or (10) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 12), after the definition of environment, insert: former judge means: (a) a former Justice of the High Court; or (b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or (c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Indigenous person means a person who is: (a) a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia; or (b) a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. (11) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 3 to 7), omit the clause, substitute: 8 Simplified outline of this Part This Part establishes the Board of NEPA and the office of the CEO of NEPA. It also establishes NEPA for the purposes of assisting the Board and the CEO in the performance of their functions. The Board is the accountable authority of NEPA. (12) Clause 9, page 7 (line 8), omit "CEO", substitute "Board". (13) Clause 9, page 7 (before line 10), before subparagraph (2)(c)(i), insert: (ia) the Board members; (14) Clause 9, page 7 (after line 15), after subparagraph (2)(d)(i), insert: (ia) the functions of the Board referred to in section 11B; and (15) Clause 10, page 7 (before line 19), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the Board; and (16) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 23 to 25), omit the clause, substitute: 11 Function of NEPA The function of NEPA is to assist the Board and the CEO in the performance of their functions. (17) Page 7 (after line 25), after Division 2, insert: Division 2A — The Board Subdivision A — Establishment and functions 11A Establishment The NEPA Board is established by this section. 11B Functions of the Board (1) The Board has the following functions: (a) to appoint the CEO; (b) to monitor, assess and report on the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions; (c) to ensure that the CEO performs the CEO's functions consistently with the object of this Act; (d) to determine the policies and long-term strategic plans of NEPA, and of the CEO in relation to the performance of the CEO's functions, including policies and plans relating to organisational governance and risk management; (e) to determine what proportion of NEPA's budget should be spent on monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance; (f) to advise the CEO on any matter relating to the protection of the environment or relating to the object of this Act (at the CEO's request or on the Board's own initiative). (2) The Board must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, give the Minister a written report that: (a) assesses the success of the CEO in performing the CEO's functions during the financial year in an accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent manner; and (b) includes any recommendations made under or in relation to paragraphs (1)(b) to (e) or paragraph (a) of this subsection; and (c) addresses any other matters prescribed by the rules. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of each report given under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives it. (4) The Board has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions. Subdivision B — Membership and appointment 11C Membership of the Board (1) The Board consists of the following members: (a) the Chair; (b) the Deputy Chair; (c) not fewer than 5, and not more than 7, other members. (2) The performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Board is not affected by reason only of paragraph (1)(c) not being complied with for a period of not more than 6 months. 11D Appointment (1) The Board members are to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument. (2) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the person has substantial experience or knowledge, and significant standing, in one or more of the following: (i) environmental regulation; (ii) conservation of biodiversity; (iii) ecological sustainable development; (iv) heritage; (v) Indigenous affairs; (vi) law; (vii) natural resource management; (viii) any other field prescribed by the rules; and (b) the person does not have any interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Board's functions; and (c) at least 1 Board member is an Indigenous person. (3) A person must not be appointed as a Board member under this section unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of the selection criteria for the position for at least 10 consecutive days; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates. (4) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (3)(a)(iii)) to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House. (5) The Minister must, by written instrument, appoint: (a) one of the Board members to be the Chair; and (b) another of the Board members to be the Deputy Chair. (6) An appointment of the person as the Chair or Deputy Chair ceases if the person's appointment as a Board member ceases. 11E Term of appointment (1) A Board member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 6 years. Note: A Board member may be reappointed: see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (2) However, the period of appointment for 4 of the first set of Board members must not exceed 3 years. Note: This ensures staggered appointments. (3) A Board member holds office on a part-time basis. 11F Acting appointments Acting by operation of law (1) The Deputy Chair is to act as the Chair: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chair: (i) is absent from duty; or (ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Acting appointments (2) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a Board member to act as the Deputy Chair: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Deputy Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Deputy Chair: (i) is acting as the Chair; or (ii) is absent from duty; or (iii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (3) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a person to act as a Board member (other than the Chair or the Deputy Chair): (a) during a vacancy in the office of a Board member (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when a Board member: (i) is acting as the Deputy Chair; or (ii) is absent from duty; or (iii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. Qualifications etc. of acting Board members (4) Subsections 11D(2) to (4) apply to an appointment under subsection (3) of this section in the same way as they apply to an appointment under section 11D. Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 11G Remuneration (1) A Board member is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the rules. (2) A Board member is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the rules. (3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of a Board member. Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of a Board member will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)). 11H Leave (1) The Minister may grant the Chair leave of absence on the terms and conditions that the Minister determines. (2) The Chair may grant leave of absence to any other Board member on the terms and conditions that the Chair determines. (3) The Chair must notify the Minister if the Chair grants a Board member leave of absence for a period that exceeds 6 months. 11J Resignation (1) A Board member may resign the member's appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation. (2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day. 11K Termination (1) The Minister may terminate the appointment of a Board member: (a) for misconduct; or (b) if the member is unable to perform the duties of the member's office because of physical or mental incapacity. (2) The Minister must terminate the appointment of a Board member if: (a) the member: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with the member's creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of the member's remuneration for the benefit of the member's creditors; or (b) the member is absent, except on leave of absence, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Board. Note: The appointment of a Board member may also be terminated under section 30 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with terminating the appointment of an accountable authority, or a member of an accountable authority, for contravening general duties of officials). 11L Other terms and conditions A Board member holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister. Subdivision C — Procedures of the Board 11M Convening meetings (1) The Board must hold such meetings as are necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. (2) The Chair: (a) may convene a meeting at any time; and (b) must convene at least 4 meetings each calendar year; and (c) must convene a meeting within 30 days after receiving a written request to do so from: (i) a majority of the Board members; or (ii) the Minister. 11N Quorum (1) At a meeting of the Board, a quorum is constituted by a majority of the Board members. (2) However, if: (a) a Board member is required by rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 not to be present during the deliberations, or to take part in any decision, of the Board with respect to a particular matter; and (b) when the Board member leaves the meeting concerned there is no longer a quorum present; the remaining Board members constitute a quorum for the purposes of any deliberation or decision at that meeting with respect to that matter. 11P Presiding at meetings (1) The Chair must preside at all meetings of the Board at which the Chair is present. (2) If the Chair is not present at a meeting of the Board, the Deputy Chair, if present, must preside at the meeting. (3) If neither the Chair nor the Deputy Chair is present at a meeting of the Board, the other Board members present must appoint one of themselves to preside. 11Q Voting at meetings (1) A question arising at a meeting of the Board is to be determined by a majority of the votes of the Board members present and voting. (2) The person presiding at the meeting of the Board has a deliberative vote and, if the votes are equal, a casting vote. 11R Minutes The Board must keep minutes of its meetings. 11S Conduct of meetings The Board may, subject to this Subdivision, regulate proceedings at its meetings as it considers appropriate. Note: Section 33B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contains further information about the ways in which Board members may participate in meetings. 11T Decisions without meetings (1) The Board is taken to have made a decision at a meeting if: (a) without meeting, a majority of the Board members entitled to vote on the proposed decision indicate agreement with the decision; and (b) that agreement is indicated in accordance with the method determined by the Board under subsection (2); and (c) all the Board members were informed of the proposed decision, or reasonable efforts were made to inform all the Board members of the proposed decision. (2) Subsection (1) applies only if the Board: (a) has determined that it may make decisions of that kind without meeting; and (b) has determined the method by which Board members are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions. (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Board member is not entitled to vote on a proposed decision if the member would not have been entitled to vote on that proposal if the matter had been considered at a meeting of the Board. (4) The Board must keep a record of decisions made in accordance with this section. (18) Clause 14, page 9 (line 22), at the end of the clause, add: Note: The CEO's discretion is subject to the policies, plans, determinations, advice and recommendations of the Board: see section 11B. (19) Clause 15, page 10 (line 5), omit "the CEO and". (20) Clause 16, page 11 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) A statement of expectations cannot direct the Board or the CEO in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers. (21) Clause 45, page 24 (lines 3 to 25), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute: Appointment by the Board (1) The CEO is to be appointed by the Board by written instrument. Qualifications for appointment (2) A person must not be appointed as the CEO