Tom French's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Economy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping with the cost of living and strengthening the budget? How does that compare to other approaches?
Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to support the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. This is a significant piece of legislation. It's not flashy and it doesn't chase headlines, but it does...
I rise to support the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. This is a significant piece of legislation. It's not flashy and it doesn't chase headlines, but it does something far more important. It brings clarity, accountability and confidence to a part of our economy that has grown rapidly, often noisily and, until now, too often without the protections Australians rightly expect. Digital assets are no longer a fringe interest. They are not the preserve of early adopters, hobbyists or speculative traders operating on the margins of the financial system. Digital assets and the platforms that support them are now firmly embedded in the global economy. Australians are using them to invest, to transact, to build businesses and to experiment with new models of value creation. With that growth comes opportunity. Blockchain technology and tokenisation have the potential to reduce transaction costs, speed up settlement, expand access to capital markets and enable new forms of innovation across the economy. If Australia gets this right, we can be a serious player in the digital economy. But with opportunity comes risk, and for too long those risks have fallen disproportionately on consumers. We do not need to speculate about what happens when fast-growing financial activity is allowed to operate without clear rules; we've already seen it. Consumers have experienced frozen withdrawals, lost access to assets they believed were held in trust and discovered, often too late, that their assets were co-mingled or inadequately protected. In some cases, digital asset platforms failed not because of market volatility but because of basic governance failures that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the financial system. These events have had real consequences for people. Australians have lost savings set aside for first homes, retirement or small business investment. Confidence has been shaken not only in individual platforms but in the broader promise of digital finance itself. That erosion of trust does not hurt just consumers; it hurts legitimate Australian businesses that are trying to innovate responsibly and to compete globally. The absence of clear standards has allowed poor practices to persist and bad actors to hide in plain sight. This bill is a direct response to those failures. It recognises that, while technology evolves quickly, the fundamentals of consumer protection do not. Australians should not face a lower standard of care simply because an asset is digital rather than physical. This bill addresses those problems directly. Australia's existing financial service laws were never designed to deal comprehensively with large-scale custodial holdings of non-financial digital assets. While parts of the current framework apply in some circumstances, significant gaps remain. In practice, this has meant that businesses could hold large volumes of client digital assets without licensing, custody or disclosure obligations that would apply in more traditional financial arrangements. That gap has created uncertainty for regulators and confusion for consumers, and risk for the system as a whole is encouraged—a form of regulation-by-enforcement where businesses only discover they are compliant after legal action has commenced. This bill replaces ambiguity with clarity by making it clear which activities are captured, which obligations apply and where responsibility lies. The bill introduces two new categories of financial products into our existing framework: digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms. By doing so, it ensures businesses performing functions that look and feel like traditional financial services are subject to comparable obligations tailored to reflect the unique features of digital assets. This is the principle of 'same activity, same risk, same regulation' in action. Under the bill, operators of digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms will be required to hold an Australian financial services licence unless a targeted exemption applies. Requiring an Australian financial services licence is not a punishment; it is a signal of legitimacy. It ensures operators meet baseline standards of competence, financial capacity and governance. It means they are accountable to ASIC and that consumers have clear avenues for redress. ASIC's supervisory and enforcement role under this framework is not about micromanaging innovation; it is about ensuring minimum standards are set, risks are managed responsibly and consumer assets are handled with the care Australians expect elsewhere in the financial system. In addition, the bill introduces specific, bespoke obligations designed to address real-world risks that have emerged in digital asset markets. These include minimum standards for asset holding, requirements around transaction and settlement, and tailored disclosures to help consumers understand how platforms operate and the risks that are involved. Importantly, these disclosures are not about burying consumers in technical jargon or dense legal documents. The bill replaces the need for multiple product disclosure statements with a clear, platform-specific guide. This is about transparency that is meaningful, not performative. I want to address directly a concern that is sometimes raised in debates like this: that regulation will stifle innovation. A well-designed regulatory framework is not the enemy of innovation; it is its foundation. Businesses invest where the rules are clear, stable and predictable. Capital flows to jurisdictions that combine openness to new ideas with confidence in the rule of law. By providing regulatory certainty, this bill supports productivity growth across the economy. Tokenisation and digital infrastructure have the potential to reduce costs, speed up settlement and unlock new forms of economic activity, but only where trust in the system exists. This is how Australia positions itself as a serious and competitive digital economy, open to innovation but clear eyed about the risk. This bill provides regulatory certainty. It tells businesses what is expected of them, tells investors and consumers what protections they can rely on, and gives regulators the tools they need to intervene early rather than cleaning up the wreckage after the harm has occurred. That certainty is not a barrier to innovation; it is a precondition for it. The framework recognises the importance of startups and small operators in driving innovation. Exemptions for genuinely small and lower-risk providers ensure that early-stage businesses are not burdened with obligations that are disproportionate to the risks they pose. Rather than attempting to define every possible digital asset—a task that would be obsolete almost as soon as it was completed—the bill takes a more sensible, future focused approach. It targets the source of the greatest risk the platforms and the custodial arrangements that hold digital assets on behalf of consumers. Under this framework, those platforms will be subject to the general obligations that underpin trust in our financial system, including obligations to act efficiently, honestly and fairly, as well as prohibitions on misleading conduct and oversight by ASIC. The bill demonstrates a strong commitment to proportionality. It includes exemptions for genuinely small operators, including a low-value threshold that ensures startups and early-stage innovators are not crushed under compliance costs before they have a chance to scale. It also provides an exemption to businesses where digital asset services are incidental to a broader non-financial activity. These are sensible carve-outs. They recognise that innovation often begins small and that regulation should be targeted when the risk is greatest. This bill further includes an 18-month transition period. This is not an afterthought. It is an acknowledgement that both industry and regulators need time to adapt. Businesses that are trying to do the right thing will have a clear pathway into compliance, and ASIC will have the opportunity to engage constructively with the sector as the regime comes into force. This legislation does not exist in isolation. It sits alongside other reforms to strengthen the integrity of our