Sophie Scamps's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
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.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Freedom of information is one of the key pillars of a democracy. It should ensure that people have access to the information they need to understand the decisions and actions of their government....
Freedom of information is one of the key pillars of a democracy. It should ensure that people have access to the information they need to understand the decisions and actions of their government. Australia has a proud history as a world leader in freedom of information, having introduced a comprehensive federal FOI scheme in 1982, as part of the new administrative law reforms, and then undertaken a major overhaul of the scheme in 2010, under the leadership of Senator John Faulkner, to promote a greater culture of disclosure. Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 does not continue this leadership. This bill reduces government transparency and takes our public services in a more secretive direction. Both of these outcomes would undermine our democracy. Here we are, with the bill having been relegated to the Federation Chamber by a government who clearly wants to ram these changes through without adequate time for scrutiny and consideration and without the level of debate they deserve. Certainly, Australia's FOI system needs an overhaul. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with that. Indeed, in December 2023, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee described the system as broken and unfit for purpose. In July this year, the Centre for Public Integrity released analysis of the operation of the FOI system. It revealed a system that is underresourced, riddled with delays and concerning indications of the abuse of exemptions. And the Australia Institute has found that only 21 per cent of FOI requests in financial year 2023 were granted in full compared to 81 per cent in 2006. Where the average request took 13 hours to determine in 2006-7, it took 51 hours in 2023-24. In other words, the government employs four public servants to do what only took one public servant under the Howard government. Clearly, the system needs fixing, but the government's bill takes the system in the wrong direction. Under the guise of responding to alleged abuse of the system by technology, the government is attempting to fundamentally shift the FOI culture away from disclosure, undermining many of the important reforms introduced in 2010. The government has framed this bill as a crackdown on 'abusive and frivolous' FOIs, but where is the evidence of this abuse by technology? Requests for the government's evidence for these proposed freedom of information request restrictions have repeatedly gone unanswered. During Senate estimates, the Attorney-General's Department was unable to produce any material evidence of malicious actors or automated requests, and in response to an order for the production of documents in the Senate, requesting evidence of claims that vexatious requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are being generated by artificial intelligence or other non-human actors, the Attorney-General provided two US media reports and a list of talking points. This is hardly conclusive evidence. Among the bill's most concerning features are these: the expansion of the 'cabinet document' exemption; the expansion of the 'deliberative processes' exemption, through the addition of a list of 'factors against giving access'; 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. First, I want to turn to the expansion of the absolute exemption for cabinet confidentiality. This is an existing exemption that we know governments rely on to resist applications. Indeed, the government relied on cabinet confidentiality to refuse to deliver to the Senate the documents that provide evidence of the vexatious and AI-generated applications that it claims it is responding to in the bill. Recently, I had my own FOI request for the final report from the review of public sector board appointments processes denied on the basis of cabinet confidentiality. The bill will broaden that exemption. It proposes that a document will be exempt if 'a substantial purpose for its preparation was submission for consideration by the cabinet.' This will effectively broaden the amount of material able to be denied. The government is expanding this exemption, despite the royal commission into robodebt finding that cabinet secrecy enabled the abuse of power to continue. Specifically, the commission found that, while the minister failed to meet his responsibility to properly inform cabinet, it was senior public servants who provided advice to cabinet that did not contain a reference to the concerns regarding income averaging and the need for legislative change. In relation to the cabinet exemption, Commissioner the Hon. Catherine Holmes AC did not merely recommend tinkering with the exemption; she recommended its complete repeal: … the Government should end the blanket approach to confidentiality of Cabinet documents. To give effect to this, section 34 of the FOI Act should be repealed. The wide range of class and conditional exemptions in the FOI Act is sufficient to protect the public interest in relation to Cabinet documents. She continued: The mere fact that a document is a Cabinet document should not, by itself, be regarded as justifying maintenance of its secrecy. But what we have here, under the cover of the robodebt royal commission, is