unless the Board is satisfied that: (a) the person has substantial experience or knowledge, and significant standing, in one or more of the following: (i) environmental regulation; (ii) conservation of biodiversity; (iii) ecological sustainable development; (iv) any other field prescribed by the rules; and (b) the person does not have any interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the CEO's functions. (2A) A person must not be appointed as the CEO under this section unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of the selection criteria for the position for at least 10 consecutive days; and (ii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the Board to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates. (2B) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as the CEO, the Board must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (2A)(a)(iii)) to be published on NEPA's website. (22) Clause 46, page 25 (line 4), omit "Minister", substitute "Board". (23) Clause 47, page 25 (line 19), omit "Minister", substitute "Board". (24) Clause 49, page 26 (line 5), omit "Minister", substitute "Board". (25) Clause 50, page 26 (line 10), omit "Minister's", substitute "Board's". (26) Clause 51, page 26 (line 13), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board". (27) Clause 51, page 26 (line 15), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board". (28) Clause 52, page 26 (line 18), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board". (29) Clause 52, page 27 (line 3), omit "Minister's", substitute "Board's". (30) Page 32 (after line 24), after clause 59, insert: 59A Delegation by the Board (1) The Board may, in writing, delegate any of the Board's functions or powers (other than a function or power in Part 5) to: (a) a member of the staff referred to in section 53 or (b) a person whose services are made available to NEPA under section 54; or (c) an individual engaged, or an individual employed or engaged by a person engaged, under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the Board under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the Board's functions. Note: Sections 34AA to 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contain provisions relating to delegations. (2) However, the Board must not delegate a function or power under subsection (1) to a person unless the person: (a) is an SES employee or acting SES employee; or (b) holds, or is acting in, a position that is equivalent to a position occupied by an SES employee; or (c) holds, or is acting in, an Executive Level 1 or 2, or equivalent, position. Note: The expressions SES employee and acting SES employee are defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (3) In performing a delegated function or exercising a delegated power, the delegate must comply with any written directions of the Board. (31) Clause 60, page 32 (line 26), omit "CEO", substitute "Board". (32) Clause 61, page 33 (line 12), omit "the CEO and NEPA have", substitute "NEPA has". (33) Clause 61, page 33 (line 29), after "given to", insert "the Board and". (34) Clause 61, page 34 (line 5), before "the CEO", insert "the Board and". If we are serious about reversing the destruction of our nature and providing certainty for business then we must ensure that the National Environment Protection Agency, NEPA, is trusted by business, the community and civil society. To achieve that, it must be a truly independent arbiter and built on a foundation of transparency. NEPA will not be truly independent if the CEO is appointed by the minister of the day and if there is no independently selected board. Australians are watching the decline of our nature and wildlife with growing alarm and heartbreak. They expect their government to respond with credible action to reverse this decline. My amendments to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 are simple and are in line with what the environmental community and integrity organisations have been calling for. My amendments create an independent board to sit above NEPA, as is common with many other organisations. This board would oversee the functions of NEPA and, importantly, select the CEO. The board's functions would include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO, and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance. The board would have up to seven members, each with substantial experience and knowledge and significant standing in an area relevant to NEPA's functions. At least one board member must be an Indigenous person. Critically, the board would be appointed through a robust and independent selection process, a process that most people would expect to be in place for positions as important as these. The selection process would require public advertising of the board positions, assessment of applications against selection criteria, and an independent panel to conduct the interviews and shortlist three candidates for each position for the minister's final selection. The minister would also decide which board member is selected as chair. If a perception arises that a CEO is appointed because of who they know or their political proclivities rather than what they bring to the role, public trust in the integrity of the institution will be undermined. These amendments are common sense, and I've spent years now in this place pointing out the need for a greater level of independence in major Commonwealth public appointments such as this. Having a truly independent national EPA will be a critical factor in whether we do actually turn around the decline of our nature over the next decade. Australians, business and environment groups deserve a NEPA—a National Environmental Protection Agency—they can trust, and that means it has to be established in such a way that it is truly independent. This requires both the board and the CEO to be independently appointed. I commend these amendments to the House.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendments: SHEET 1 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 8), before item 2, insert: 1A Section 11 Omit "it is taken in accordance...