financial system and protect Australians from harm, including reforms to our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime, as broader efforts to combat scams and financial crime. Digital assets have increasingly been used by criminals to obscure transactions, move funds across borders and exploit regulatory blind spots. This bill closes one of those blind spots. Bringing digital asset intermediaries within the financial services framework makes it harder for bad actors to operate and easier for law-abiding businesses to distinguish themselves. I also want to acknowledge the extensive consultation that underpins this bill. This framework did not happen overnight. It is the product of multiple rounds of public consultation, of engagement with industry, legal experts and consumer advocates and of careful consideration of international developments. The government has listened. It has refined its approach, and it has delivered legislation that aligns Australia with comparable jurisdictions while remaining grounded in its own legal and regulatory traditions. We are already seeing what responsible digital innovation looks like when talent, investment and clear rules come together. Western Australia has become an international epicentre for cybersecurity experts, businesses and leaders, with Perth emerging as a nationally significant hub for cybercapability and innovation. A major reason for that strength is the depth of skills and training being developed in Perth's north. Edith Cowan University, based in my electorate of Moore, is the second largest cybersecurity training facility in the Southern Hemisphere and was the first Australian institution admitted to the International Cyber Security Center of Excellence following its establishment in 2019. ECU alone produces more than 20 per cent of Australia's cybersecurity graduates, contributing to the more than 66,000 cyberworkers now employed nationally. It's a workforce that continues to grow rapidly. In my electorate of Moore, this growth is not abstract. Local businesses, startups and skilled workers are contributing to this ecosystem by developing secure platforms, compliance technologies and digital services that rely on strong regulatory foundations. This includes local cybersecurity firms, such as Simformatica, which is led by Peter Stagg, who is a local business owner with whom I have met to discuss the opportunities and challenges facing the sector. I had the pleasure of attending the Joondalup Business Association's breakfast in August last year, alongside the Minister for Small Business the Hon. Dr Anne Aly, where I heard from local business leaders about the strengths and ambitions of our region's innovators. Those ambitions depend on certainty, integrity and clear rules, and from a constituency perspective this matters deeply. In communities like mine, people are curious about new technologies, but they are also cautious. They want to know that if they engage with digital assets—whether directly, through investment products or via emerging local businesses—the rules are clear and the protections are real. This bill gives them that confidence. Looking ahead, the growing scale and interconnectedness of digital asset markets means that risks which are currently contained could, if left unmanaged, become systemic. Large custodial failures, operational outages or cyber incidents have the potential to spill over into the broader financial system. This bill lays the groundwork for managing those risks before they crystallise rather than reacting after the damage is done. It also supports Australian innovation. Clear rules attract investment. They support job creation in fintech, cybersecurity, compliance, software development and advanced manufacturing. They position Australia as a jurisdiction that is open to new ideas, but isn't naive about the risk. The question before the House is not whether digital assets will continue to grow. They will. The question is whether we allow that growth to occur in a regulatory vacuum or whether we put in place a framework that protects consumers, supports responsible innovation and safeguards the integrity of our financial system. This bill chooses the latter. It modernises our law without discarding what works, it adapts existing financial services principles to new technology, and it strikes a careful balance between flexibility and accountability. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill represents a careful and deliberate reform to Australia's health...
I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill represents a careful and deliberate reform to Australia's health system. It strengthens Medicare, improves access to affordable medicines and ensures that our health workforce is better supported to meet rising demand by enabling professionals to work to their full and appropriate scope of practice. It is a reform grounded in evidence, consultation and an understanding of how health care is delivered on the ground in communities across Australia. At its core, this legislation amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Insurance Act 1973 to allow appropriately qualified and endorsed registered nurses to prescribe certain pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Importantly, it does so within a clearly defined regulatory framework that includes professional oversight, prescribing agreements and established accountability mechanisms. This legislative change reflects a broader shift in how health care is delivered in Australia. Contemporary care increasingly relies on multidisciplinary teams, continuity across settings and the effective coordination of skills, and yet our legislative and funding frameworks have not always kept pace with these changes. In the many parts of the health system, professionals are trained to undertake responsibilities that existing settings prevent them from exercising fully. This creates inefficiency, duplication and frustration both for patients and for providers. Addressing these barriers is essential if Medicare is to remain responsive and sustainable. This bill takes a targeted approach to reform. Rather than restructuring the system wholesale, it removes a specific constraint that has been well identified through policy review and professional consultation. It enables appropriately qualified registered nurses to contribute more fully within defined clinical and governance arrangements. By doing so, it supports a health system that is better aligned with how health care is delivered in practice, particularly in primary and community settings where demand continues to grow. Australia's health system is under sustained and increasing strain. In my electorate, the Joondalup Health Campus serves a large and growing population across Perth's northern corridor and highlights the importance of strong primary and community care in supporting timely treatment and safe transitions for patients. Nurses at the Joondalup Health Campus already play a critical role in assessment, care coordination, chronic disease management and discharge planning. What this bill recognises is that in appropriate circumstances and within defined governance arrangements those nurses should be able to complete an episode of care rather than fragment it. Enabling appropriately endorsed registered nurses to prescribe under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme supports safer transitions from hospital to community care, reduces unnecessary delays in treatment and helps prevent avoidable readmissions. For a health campus operating at scale, and for a community that relies on it every day, these efficiencies matter. They improve patient flow, reduce pressure on emergency departments and support better continuity of care once a patient leaves hospital. Demand for care continues to grow as our population ages and as more Australians live with chronic and complex conditions. These pressures are compounded by workforce shortages, particularly in primary care and general practice. Too often, these challenges manifest as long wait times, fragmented care pathways and avoidable escalation of care that could have been better managed earlier in community settings. Enabling appropriately endorsed nurses to prescribe under the PBS allows care to be delivered more seamlessly within existing service models. It reduces the need for multiple appointments and supports continuity, particularly for patients with ongoing care needs. For constituents, this can translate into more timely access to treatment, fewer delays and a better experience of the health system. For providers, it supports more efficient use of clinical time and skills. This reform recognises how