the government extending the cabinet document exemption and extending it to briefing documents, summaries or any reference to the contents of a document to which an exemption applies—a massive expansion of this exemption. Next, the bill expands the conditional exemption for documents that would reveal the deliberative processes of government. It does this by adding 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 includes whether 'giving access to the document would or could reasonably be expected to have' any of the following effects, including prejudicing the 'orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process.' In the words of former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger, this 'could be used to refuse access to almost any document'. In expanding the deliberative process exemption, the government is relying on the 2015 Shergold review and the 2019 Thodey review, which including anecdotes from public servants that their advice is chilled by the possibility of disclosure under the FOI regime and recommended the widening of the deliberative process exemption. However, the chilling effect is far from conclusive. Andrew Podger, the former commissioner for the Public Service, has said: … other factors than FOI are contributing to failures to provide frank and fearless advice. One clearly accepted by the royal commission is the process for appointing (and terminating) departmental secretaries and the role and appointment process of the APS Commissioner. He went on to say: The FOI Act may be contributing … but the evidence is far from clear. More likely is pressure from ministers and ministerial advisers exaggerating the political dangers, and a public service overly responsive to the government and failing to meet their obligations to serve the Parliament and the Australian public. The Auditor-General, Caralee McLiesh, also recently highlighted the costs associated with lack of transparency in the public sector, stating: A lack of transparency means it is harder for people to understand government activity, obtain information to make decisions, and participate more fully in public life. It weakens accountability in a system that lacks other accountability mechanisms … Such accountability mechanisms include market competition. A proactive approach to publishing much more information would reduce a lot of the administrative burden of FOI requests. Additionally, former commissioner Podger has recommended that firm limits on political involvement would ensure a more appropriate system of rewards and penalties for senior public servants. It is not hard to imagine that this would allow a greater scope for the provision of frank and fearless advice. Next, this bill reintroduces application fields that were abolished in 2010 as part of the opening up of government and removes the ability to make anonymous requests. The government argues that these changes are needed to deal with the volume of requests—in particular, vexatious or AI generated requests—but, again, the evidence is minimal. If the government is asking the parliament to restrict democratic rights, at the very least it needs to produce evidence that would justify this. There is also no evidence that the government has considered alternative ways of addressing these matters that won't dissuade legitimate FOI applicants, particularly those from poorer or more vulnerable applicants, including potential future whistleblowers. The government is worried about the chilling effect of FOI on government decision-makers, but shows no concern for the chilling effect of these amendments on legitimate applicants. As an example of the legislative process, the bill represents an affront to good lawmaking. There has been no proper consultation on such an important piece of legislation. The government itself admits that it is relying on previous reviews—in particular, the statutory FOI Act review conducted by Allan Hawke back in 2013, over a decade ago. The idea that we can modernise Australia's FOI system by relying on recommendations from a 2013 review is hard to believe, but, worse, the government has cherrypicked the recommendations from that review. The primary recommendation of the 2013 review that it is now relying on to push through amendments was to undertake a comprehensive review of the FOI system. The government is also silent on the recommendations of both the 2015 Shergold review and 2019 Thodey review into the Public Service that further reviews be conducted into FOI system. And what about the other recommendations in those reviews about strengthening the independence and culture of the Public Service, including, for instance, the Thodey review recommendations to strengthen the processes of appointment and removal of departmental secretaries? They have conveniently failed to mention that the Hawke review did not recommend expanding the deliberative processes exemption and expressly rejected the claim that FOI would chill the delivery of what is a legal obligation on public servants to give frank and fearless advice. Australia's FOI system is a pillar of our democracy. It certainly needs repair, but this bill is not fit for purpose and I cannot, in all good faith, support it. The government should withdraw this bill and set up an independent comprehensive review of the system that modernises it in a way that works for, and not against, our democracy.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. There is broad agreement that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or EPBC Act, has utterly failed to...