I move the amendments: SHEET 1 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 8), before item 2, insert: 1A Section 11 Omit "it is taken in accordance with Regional Forest Agreements or". (3) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (after line 3), after subsection 33(1), insert: (1A) However, the Minister must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations. (4) Schedule 1, item 115, page 38 (line 28), at the end of section 37, add: ; and (f) the action is not a forestry operation. (5) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 28), after item 115, insert: 115A Divisions 4 and 6 of Part 4 Repeal the Divisions. (6) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 11), after subsection 46(1), insert: (1A) However, a bilateral agreement must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations. (7) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 17), after subsection 46(2), insert: (2A) However, the Minister must not accredit a management or authorisation framework in relation to forestry operations. (8) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 20), after item 157, insert: 157A After subsection 68(1) Insert: Note: See also section 68B if the proposal involves clearing native vegetation. (9) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 23), after item 158, insert: 158A Subsection 68A(5) After "subsection 68(1) or (2)", insert ", or subsection 68B(2),". 158B After section 68A Insert: 68B Clearing native vegetation in certain areas requires referral (1) This section applies to a proposal to take any of the following actions: (a) an action that includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that total 20 hectares or more; (b) an action that, together with one or more other actions, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that: (i) total 20 hectares or more; and (ii) are on the same property; (c) an action, that together with one or more other actions over a period of up to 2 years, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that: (i) total 20 hectares or more; and (ii) are on the same property or on adjoining properties. Note 1: For the meaning of action, see section 523. Note 2: For paragraphs (b) and (c), the actions need not all be carried out by the same person. (2) A person proposing to take the action for an area of native vegetation must refer the proposal to the Minister for the Minister's decision under subsection 75(1), whether or not the action is a controlled action, if: (a) a listed threatened species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or (b) a listed threatened species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or (c) a listed migratory species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or (d) a listed migratory species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or (e) a listed threatened ecological community is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or (f) the area is wholly or partly within a Great Barrier Reef catchment area. The referral must comply with subsection (3). Civil penalty: (a) for an individual-1,000 penalty units; or (b) for a body corporate-10,000 penalty units. (3) The referral complies with this subsection if the referral specifies each provision of Part 3 that the person reasonably considers is, or may be, a controlling provision for the action. Note: A controlling provision for the action may be: (a) if paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (e) applies for the action-section 18 or 18A; or (b) if paragraph (2)(c) or (d) applies for the action-section 20 or 20A; or (c) if paragraph (2)(f) applies for the action-section 24B or 24C. (4) Nothing in this section limits the operation of any other provision of this Act or prevents clearing of native vegetation from being a controlled action under any other provision of this Act. Note: Clearing native vegetation may be a controlled action (see section 67) even if subsection (2) does not apply. Similarly, a proposal to clear native vegetation may need to be referred to the Minister (see section 68) even if subsection (2) does not apply. (10) Schedule 1, page 70 (after line 25), after item 169, insert: 169A After subsection 75(2B) Insert: (2C) In deciding whether a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation is a controlled action, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action. (11) Schedule 1, page 84 (after line 25), after item 193, insert: 193A After subsection 87(3) Insert: (3B) In deciding which assessment approach must be used for a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action. (12) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert: 235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa) Insert: (fb) if the action includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action; and (13) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (line 9), omit "section 133.", substitute "section 133; and". (14) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 9), after paragraph 157A(1)(b), insert: (c) the action is not a forestry operation. (15) Schedule 1, item 292, page 142 (after line 18), after subsection 157H(2), insert: (2A) However, the Minister must not grant an exemption in relation to forestry operations. (16) Schedule 1, item 323, page 160 (after line 4), after subsection 177AA(3), insert: (3A) A bioregional plan must not permit forestry operations. (17) Schedule 1, item 604, page 361 (before line 10), before the definition of Commonwealth entity, insert: clearing, of native vegetation, means one or more of the following: (a) cutting down, felling, thinning, logging or removing native vegetation; (b) killing, destroying, poisoning, ringbarking, uprooting or burning native vegetation; (c) severing, topping or lopping branches, limbs, stems or trunks of native vegetation; (d) substantially damaging or injuring native vegetation in any other way. (18) Schedule 1, page 361 (after line 22), after item 605, insert: 605A Section 528 (definition of continuation ) Repeal the definition. (19) Schedule 1, item 614, page 366 (after line 20), after the definition of national interest proposal in section 528, insert: native vegetation means one or more native plants, including native plants that are: (a) trees (including saplings, shrubs or scrubs); or (b) understorey plants; or (c) groundcovers; or (d) found in a wetland; or (e) lichens. (20) Page 473 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Repeal of the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 1 The whole of the Act Repeal the Act. SHEET 2 (1) Schedule 1, item 77, page 14 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item. (2) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (line 