care is delivered on the ground in growing outer metropolitan communities and ensures Medicare settings better reflect those realities. Enabling registered nurses to prescribe under the PBS within defined parameters directly supports that goal. It allows care to be delivered more efficiently and reduces unnecessary duplication while preserving clinical governance and patient safety. For patients, this can mean faster access to treatment and fewer barriers to care. This bill responds to those realities by making better use of the skilled health workforce already embedded in our communities. Registered nurses comprise approximately half of Australia's health workforce and play a central role across the health system. Yet, despite their expertise, regulatory and funding arrangements have often limited their ability to operate at the top of their scope, particularly in the primary and community based care areas. The reforms in this bill allow endorsed registered nurses who meet rigorous education, experience and accreditation requirements to prescribe specified medicines under the PBS. This enables patients to receive timely and affordable treatment from the health professional who is already providing their care, without unnecessary duplication, delay or additional appointments. It is important to be clear that this reform is not about replacing doctors or diminishing the role of general practitioners. Rather, it is about strengthening multidisciplinary, team based care. Modern health systems function best when each professional is supported to contribute their skills within a coordinated and collaborative framework. The policy foundations for this reform are well established. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce identified scope-of-practice reform as essential to improving access, affordability and sustainability in primary care. That work was reinforced by the scope-of-practice review, which found that unnecessary regulatory barriers were preventing health professionals from contributing fully to patient care and system efficiency. Alongside this work, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, working with the Australian Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer, undertook extensive research and consultation on nurse prescribing. This process commenced several years ago and involved engagement with governments, nursing and medical organisations, medical organisations, clinicians and consumers. It culminated in the endorsement of a new registration standard for designated registered nurse prescribers by all health ministers, which came into effect in 2025. This bill provides the necessary Commonwealth legislative framework to support that standard by enabling access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is worth setting out how this legislation operates in practice, because its safeguards are central to its integrity. The safeguards contained in this bill are comprehensive and deliberate. Eligibility, approval and prescribing arrangements operate together to ensure that nurse prescribing under the PBS occurs within a framework that prioritises safety, accountability and professional standards. Approval as an authorised nurse prescriber is not automatic. Applications must be assessed by the secretary, and approvals may be subject to conditions. Chief among these requirements are prescribing agreements with other authorised PBS prescribers. These arrangements embed nurse prescribing within collaborative, team based models of care. The inclusion of authorised nurse prescribers within the Professional Services Review scheme further strengthens accountability. It ensures consistency and oversight across the PBS and provides mechanisms for peer review and sanction where appropriate. These measures collectively demonstrate that the reform balances improved access with strong governance and public confidence. The bill also makes clear that authorised nurse prescribers may only prescribe pharmaceutical benefits determined by the minister for the purposes of the PBS. In making those determinations, the minister must have regard to the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This preserves the independence, rigour and evidence-based nature of PBS decision-making. Further, authorised nurse prescribers will be subject to the Professional Services Review scheme under the Health Insurance Act. This ensures that their PBS prescribing is subject to the same peer review and accountability mechanisms that apply to other PBS prescribers, maintaining the integrity of the system. This bill includes provisions allowing the secretary to suspend or revoke approvals where conditions are breached, along with clear notification and review rights. These measures ensure that participation in nurse prescribing is contingent on ongoing compliance with professional and legislative requirements. From the perspective of the electorate I represent, the benefits of this reform are practical and tangible. Across Moore, nurses already play a central role in managing chronic disease, supporting older Australians, delivering preventive care and coordinating services for people with complex needs. Allowing appropriately endorsed nurses to prescribe under the PBS enables more complete and efficient episodes of care. For older residents managing multiple medications, this can mean fewer appointments and better continuity. For families balancing work and care responsibilities, it can mean less time navigating fragmented services. For people living with chronic illness, it can mean earlier intervention and reduced risk of avoidable deterioration. This reform is also significant for equity of access. Workforce shortages are not evenly distributed. Regional and remote communities and some outer metropolitan areas have greater difficulty attracting and retaining health professionals compared with metropolitan centres. By expanding the capacity of nurses to deliver care within their scope, this bill helps ensure that access to affordable medicines is not constrained by geography or workforce bottlenecks. It also supports the sustainability of general practice. By enabling nurses to manage appropriate prescribing within collaborative arrangements, general practitioners are better able to focus on patients with complex diagnostic needs, multimorbidity and care coordination requirements. This strengthens rather than undermines the role of general practice. International experience supports this approach. Nurse prescribing models operate safely and effectively in countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland and the Netherlands. Evidence from those systems demonstrates that non-medical prescribing, when governed properly, improves access to care, supports workforce retention and maintains high standards of patient safety. The bill makes clear that prescribing by authorised nurse prescribers will commence only after the relevant delegated legislation is in place. The use of legislative instruments to determine the prescribing scope ensures flexibility while maintaining parliamentary scrutiny. It allows adjustments to be made in response to evidence and experience without undermining the integrity of the framework. It recognises that modernising health regulation requires both ambition and caution, particularly where patient safety and public confidence are concerned. By embedding oversight, review and accountability mechanisms, the bill ensures that implementation proceeds in a way that is transparent and adaptable. This reform is focused on improving how care is delivered within the existing health system rather than changing infrastructure or hospital planning settings. The financial impact of this bill indicates there is no expected additional cost to the PBS. That reflects the fact that this reform changes who can prescribe, not who is eligible to receive, the subsidised medicines. It improves access and efficiency without expanding entitlement. Taken together, the measures in this bill modernise Australia's health legislation to reflect contemporary practice and patient needs. They strengthen Medicare's capacity to respond to demand and support a workforce that is better equipped to deliver timely, high-quality care. For the people I represent in Moore, this matters. It means a health system that works more effectively in practice, recognises the professionalism of nurses and delivers care when and where it is needed. For those reasons, I support the bill and commend it to the House.
Copyright Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a measured, practical and overdue reform to Australia's copyright framework. It modernises the Copyright Act 1968 to...