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. There is broad agreement that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or EPBC Act, has utterly failed to protect our environment for the past 25 years. We now have 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse, and we are a global deforestation hotspot, along with Bolivia and Brazil. I want to begin by saying, sadly, that I cannot support the environmental reforms in these bills in their current form, because, quite simply, they do not guarantee protection for our nature. The EPBC Act is the one piece of national legislation that we have to protect our environment. It should be our nation's safeguard for the environment—the framework that ensures that our forests, rivers, oceans and wildlife are not irretrievably polluted and destroyed but protected for future generations. This package of reforms was intended to fix our national environment laws, but instead it risks entrenching the very weaknesses of the current EPBC Act that have allowed Australia's environment to decline so sharply. It is well understood that business needs greater certainty when it comes to project approvals. For Australia to meet our climate goals and unlock the enormous potential of renewable energy, we need clear, consistent and trusted environment laws. But right now many projects, including renewable energy projects, are being delayed or bogged down in confusion. Communities, investors and industry are all calling for the same thing: an approval process that is efficient, transparent and fair. Businesses need clarity on how decisions are made and they need to know that if they put forward a strong, environmentally sound proposal they'll get a fast 'yes' and if a project isn't up to scratch they'll get a fast 'no', so they can move on and refine their plans—not waste money—and invest with confidence elsewhere. That's what a well-functioning system delivers: speed, certainty and integrity. But this cannot come at the expense of nature. A healthy environment underpins a healthy economy. The two work hand in hand. So it is critical that this time around our nature protection laws do actually protect nature and that we don't see another 25 years of environmental neglect. Once ecosystems are destroyed, once species are extinct, no amount of economic activity or offsetting can bring them back. The people of Mackellar understand deeply the need to protect nature. They want their children and grandchildren to have the same connection to the coast, the creeks and the wild beauty that we've been lucky enough to grow up with. That's why they've asked me, as their representative, time and time again, to push for strong reforms to our national environment laws and to stop the destruction of our unique ecosystems, plants and animals that has occurred relentlessly in this country over the past few decades. They want a system that protects our environment and provides predictable, efficient decision-making for business. This is entirely possible, but these reforms are not it. I have a number of concerns about these reforms that I'll go through in detail. Let me turn to the first major concern: the new national interest exemption. Under this provision, the environment minister could approve a project even if it includes what are deemed to be unacceptable impacts to the environment, so long as the minister deems that it is in the national interest. That's an enormous power. It effectively lets the minister override the law and to do so without having to explain why. While the minister must generally publish a copy of the decision, together with the reasons, this accountability mechanism can itself be avoided when the minister believes it is in Australia's national interest to not provide these details. Ken Henry has warned that the national interest test in these reforms is likely to incentivise significant lobbying from developers, as they are all absolutely convinced that their project is in the national interest. The legislation cites projects relating to defence, security and national emergencies as the types of projects that might attract the exemption, and the environment minister has confirmed it could be used for something like a rare earth mine or a gas project if that was what the minister of the day decided. But at the end of the day the minister only needs to be satisfied that the action is in Australia's national interest. It doesn't take much imagination to think about how this could be exploited. In fact, earlier this year, then opposition leader Peter Dutton said he would use the existing national interest test to fast-track the North West Shelf gas extension—a project that the Australia Institute estimates would release around 90 million tonnes of emissions every year, equivalent to building 12 new coal-fired power stations. This isn't about whether you trust the current minister; it's about what a future government, perhaps one less committed to protecting our environment, could do with such sweeping discretion. That brings me to the next serious flaw—the bills' overreliance on ministerial discretion throughout. The Samuel review found that the existing EPBC Act insufficiently constrains decision-maker discretion, leading to uncertainty and poor environmental outcomes. Yet these reforms expand and entrench ministerial discretion rather than curtail it. Key decisions and tests throughout the bills depend on whether the minister is 'satisfied' that something is the case or whether an action is 'not inconsistent with' national environment standards. That kind of subjective language weakens the law. The new environmental standards, which are meant to be the centrepiece of this reform, are riddled with this type of language and subjectivity. For example, an approval must not be inconsistent with a standard but only if the minister is satisfied that's the case. The no-regression principle, which is meant to ensure standards don't go backwards, applies only to the satisfaction of the minister. The provision requiring approvals to pass the net-gain test, which is an important guardrail on the offset provisions, is subject to the satisfaction of the minister. There is also a high level of discretion available to the minister in providing for declarations or bilateral agreements to devolve powers to the states and territories, along with many other crucial checks and safeguards. Indeed, earlier this year, when there was a threat that the EPBC Act might actually be used to protect a species—the Maugean skate—the government stepped in and amended the bills. This is not the strong objective framework the Samuel review recommended. Next is the carve-outs and blanket exemptions. For decades, exemptions in the EPBC Act have allowed destructive activities to