13), omit "the Minister is satisfied that". (3) Schedule 1, item 104, page 25 (lines 20 to 24), omit all the words from and including "(1) If" to and including "instrument", substitute: (1) If, in relation to a declaration in force under section 33 a situation mentioned in subsection (2) exists or will arise, or any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection are met, the Minister must, by written instrument: (4) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (line 22), omit "the Minister is satisfied that". (5) Schedule 1, item 121, page 47 (line 1) to page 48 (line 3), omit section 48B. (6) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 5 and 6), omit "the Minister is satisfied that". (7) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 32 and 33), omit "the Minister is satisfied that". (8) Schedule 1, item 237, page 100 (line 34) to page 101 (line 1), omit "the Minister is satisfied that". (9) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsection 514YD(2), substitute: (2) A national environmental standard must: (a) promote the objects of this Act; and (b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3). (10) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (lines 1 to 10), omit subsections 514YF(2) and (3), substitute: (2) The variation or revocation of a national environmental standard must: (a) promote the objects of this Act; and (b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3). (11) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (line 12) to page 318 (line 2), omit subsections 514YG(1) to (3), substitute: (1) A variation or revocation of a national environmental standard: (a) must not reduce protections of the environment; and (b) must not reduce the likelihood that environmental data or information provided to the Minister, Secretary, Department or a Commonwealth agency under this Act or the regulations is appropriate, including as to quality, for the purposes for which it is provided; and (c) must not reduce the likelihood that appropriate consultation or engagement (including with Indigenous persons) will occur under the Act; and (d) must not reduce the likelihood that outcomes or objectives specified in the standard will be achieved; and (e) meet the prescribed requirements (if any). (12) Schedule 1, item 571, page 319 (lines 26 and 27), omit "a decision prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection", substitute "a relevant decision". (13) Schedule 1, item 571, page 320 (line 1), omit "may", substitute "must". These amendments address multiple issues. Firstly, they remove the sections of the bill that hand federal responsibility to the states regarding fossil fuel developments that affect water resources. In October of 2023, together with Senator Hanson-Young in the Senate, I introduced a bill to expand the existing water trigger in the EPBC Act to include unconventional gas projects, and later that year the government finally responded, expanding the water trigger to cover unconventional gas projects through the Nature Repair Bill. That was a massive win for our nature, for wildlife and for future generations, but now we are being taken backwards. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 will give power back to the state and territory governments to make decisions about large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater reserves or waterways, rather than the federal government. Numerous experts and environmental organisations have warned that the states and territories are likely to favour developments which they profit from over the environment. Handing approval powers back to the state and territory governments, as this bill does, puts Australia's waterways, groundwater and agriculture at even greater risk from coal and gas fracking projects. My amendments also address native forest logging and deforestation. First, they repeal the exemption for the regional forestry agreements in the EPBC Act; second, they repeal what is called the continuous use exemption; third, they insert a new provision that makes clear that, for any area over 20 hectares where threatened or migratory species may exist, actions must be referred for assessment under the national EPBC Act; and, fourth, they prohibit forestry operations from being allowed through bioregional plans and bilateral agreements and prohibit national interest exemptions from applying to forestry operations. Australia is facing a deforestation crisis. We are the only developed nation on the global list of deforestation hotspots, and we hold the record for the highest number of mammal extinctions. It was very sad to hear that we have just clocked up our 39th extinction. Despite the minister saying that the regional forestry agreements will be subject to the new environmental standards, there is no mechanism in this bill to achieve that. These amendments are urgent, and they are possible. We cannot delay, and our wildlife cannot wait. Finally, these amendments strengthen decision-making in the proposed reforms by shifting subjective provisions and language towards an objective decision-making framework. The Samuel review found that a fundamental shortcoming of the current EPBC Act is that it does not provide sufficient constraints on discretion, resulting in uncertainty and poor environmental outcomes. With key decisions and tests throughout the bill dependent on whether the minister is satisfied something is the case or whether an action is not inconsistent with something, this bill risks entrenching the very weaknesses of the current EPBC Act that have allowed Australia's environment to decline so sharply and seriously. With 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse and an extinction and deforestation crisis in this country right now, the subjective language that pervades this bill simply does not provide a guarantee that, in another 25 years, the situation for Australia's nature will not be even worse. We cannot allow this to happen when we know full well the power and influence that industry lobbying can exert. We simply cannot leave it to an unknown future individual's discretion, the minister of the day's, to ensure our incredible nature is protected. I commend all these amendments to the House.
I ask leave of the House to move amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 1, amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 2 and amendments (2) to (4) and (6) to (13) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I rise in support for the member of Curtin's amendments. I just want to add my voice in calling for a broad review of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill and of our FOI system—again,...