I rise to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a measured, practical and overdue reform to Australia's copyright framework. It modernises the Copyright Act 1968 to reflect how Australians learn, create, preserve culture and share knowledge in the 21st century. It does so without undermining the legitimate rights and interests of creators, authors and rights holders who rely on copyright protection for their livelihoods. At its core, this bill responds to a simple reality: the way Australians access information, participate in education and engage with cultural materials has changed profoundly, yet key elements of our copyright law have not kept pace. This bill closes that gap carefully and responsibly. The bill does three principal things. First, it introduces Australia's first statutory orphan work scheme. Second, it clarifies that copyright exemptions for educational instruction apply consistently across physical, online and hybrid learning environments. Third, it makes a small number of technical and administrative amendments to improve the operation of the Copyright Act, including in relation to the Copyright Tribunal and the duration of Crown copyright. Each of these reforms has been developed following extensive consultation. They reflect years of policy work, including multiple ministerial roundtables convened in 2023 with stakeholders from the creative industries, the education sector, collecting institutions and rights holder organisations. The result is legislation that is balanced, proportionate and grounded in evidence. Copyright reform is rarely straightforward. It sits at the intersection of competing but legitimate interests: creators seeking fair reward for their work, educators and students seeking access to knowledge, cultural institutions seeking to preserve and share our collective memory and governments seeking to ensure the law keeps pace with technological and social change. The ministerial copyright roundtables, held in 2023, represented a different approach. They brought together representatives from across the creative, cultural, educational and research sectors, as well as industry representatives, collecting institutions and other interested organisations. The objective was not to reopen the entirety of copyright law, but to identify discrete, achievable reforms where there was genuine alignment and evidence of need. By addressing orphan works and clarifying educational use without undermining core rights or licensing frameworks, this bill strengthens that legitimacy. I'll turn to each of the key measures in this bill. I'll begin with schedule 1, which establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. As someone who was a longstanding supporter of the arts and a regular attendee of live music and performance and as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music, I am acutely aware of how central copyright is to the sustainability of Australia's creative industries. That is precisely why it is so important that reform in this area is careful, balanced and grounded in respect for creators. An orphan work is a copyright material for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located after reasonable efforts. These works are not rare. They are held in large number of libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and community organisations. They include historical photographs, personal letters, diaries, unpublished manuscripts, audio-visual recordings and other collectables that document our social, cultural and civic life. Under current law, the inability to identify or locate a copyright owner often means these materials cannot be used at all, even for socially valuable purposes such as education, research, preservation or public exhibition. Institutions face legal uncertainty and risk, and the public is denied access to material that forms part of our shared heritage. The orphan works scheme in this bill addresses that problem directly. It does not abolish copyright. It does not create a blanket exception. Instead, it introduces a carefully calibrated limitation on remedies where a user has acted in good faith and met the strict statutory conditions. Under the scheme, a person may rely on the limitation on remedies only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, kept a record of that search, could not identify or locate the owner at the time of use and provided clear and prominent notice of reliance on the scheme. If, and only if, those conditions are satisfied, the court is prevented from awarding damages, additional damages or an account of profits for the infringing use. However, the court may still issue reasonable payment to the copyright owner if they later come forward, reflecting what would have been a reasonable licence fee. Importantly, copyright owners retain the ability to assert their rights if they are later identified. They may negotiate terms for ongoing use or seek court ordered terms or injunctive relief in relation to future use. Moral rights are unaffected. Constitutional safeguards are preserved through an express just terms compensation provision. This is not a free-for-all. The burden of proof rests squarely on the user to demonstrate compliance with the scheme. Higher standards of diligence are expected for commercial uses, for sensitive or vulnerable materials and for works involving Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. The scheme is deliberately designed to encourage caution, transparency and respect. For creators whose works have become orphaned unintentionally through lost records, defunct publishers or the passage of time, the scheme may in fact create new opportunities. Where a copyright owner later emerges, they are entitled to reasonable payment and may negotiate terms for ongoing use. In that sense, the scheme can reconnect creators with works that might otherwise remain unused and invisible. What this reform does is provide legal certainty where uncertainty has prevailed for decades. It unlocks access to material of cultural, historical and educational value while preserving fairness for rights holders. For researchers, educators, students and community organisations, this reform matters. It allows institutions to preserve, digitise and share material that would otherwise remain inaccessible. It supports the diffusion of knowledge and culture, which is a core objective of copyright law itself. I now turn to schedule 2, which addresses copyright and remote learning. Section 28 of the Copyright Act permits the performance or communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction without that use being treated as public performance or communication to the public. That exception has long been understood as applying in physical classrooms. However, the rapid expansion of online and hybrid learning, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has created uncertainty about how those rules apply to remote teaching and learning. This bill removes that uncertainty. The amendments to section 28 make it explicit that the provision applies equally to educational instruction conducted in person, online or through a combination of both. It clarifies that parents and guardians who assist students with their lessons are taken to be participating in the instruction. It also confirms that educational instruction may be delivered by persons other than a teacher, such as community members or external presenters, without altering the copyright treatment of the material used. These clarifications do not expand the scope of the exception. They do not disturb existing licensing arrangements, which remain vital to supporting Australian creators and publishers. What they do is ensure that teachers, schools and families are not left guessing about compliance when delivering education in modern formats. This matters for equity. Online and hybrid learning models are not a luxury; they are a necessity for many students, including students in regional and remote areas, students with disabilities, students managing illness and students balancing education with caring responsibilities or work. Educators are not copyright lawyers, yet they are expected to navigate complex legal obligations while delivering lessons supporting diverse learners and adapting to rapidly changing modes of instruction. Uncertainty in the law does not promote compliance; it promotes hesitation, inconsistency and, in some cases, unnecessary self-censorship. The clarification regarding parental and community involvement is equally important. Parents and carers often play a vital role in supporting students, particularly younger children and students with additional needs. Community members, including local professionals and service workers, frequently contribute to