continue without federal assessment or approval, even when they impact threatened species or critical habitats. The most glaring examples are the regional forestry agreements, which exempt native forest logging from EPBC Act oversight and the continuous-use, or prior-authorisation, exemptions relied upon by proponents of agricultural land-clearing. Since the EPBC Act was introduced more than two decades ago, our environment has only declined further. Australia is now the only developed nation on the list of global deforestation hotspots. Our forests are being bulldozed at pace, pushing species like the koala, the greater glider and the grey-headed flying fox to the brink of extinction. While the government has said that the national standards will apply to forestry activities it's difficult to see how this will work in practice, given the proposed standards do not yet exist and given forestry activities are exempt from the act. I simply do not accept that native forest logging should be exempt from our national environment laws on the basis that state laws can be relied upon instead. You need look no further than my home state of New South Wales to see why. In New South Wales, environmental requirements have been repeatedly breached by the Forestry Corporation of NSW. In a judgement in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court last year, Justice Rachel Pepper noted the Forestry Corporation's lengthy record of prior convictions for environmental offences, including polluting a forest waterway, inadequate threatened species surveys, unlawful harvesting of hollow-bearing trees and harvesting in koala and rainforest habitat exclusion zones. That's why I'll be moving amendments to these bills—to repeal the exemption for the regional forestry agreements and the continuous-use exemption. Another concern is the devolution of federal powers to state and territory governments, particularly in relation to the water trigger. The bill empowers the minister to accredit state processes and enter into bilateral agreements so that states can assess and approve projects on behalf of the Commonwealth. While this could improve efficiency, it comes with an enormous risk. Of particular concern, the water trigger will be available for devolution despite being specifically excluded from bilateral approval agreements and regional plans in the current laws. Next, I'm deeply concerned regarding the approach to offsetting. There is no requirement for developers to avoid or reduce damage before moving to offsets under the mitigation hierarchy, only that the minister must consider the hierarchy. This will likely entrench offsetting as the default option rather than the last resort. The net gain test is designed to ensure that actions cannot be approved unless impacts on protected matters are offset through actions that result in a net gain. However, concerningly, this can be satisfied through the payment of a restoration contribution charge to the restoration contributions holder. This allows for habitat-destroying developments to be deemed to have a net gain on a protected matter despite the impact being irreversible. The proponent can simply pay into the fund and thereby bypass the true net gain test, and there are no provisions requiring adequate accounting for delivery of the net gain. The reform package also establishes a national environmental protection authority, NEPA, which is welcome in principle. But there is a glaring flaw. The government has chosen not to create a governing board, and there is no independent appointment process for the CEO. This is exactly the kind of political appointment risk I tried to address through my own 'ending jobs for mates' private member's bill, to ensure independent and transparent selection processes for key public roles. Without those safeguards, NEPA risks being just another arm of government rather than a truly independent watchdog. We've seen state based environmental regulators marred with this type of controversy. In New South Wales, the EPA was recently accused of bearing a report on lead contamination in children's blood to placate mining companies. In the Northern Territory, the EPA chair was involved in decisions on a major gas leak scandal without disclosing his paid role with an industry lobbying firm. In Western Australia, the EPA was forced to withdraw its 2019 emissions offset guidelines after intense pressure from the gas industry and the state government. When regulators appear to be bending to political or industry pressure, whether that bending is real or perceived, public confidence evaporates. If we want to rebuild trust, this regulator must be genuinely independent, properly resourced and protected from political meddling. Finally, we cannot talk about environmental protection in 2025 without talking about climate change. Yet these reforms studiously avoid it. Unsurprisingly, the government has again refused to include a climate trigger, a mechanism that would require assessment of a project's greenhouse gas emissions as part of environmental approvals. The International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion confirmed that countries like Australia are bound by international law to assess and limit greenhouse gas emissions, including those from exported coal and gas. While the government argues that the safeguard mechanism already regulates emissions, this only applies after a project is operating. It doesn't stop new, high-polluting projects from being approved in the first place. In the last term alone, the government approved 27 new coal, oil and gas projects, with four new approvals this term. Their combined lifetime emissions are expected to exceed 6.5 billion tonnes of CO2. A reformed EPBC Act that ignores climate is a reform that fails to meet the moment. This reform is an opportunity, a once-in-a-generation chance to fix our broken system, restore trust and put nature at the heart of decision-making, while providing a more efficient process for business and investment. As it stands, the bill does not do that. It risks repeating the very mistakes that the Samuel review warned us about—too much discretion, too little accountability and too many loopholes. I urge the government to work with the crossbench, to listen to the experts and to strengthen this legislation so it genuinely delivers for our environment, our economy and future generations.
United States-Australia Framework for Securing of Supply in the Mining and Processing of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths | Private Members' Business | House debates
They're called 'critical' for a reason. Critical minerals and rare earths are the gateway to a decarbonised future. They are crucial to the manufacture of products including electric cars, wind...