I rise in support for the member of Curtin's amendments. I just want to add my voice in calling for a broad review of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill and of our FOI system—again, not just a committee review, but one that's done independently by experts. We know all previous reviews—the Hawke, Shergold, Faulkner and Thodey—all recommended comprehensive reviews. There are multiple concerns with this bill to change our FOI laws. They include the expansion of the cabinet document exemption, the reintroduction of application fees for FOI requests—something that would shut some people out of their democracy and promote secrecy over transparency—and the removal of the ability for a FOI applicant to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym. We know that sometimes it is people like whistleblowers and investigative journalists who need to make these applications anonymously, and we know that there have been many royal commissions coming from investigative journalism, so to cut that out, to shut that out, would be a retrograde step in terms of our transparency. There is one other thing I want to mention. A number of us have said that freedom of information is a cornerstone, a key pillar of our democracy. We need to be moving towards greater transparency and greater accountability, rather than greater secrecy. That's why having an independent, broad based review of our FOI system is incredibly important, and I support the member for Curtin's call for there to be a broad based review of our FOI system. Finally, a lack of trust in our political system, a lack of trust in our democracy, is something that undermines social cohesion and a sense of wellbeing. Anything we can do to inspire greater trust in our government and our political system is always a great way to grow that social cohesion.
I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 7, Part 3, page 64 (line 1) to page 65 (line 5), omit the Part. The amendment I am moving today is simple. It removes the changes proposed...
I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 7, Part 3, page 64 (line 1) to page 65 (line 5), omit the Part. The amendment I am moving today is simple. It removes the changes proposed in this bill to the deliberative documents exemption of the Freedom of Information Act. The bill proposes to expand this exemption by including a new list of 'factors against giving access' in addition to the current 'factors favouring access' and 'irrelevant factors'. This list of factors against giving access to a document in the public interest is overly broad. In the words of former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger, 'They could be used to refuse access to almost any document.' Specifically, the list includes whether giving access to the document would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process. This is one of many measures in this bill that would reduce government transparency and take our public service in a more secretive direction. As I outlined in my second reading speech, experts, the broader community and my crossbench colleagues have all raised key concerns with this bill, including the expansion of the cabinet documents exemption, the reintroduction of application fees for FOI requests and the removal of the ability for an FOI applicant to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym. A central argument for the government for the proposed expansion of exemptions is that the current provisions constrain the delivery of frank and fearless advice. Certainly, we must protect the Public Service values of impartiality, intellectual rigour and perhaps, most importantly, the willingness of public servants at all levels to offer frank and fearless advice to their superiors and their ministers. Yet the evidence, including from the robodebt royal commission, shows that factors other than FOI are contributing to failures to provide frank and fearless advice. These include the central role of government in appointing and dismissing departmental secretaries, which has the potential to impact the relationship between the secretary and the minister. Disappointingly, the government has not taken on key recommendations of the 2019 Thodey report to reform the appointment and tenure processes of departmental secretaries. Such reforms would structurally strengthen the independence of the Public Service and improve the ability of public servants to provide frank and fearless advice. Freedom of information is a key pillar of our democracy. It ensures that the Australian people have access to the information they need to understand the decisions and actions of their government. Australia's FOI system does need repair, but the overwhelming sentiment from community experts—and in submissions to the Senate inquiry on this bill—is that this bill is not fit for purpose. Given the strong and broad opposition to the bill, I feel it should be withdrawn. I would urge the government to instead set up an independent, comprehensive review of the FOI system in a way that modernises it to work for, not against, our democracy. However, in place of that, the bill— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:00 to 17:13 However, in place of that, the bill should, at the very least, be amended to remove the most egregious elements. These include the member for Indi's amendments to remove the expansion of the cabinet documents exemption and application fees and the member for Kooyong's amendment to remove the restriction on anonymous requests. I thank them both for their tenacity in striving to strengthen the integrity and transparency of our political system. The amendment I'm moving removes the expansion of the deliberative documents exemption, something that would move us away from a culture of disclosure and towards a culture of secrecy. Our FOI system is critical to the integrity and strength of our democracy, and we must preserve and protect it at all costs. That's why I asked the government to engage in good faith with the crossbench amendments today. There is no urgency to push these changes through, and I ask the government to seriously consider these amendments. I commend the amendment to the House.