educational programs in ways that enrich learning and connect it to real-world experience. Copyright law should not inadvertently discourage that engagement. I now turn to schedule 3, which contains a number of minor but important technical amendments. These include simplifying the process for appointing an acting president and registrar of the Copyright Tribunal, updating outdated references to Commonwealth and state archives, modernising notification requirements by replacing gazette publication with notifiable instruments and clarifying the scope of Crown copyright. In particular, the bill makes clear that the provision governing the duration of Crown copyright applies only to material made or first published by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a state. It does not apply to material later acquired by government from third parties. This clarification ensures that government acquisition does not inadvertently extend copyright duration and provides certainty to rights holders and users alike. While these amendments are technical in nature, they improve the clarity, coherence and administration of the act. Good law reform is not only about major policy shifts; it is also about ensuring that statutes operate efficiently and transparently. Before concluding, I want to address an issue that has understandably attracted attention: the interaction between copyright reform and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. This bill does not create a general exemption for the use of copyright material in training AI systems, nor does the orphan works scheme provide a practical pathway for bulk use of works for that purpose. The scheme's requirements, particularly the obligation to conduct a reasonably diligent search and provide notice in relation to each use, are deliberately structured to prevent inappropriate reliance for large-scale automated uses. AI raises complex questions for creators, educators, industry and society, and those questions deserve a dedicated consideration. This bill does not pre-empt that debate; instead, it focuses on targeted, consensus based reforms that address clear and longstanding problems. Finally, I want to acknowledge the broader human rights context of this legislation. The orphan works scheme and remote learning amendments positively engage the right to education, the right to participate in cultural life and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. They promote accessibility, inclusion and non-discrimination. Where the bill places limits on rights, those limits are reasonable, proportionate and necessary to achieve legitimate public objectives. In conclusion, this bill strengthens Australia's copyright system by making it more responsive to contemporary realities while preserving the fundamental balance at its heart. It supports creators by maintaining strong rights and remedies; it supports creators and students by providing clarity and certainty; it supports cultural institutions by unlocking access to orphan materials; and it supports the Australian community by promoting the diffusion of knowledge, culture and learning. This is thoughtful reform. It is careful reform. It is reform whose time has come. I commend the bill to the House.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
I rise to speak in support of the condolence motion following the horrific and deliberate terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. This was not a random act of violence but a...
I rise to speak in support of the condolence motion following the horrific and deliberate terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. This was not a random act of violence but a deliberate attack, intended to cause death and injury and to spread fear by targeting Jewish Australians. It is for that reason that I begin by extending my deepest condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of those who lost their lives. Nothing said in this place can ease their grief, but it is right that the Parliament of Australia pauses to acknowledge their loss and place on record our collective sorrow. For the injured, for those who witnessed the violence and for the broader Bondi and Sydney communities, this event has left an enduring mark. What should have been an ordinary day—people enjoying the beach, meeting friends and spending time with family—was shattered by an act of calculated hatred. And that rupture to everyday safety is itself a source of trauma that must not be understated. From Western Australia, Bondi may feel a long way away geographically, but moments like this collapse distance very quickly. Australians understand beaches and public spaces as places of openness, shared civic environments where people of all backgrounds move freely and without fear. And when violence intrudes into those spaces, particularly violence motivated by hatred toward a specific community, it resonates across the country. This was not just an attack on those present that day. It was an attack on Jewish Australians as a community and on the values of safety and inclusion Australians rightly expect. Jewish Australians should never be made to feel unsafe in public places, at cultural gatherings or in the simple act of living their lives. Antisemitism, whether expressed through words, symbols or violence, has no place in Australia. And terrorism driven by that hatred must be condemned unequivocally. In the midst of the chaos, however, we saw extraordinary courage and decency. Members of the public acted instinctively, helping strangers, shielding others and providing first aid in circumstances no-one should ever face. They were ordinary Australians who stepped forward because someone needed help. And that deserves recognition by this House. I also wish to place on record my respect and gratitude for the first responders—police, paramedics, surf lifesavers—who responded swiftly and professionally. Their actions undoubtedly saved lives. They ran towards danger, not away from it, with the calm confidence Australians rely upon in times of crisis. Events like this understandably provoke fear, anger and a demand for answers. Those reactions are human. But they also test us, particularly those of us entrusted with public office by demanding a response grounded in steadiness, clarity and resolve rather than one that flames anxieties or reaches for easy explanations. Violence of this nature has no place in Australian society. It cannot be normalised, excused or explained away. As the member for Moore, I represent a diverse community of different backgrounds, faiths and histories, united by a shared expectation they will be safe and treated with dignity in this country. In my first speech to this parliament I referred to Martin Niemoller's First They Came, a reminder that failing to speak out when one group is targeted ultimately weakens the safety of all. When Jewish Australians are attacked because of who they are, it is not a matter for one community alone; it is a test of whether we are prepared to draw a clear and unequivocal line against hatred and political violence. Australia is a country built on the assumption that people will look out for one another. That assumption was shaken at Bondi, but it was also reaffirmed by the conduct of those who helped, those who responded and those who supported victims and families in the aftermath. As a parliament, our words today must not be a substitute for continued care, support and seriousness in how we approach public safety and community protection. Respect for the victims requires more than a moment of silence; it requires follow-through. In supporting this condolence motion, we affirm that every life lost mattered, that every injury sustained is taken seriously and that Australians are entitled to feel safe in public places. We also affirm that Jewish Australians are entitled to live free from fear, intimidation and violence, just as every Australian is. Finally, I join colleagues in standing with the people of Bondi, with the Jewish community, with the people of New South Wales and with Australians everywhere who were shaken by this attack. We mourn with those who have lost loved ones, acknowledge the bravery of those who acted and recommit ourselves to the values of safety, decency and mutual respect that bind this country together. In doing so, we affirm the kind of country Australia chooses to be.
Wages and Salaries | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering higher wages for Australian workers, and are there any risks?
Albanese Government | Statements by Members | House debates
Australians expect parliament to focus on outcomes, not theatrics. The Albanese Labor government has approached its work in that spirit—steady, practical and aimed at improving people's...