They're called 'critical' for a reason. Critical minerals and rare earths are the gateway to a decarbonised future. They are crucial to the manufacture of products including electric cars, wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries and solar cells. However, China has built a near monopoly on this industry, producing more than 90 per cent of rare earths and rare-earth magnets. Currently all G7 countries except Japan are heavily or exclusively reliant on China for these products. It's never good to put all your eggs in one basket, and the supply of these critical minerals and products is already under threat. Last month, China restricted the export of rare earth minerals and the products that use them as part of the trade fight with Donald Trump. And, as recently as two days ago, European carmakers warned that they may have to halt production in the next couple of days due to a shortage of chips and semiconductors following a dispute with China over control of the Dutch chipmaker Nexperia, which is owned by China's Wingtech. So it is clearly critical—pun intended—that we secure and diversify supply of these critical minerals and products. It is essential to the future security and prosperity of our nation and many of our allies. The recent critical mineral deal struck with our close allies America, Canada and Japan represents an exciting opportunity for Australia, if we get it right. But the experience of our gas export industry stands as a stark warning of just how wrong we can get it. So let's explore our experience of gas exports in Australia, because, as the saying goes, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Currently, Australia is paying a higher price for our gas than many countries importing it from us. In a cost-of-living crisis, this putting unnecessary pressure on families and, in many cases, driving manufacturers to the wall. Here in Australia we have an abundance of gas. Australia produces more than six times the amount of gas we need to supply our manufacturing industry, power stations, homes and businesses. We are the second largest exporter of LNG in the world, and 90 per cent of our gas is used for export. Gas exports use 13 times more gas than Australia's entire manufacturing industry each year, yet here in Australia the Tomago smelter, which supplies 40 per cent of Australia's aluminium, faces closure because of a so-called gas shortage and sky-high prices in Australia. The so-called gas shortage in Australia comes on the back of consecutive federal governments putting Australia last instead of first. While manufacturing businesses face closure due to so-called energy shortages both on the east and west coast of Australia, governments continue to allow predominantly foreign owned fossil fuel companies to export record amounts of LNG. Japan, for example, buys 43 per cent of imported gas from Australia, and then, for the last few years, has onsold more than this amount for profit. We do not have a gas shortage problem in Australia; we have a gas export problem. Thanks to the work of the Australia Institute, we know that over half of Australia's gas exports are given away for free, without gas companies paying any royalties or petroleum resources rent tax. Since 2015, gas companies have exported nearly $132 billion worth of liquefied natural gas from Gladstone, in Queensland. Six out of 10 of these gas companies have paid zero company tax on these exports. In Australia, more tax is paid by both nurses and teachers than by gas companies. No wonder the ATO has labelled the gas industry as a 'systemic nonpayer of tax'. We cannot let the same thing happen to our critical minerals industry. Australian taxpayers will be investing billions into the creation of critical mineral mining and refining and processing in this country. As we embark on the next big resources opportunity, we must not repeat the poor policy decisions that have allowed multinational companies to profit off Australian gas with little return to the everyday Australian.
Public Sector Governance | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In February 2023, the Minister for the Public Service announced an inquiry into public sector board appointments to end the jobs-for-mates culture of...
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In February 2023, the Minister for the Public Service announced an inquiry into public sector board appointments to end the jobs-for-mates culture of the previous coalition government. The minister stated: 'In line with the government’s commitment to transparency, a report will be published after the review is finalised in mid-2023.' The government has had over two years to consider its findings and has repeatedly refused to make the report public. When will the government release the Briggs report and legislate a transparent, merit based appointment process across the public sector?
Youth Voice in Parliament | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise to share Mackellar student Imogen Kee's thoughtful response to this year's Raise our Voice campaign, which asked, 'How can government build a better future for young Australians?' Imogen...
I rise to share Mackellar student Imogen Kee's thoughtful response to this year's Raise our Voice campaign, which asked, 'How can government build a better future for young Australians?' Imogen wrote: "What do you want to be when you grow up?" It's a question we've been asked since we were five. The older I get, the harder it is to answer, not because I don't have dreams but because I wonder what kind of Australia I'll be stepping into. An Australia where climate change has gone unchecked. Where mental health is in crisis. Where access to opportunity depends on your postcode. And where young women still earn less than men of equal ability. Young Australians don't just want to grow up, we want to grow into a future that's fair, sustainable, and equal. To build that future, Parliament must take steps of responsibility not just for what happens now, but for what happens next. That means: - Embedding a legal duty to consider the long-term impacts of decisions; - Investing in public education, so every Aussie kid, not just the lucky few, can thrive; - Funding real solutions to the mental health crisis; - Closing the gender pay gap; and - Giving young women a seat at every table where power is held. 'What do I want to be when I grow up?' I want to be heard. I want to lead. I want a future worth growing into. And I want to trust the government to take the steps to build a better tomorrow for young Australians.