Australians expect parliament to focus on outcomes, not theatrics. The Albanese Labor government has approached its work in that spirit—steady, practical and aimed at improving people's daily lives. The government has legislated tax reductions for every taxpayer. Bulk-billing has been strengthened through the largest increase to Medicare incentives in decades. Childcare costs have been reduced for over a million families to help parents stay in work. Fee-free TAFE has supported hundreds of thousands of Australians to train in critical industries, including construction, manufacturing and care. The National Reconstruction Fund is beginning the long-term task of rebuilding sovereign capability. National energy infrastructure has been modernised through Rewiring the Nation so the grid is fit for the coming decades. Aged-care standards have been lifted by ensuring nurses are onsite and improving nutritional and clinical care. PBS reforms have reduced the cost of many common medicines. And the housing agenda, through the Housing Australia Future Fund, has begun expanding the supply of social and affordable houses. None of this is transformational overnight, nor is it claimed to be. It is careful, incremental work that good government undertakes. It reflects a belief that policy should be evidence based, fiscally responsible and aimed at long-term benefit. It demonstrates that parliament functions best when it focuses on solutions rather than conflict. Australians deserve that approach, and this government intends to continue it.
Small Business | Private Members' Business | House debates
I rise to oppose the motion moved by the member for Goldstein. We all know that the member is never short on rhetoric, but today he is desperately short on facts, and small-business operators...
I rise to oppose the motion moved by the member for Goldstein. We all know that the member is never short on rhetoric, but today he is desperately short on facts, and small-business operators deserve better than that. Labor is and always has been the party of the real economy—the workers who power small businesses and the small businesses that power our communities. That's not just talk; that's our economic record. When Hawke and Keating modernised the nation they laid the foundations that every small-business owner relies on today. They floated the dollar. They cut tariffs and opened markets. They deregulated financial systems to expand opportunity. They introduced compulsory superannuation, creating the multitrillion-dollar national capital pool that underpins Australian investment, including the lending capacity that small businesses rely on. And let's be honest: the coalition fought Hawke and Keating on every major economic reform—the float, the tariffs, superannuation and deregulation—and they were wrong every single time. Those reforms created a competitive, stable, modern economy that allowed millions of small businesses to thrive. The Albanese Labor government continues in that tradition. We back the 2.66 million small businesses that contribute $596 billion to our economy and employ 5.16 million Australians. Small businesses keep our suburbs vibrant. The cafes, the gyms, the clinics, the tradies and the retailers make my northern corridor a great place to live. And when small businesses thrive, Australia thrives. This government actually acts on that belief; we don't just talk about it. This government has delivered energy bill relief to around one million small businesses. We backed that with $56.7 million in energy efficiency grants that help small businesses to permanently lower their power bills. The member for Goldstein talks about being pro small business, but his party's record tells another story. The coalition opposed Labor's tax cuts that benefit 1.5 million sole traders. They opposed the last round of tax cuts for small business. That's the coalition's record. This is our record. We're delivering the National Small Business Strategy, co-designed with states and territories to cut red tape and reduce duplication. We invested $33.4 million to strengthen the Payment Times Reporting Scheme so that big corporates can't sit on invoices and choke small businesses' cash flow. We extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off so that small businesses can invest in tools, technology, equipment and machinery. That means tradies in Heathridge upgrading tools, cafes in Hillarys buying a new coffee machine that doubles output, and Joondalup office businesses upgrading their CRM systems, all with immediate deductibility, supporting cash flow. We also delivered more than $80 million in digital support programs, digital solutions, cyber wardens and the Small Business Cyber Resilience Service, because modernisation is not optional for small business; it is essential. We strengthened the franchising code and invested in the ACCC to protect small franchisees from unfair contract terms and power imbalances, We expanded unfair trading protections so that small operators are no longer steamrolled by large corporations. On workplace relations, we worked directly with COSBOA and employer groups to stage reforms and introduce exemptions for small business. We established a voluntary wage compliance code so genuine small businesses aren't criminalised for administrative errors. And we funded the Fair Work Ombudsman and Fair Work Commission to give small businesses practical, accessible guidance—something the coalition never bothered with. The member for Goldstein neglects to mention all of this because none of it fits the narrative he wants to sell. But small-business owners see through it. They know the difference between the government that shows up for them and the opposition that simply shows up to talk about them. Small businesses don't want culture wars; they want practical support. Labor delivers on that. The coalition does not. So, yes, the Labor Party is the party of small business because we back the people who start them, run them, employ locals and keep communities strong. We invest in their tools, their training, their energy bills, their digital capability and their long-term success. The member for Goldstein wants small businesses to believe that this government has walked away from them. But small-business operators are not fools. They know who actually delivers for them. I oppose this motion. I stand with the Labor government that is carrying forward the proud Labor tradition of supporting small businesses. I stand with the small businesses of Moore and across Australia who deserve a government that backs them every single day.
Coleman, Ms Joy, Pring, Ms Kim | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise today to recognise two extraordinary local legends from my electorate of Moore—people whose service shows, in very real terms, what community leadership looks like. First, I want to...
I rise today to recognise two extraordinary local legends from my electorate of Moore—people whose service shows, in very real terms, what community leadership looks like. First, I want to pay tribute to Joy Coleman, whose remarkable legacy lives through the Spiers Centre in Heathridge. Back in 1980, when Heathridge was still new, still isolated and still finding its identity, Joy opened the doors of her own home to around 40 local women. What began around her lounge room grew very quickly into the Heathridge/Beldon Women's Community Group, a place to gather, support each other and build the foundations of a stronger community. Over the years, the group moved into what became known as the Granny Spiers Community House, honouring Frances 'Granny' Spears, whose generosity and community spirit in the early 1900s set the tone for service in our region. The house grew, the programs expanded, and in 2009 it became what we now know as the Spiers Centre, a vital community hub offering support groups, financial assistance, family and parenting programs, a creche, Foodbank services and mental wellbeing support. In the words of Mullaloo resident and Spiers Centre volunteer Marilyn Krueger: 'It's not just about food, clothing or financial help. It's a welcoming place that encourages you to join in, meet people and become a contributor in making other people's lives brighter.' Joy passed away in August at the age of 85. Her daughter Michelle continues to serve the community through the centre. Moore is better because of Joy's kindness, her persistence and her belief that no-one should face hardship alone. Second, I want to acknowledge Kim Pring of Hillarys Yacht Club, an organisation I am proud to serve as vice-patron. Kim is the club's training and development manager, and her contribution to local young people and families cannot be overstated. Under her leadership, Hillarys Yacht Club has opened the world of sailing to hundreds of kids and community groups, giving them confidence, safety skills and, for many, a lifelong connection to the water. Over 200 kids registered for her recent try-sailing day, with each given a safe and encouraging first step onto a boat. She also champions SheSails, creating a welcoming and empowering path for women in our community to experience sailing. Rain, shine or full Fremantle doctor, Kim and her volunteers show up. Moore is incredibly lucky to have her. Joy Coleman and Kim Pring are two women on two different paths with one shared impact. They're leaving our community stronger than they found it. They are the quiet champions of Moore, and I'm proud to recognise them in the national parliament today.
Labor Government | Adjournment | House debates
Australia doesn't replay its history in a loop, but we do see a pattern every time the political pendulum swings. When Labor are in government we build the institutions that give ordinary people...
Australia doesn't replay its history in a loop, but we do see a pattern every time the political pendulum swings. When Labor are in government we build the institutions that give ordinary people security and opportunity, and, when the Liberals return, their instinct is to wind those gains back. Understanding that pattern tells us exactly what's at stake here today and exactly why this moment matters. The real wealth of this country is not the markets or the forecasts. It is our land, our resources and our people. For most of our history, working people have had little control over that wealth. The rights we now enjoy were won by shearers, miners, maritime workers, suffragettes and migrants, people who organised because no-one else would fight for them. After the Second World War, Australians learnt something important: if we can mobilise the entire economy to win a war, we could mobilise to build a fair peace. From that came full employment, public housing, Medicare's early foundations, TAFE, universities and compulsory superannuation. These were deliberate choices that recognised what Australians want: a secure job, a decent home, health care when they need it, education that opens doors and dignity in retirement. From the 1980s onwards a different ideology took hold. It weakened unions, privatised essential services and insisted that markets alone should rule. Its sharpest impact has been on housing. Government once built homes, and now homes are treated as speculative assets. Tax concessions reward investors. Young Australians take on life-shaping debt just to get a foothold, and, the more debt people carry, the less power they have at work. That is not an accident; it is the consequence of political choices that have treated shelter as a commodity rather than a right. When conservatives promise efficiency, discipline or reform, we must ask: better for whom? Margaret Atwood wrote: Better never means better for everyone … It always means worse, for some. Privatisation means higher prices. Deregulation means weaker rights, and budget repair often means cuts borne by the people who can afford them least. This is where our obligation lies. As a Labor member I know I am part of a movement that is far bigger than myself. Everything we stand on was built by the people who came before us and who fought for rights they were never guaranteed and for institutions the conservatives have tried to dismantle ever since. Our responsibility is simple: to carry the torch forward so those who come after us inherit something stronger than what we found. We are the custodians of a tradition defined by one idea—progress is only real when it lifts people up, not when it leaves them behind. That is why the work of the Albanese Labor government matters so deeply right now, because it speaks directly to the real, practical things Australians need in their lives. We lifted wages after a decade of wage stagnation. We made wage theft a crime. We strengthened bargaining so workers can negotiate collectively again. We're rebuilding the TAFE system and delivering fee-free TAFE places so people can get skilled without taking on crippling debt. We created the Housing Australia Future Fund, the first serious federal investment in new social and affordable homes in a generation. We expanded rent assistance. We're partnering with the states to build more homes faster, and we're shifting the national conversation away from speculation and back to housing as a basic human need. We made medicines cheaper by cutting the PBS co-payment. We tripled the bulk-billing incentive so children, pensioners and concession card holders can see a GP without breaking the bank. We're strengthening Medicare because affordable health care should not depend on where you live or what you earn. There are energy rebates, cheaper child care and targeted tax cuts for middle- and low-income Australians—not handouts but responsible, targeted relief that actually helps households rather than inflating executives' bonuses. We put 24/7 nurses back into aged-care homes. We lifted aged-care wages. We're rebuilding a system that treats older Australians with dignity, not austerity. We're rebuilding Australian manufacturing, investing in clean energy and new industries, and backing communities in the transition, because a strong future must be made in Australia, not outsourced. This is what Australians want—practical improvements that make life easier, fairer and more secure. And that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering. The struggle for fairness in Australia isn't a circle; it's a relay. Those before us build the foundations, we strengthen them and those after us will stand taller because of what we do now. Our duty, Labor's duty, is to run our leg with clarity and courage, and leave behind an Australia that is fairer, stronger and more secure than the one we found.
VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Every now and then a bill comes before this House that doesn't spark headlines or hashtags but quietly makes the system fairer. This is one of those bills. At its core, the VET Student Loans...