Health Care | Constituency Statements | House debates
I speak today on behalf of families in my community of Mackellar who are very worried about the transition to the new Thriving Kids which the government plans to roll out from July 2026. The 2023...
I speak today on behalf of families in my community of Mackellar who are very worried about the transition to the new Thriving Kids which the government plans to roll out from July 2026. The 2023 NDIS review recommended investing in foundational supports outside the NDIS for children aged zero to eight years with mild-to-moderate developmental delay or disability, including autism. The goal is to ensure early identification and support for children while also ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. These are incredibly important goals; we all want our children to have the best possible start in life and we all want a sustainable NDIS, but in the rush to implement change, our community is already feeling the unintended consequences. Despite assurances from the government that no child would be removed from the NDIS before foundational supports are in place, I have heard from local providers and families that this is not the case. One local provider, Kids First, has had to advocate for 10 families whose children were exited from the NDIS when their funding expired. These families were left without support for up to five months—months that are critical in a child's development. This has caused immense stress and disrupted care, and has led to setbacks in the children's progress. Another local speech pathologist shared with me that two of his young clients have also already been removed from the NDIS despite no alternative supports being available. The proposed Thriving Kids program is intended to fill this gap, but has not yet been designed or implemented. The children's schools are doing their best, but they are already stretched to capacity and don't have the required expertise. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader experience as children with clear developmental needs are being exited from the scheme before the new supports are in place. The Thriving Kids program is welcome in principle, but we must ensure that, as government works with families and the sectors to design this program, transitional safeguards are in place. No child in our community should be left without the care and support they need during these early vital years. Our children deserve better, our families deserve certainty, and our community deserves a system that works for everyone.
Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 10, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The Minister must not appoint a person...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 10, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The Minister must not appoint a person as the Director-General 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 at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria: (i) appropriate expertise; (ii) qualifications or experience in public health matters; (iii) integrity; (iv) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and (c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 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 paragraph (b). (2) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 19), after subparagraph (h)(v), insert: (va) bodies whose objects include the prevention and management of occupational disease and injuries; (3) Clause 11, page 17 (after line 3), after paragraph (j), insert: (ja) promoting public health research through: (i) maintaining close relationships with key public health research entities; and (ii) providing advice to government grant making entities on research priorities for public health matters; (jb) building and enhancing expertise in relevant public health expertise and workforce capacity; (4) Clause 29, page 28 (lines 11 and 12), omit the clause, substitute: 29 Chair of the Advisory Council The Minister must appoint an Advisory Council member other than the Director-General to be the Chair of the Advisory Council. (5) Clause 30, page 28 (line 25) to page 29 (line 10), omit subclause (4), substitute: Process for appointment (4) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Advisory 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 at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria: (i) appropriate expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following: (A) public health matters; (B) clinical practice; (C) economics; (D) human rights; (E) data and statistics relating to public health matters; (F) emergency management; (G) communications; (H) any other field that the Minister considers appropriate; (ii) integrity; (iii) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and (c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 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 paragraph (b). The amendments I'm introducing today are also made in good faith and will do four things. Firstly, they'll create an independent selection process for the appointment of the director-general and the advisory council. Secondly, they stipulate that the chair of the advisory council be a member of the council rather than the director-general. Thirdly, they expand the functions of the director-general to include both the promotion of research and advice to government on workforce capability. Lastly, they ensure consultation occurs with preventive health bodies. A central objective of the Australian Centre for Disease Control is to guide independent, evidence based public health decision-making that builds and maintains public trust. While the creation of the Australian CDC as a statutory Commonwealth entity with clear lines of accountability delivers on this objective, public trust will absolutely hinge on the CDC's independence from political interference now and into the future. The politicisation of the US CDC, under the influence of health secretary Robert F Kennedy, has shown how misinformation and political pressure can undermine scientific leadership. Australia must proactively design safeguards to prevent similar vulnerabilities. My amendment to this bill would do this, so it's somewhat alarming that the way this bill is currently drafted means that the minister of the day will retain discretion over the appointment of the director-general. Again I say: let's establish this really important institution in a way that safeguards its integrity.