Every now and then a bill comes before this House that doesn't spark headlines or hashtags but quietly makes the system fairer. This is one of those bills. At its core, the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 is about trust in the law and our institutions and trust for the students and providers who rely on them. It fixes an ambiguity that should never have existed. It confirms that the people administering student loans did so lawfully and in good faith. And it future-proofs privacy protections, so the same uncertainty can never happen again. That's it. There's no spin and no sleight of hand. It's just the kind of measured repair work that good government does quietly and well. When Australians apply for a VET student loan, they must include their tax file number. That's what ties the loan to their tax record and ensures repayments are made correctly through the Australian Tax Office. It's a safeguard that keeps the whole scheme honest so that the person who borrows the money is the person who pays it back. But here's the issue: the technology that made this possible moved faster than the legislation that governed it. While the law required the tax file number to make the system function, it never clearly authorised providers to handle it. For years, approved training organisations were doing exactly what the system needed them to do, entering data into secure government portals and reconciling loan information. But the authorising words in the statute weren't there. No-one acted improperly. No-one misused data. There were no complaints, no breaches and no scandals—just a gap between what the law said on paper and how the system worked in practice. This bill closes that gap. It makes clear that everything done in good faith since 1 January 2017 was and always had been lawful, and it confirms that, from 1 October 2025, providers no longer need to handle tax file numbers at all. Earlier this year the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations finished a major technology upgrade. Student tax file numbers are now masked from view in the student loan portal and transferred automatically between government systems. That means the data never passes through the hands of training providers or their staff. It moves seamlessly and securely from the student's application to the ATO and back again. That's modern governance in action—tightening privacy, reducing risk and removing unnecessary human handling altogether. This bill doesn't create new powers or broaden access to personal information; it simply aligns the law with the secure digital systems we already have and ensures that people who are already doing their jobs—providers, Commonwealth officers and departmental staff—are protected from the technical uncertainty created by a missing line of legislative authority. It sends a clear signal: when Labor finds something that isn't quite right, we don't bury it. We fix it, and we make it stronger for the future. From the day the VET Student Loans program began, privacy has been tightly controlled. Providers have been bound by strict information-handling rules under the VET Student Loans Act. They must meet a 'fit and proper person' test, undergo extensive approval processes and report any breach immediately. They are subject to civil penalties and even criminal offences for misuse of data. Those safeguards remain. What changes under the bill is the certainty that every past action performed in good faith and to get the student loans processed or reconciled sits squarely within the law. For the future, the system will operate with even higher privacy standards. No provider will see, store or transmit a student's tax file number. That's exactly how it should be in the digital age: minimal access, maximum protection. The bill, therefore, strengthens both integrity and confidence in our program, which has helped hundreds of thousands of Australians learn, train and work. The principles behind the bill are simple and consistent with the values that underpin our democracy. It supports the right to education by ensuring that the VET Student Loans program continues to operate smoothly for those who already rely on it to study and upskill. It supports the right to work, by guaranteeing access to training that leads directly to secure jobs in our economy. And it protects the right to privacy, by tightening the rules so that personal information is handled only when absolutely necessary and always within the bounds of the law. That is how we maintain trust in public administration: through careful, proportionate reform that respects both the individual and the institution. The bill may look technical, but it sits within a much larger effort of rebuilding Australia's vocational education system after its neglect. The truth is, when Labor returned to government, we inherited a skills system that had already been hollowed out. TAFE campuses were left to crumble, apprentice numbers were in freefall, and billions had been stripped from training budgets. Young Australians were told, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, that choosing a trade or a technical career was second-best. We reject that nonsense. We believe that, whether you are wiring a hospital, caring for the elderly or coding a new piece of software, your contribution matters equally to this country's future, and that's why Labor has put TAFE back at the centre of Australia's training system. Since Labor came to office, free TAFE has delivered more than 685,000 enrolments across the nation, in early childhood education, disability care, construction and in digital technology. That's 685,000 Australians who are getting a real qualification for a real job, without the financial barrier that once kept them out. When the opposition leader was shadow minister for skills, she said, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' Well, Australians are proving her wrong every single day. They value free TAFE, because it changes lives—theirs and their family's. In my own electorate of Moore, I've seen that transformation up close at the North Metropolitan TAFE. Under the leadership of Michelle Hoad, it's dedicated staff are training the electricians, engineers and technicians who keep Western Australia running. These people are juggling work, study and families. They're showing the same grit and determination that built this country. They deserve a government that has their back, and that's exactly what this bill represents: a government that's making sure the system that supports them is watertight and fair. When those students apply for a VET loan, they deserve to know that their personal information is safe, that their the debt is correctly recorded and that the government has done its homework. Labor's skills agenda goes further. We're backing apprentices in every corner of the country, because they are the ones who are building the homes, the infrastructure and the clean energy projects of the future. From July 2025, the Key Apprenticeship Program was expanded to include a dedicated housing construction stream, offering up to $10,000 in incentives for new apprentices. We extended the training support payment and priority hiring incentive through to the end of 2025, providing up to $5,000 for apprentices and employers in priority occupations. We increased the living-away-from-home allowance to help young people relocate for work, and we boosted support for apprentices with disabilities by removing unnecessary red tape. Each of these measures helps someone start and finish their trade, and each of them builds a stronger, more skilled workforce for our nation. We also understand that students and apprentices are under real cost-of-living pressures. That's why this government took decisive action to cut student debt by 20 per cent and lift the repayment threshold so that graduates begin repaying only when they can actually afford to. More than 280,000 VET and apprenticeship loan accounts will benefit from that change, representing over $500 million in debt relief. That's money that will stay in people's pockets. It's money that will help them pay rent, buy tools or simply breathe a little easier when they build their future. It's another example of a government that understands what fairness looks like in practice. This bill also reinforces something deeper—confidence in the government itself. That's because, when citizens see their government fixing problems quietly and properly rather than ignoring them or playing politics with them, it strengthens faith in every other reform we deliver. This is responsible lawmaking—no fanfare and no finger-pointing, just solid, careful work that keeps our systems strong. Those opposites might prefer a headline; we prefer results. They might treat governance as theatre; we treat it as service. Service means doing the unglamorous work of tightening a definition, updating a system or closing a legal loophole so that the whole machine runs as it should. That's what this bill does. It ensures that every form lodged, every record kept and every repayment made under the VET Student Loans program sits securely on the right side of the law. It's easy sometimes to think of legislation like this is as dry or technical. but behind every data point and clause is a person—a mature-age student retraining after a redundancy, an apprentice starting their first job in the trades or a single parent studying nursing to re-enter the workforce. They are the reason this program exists. They are the reason we make sure every part of it, from the online form to the privacy settings, works flawlessly. When we get these details right, we're not just fixing a database; we are reaffirming the social contract that government will look after people who put in the effort to better themselves. That's something Labor will always stand for. I often think that good government is a bit like good wiring. You don't notice it when it's done well; it just works. This bill is the wiring behind a much larger system. It's the quiet work that keeps the lights on, literally and figuratively, for the thousands of students who rely on VET loans every year. It shows that we take responsibility seriously. When we find a problem, we own it, we fix it and we make sure that it never happens again. That's what separates governing from posturing. So, yes, this bill is small. It won't make the evening news. But its impact will last. It strengthens privacy, validates the good-faith actions of people who did their job, modernises the administration of student loans and reinforces the integrity of one of the most important programs in our education system. It gives students confidence that their personal information is safe, it gives providers certainty that they are operating within the law and it gives the Australian people proof that their government is paying attention to even to the fine print. The VET sector is one of the great engines of national opportunity. It changes lives, opens doors and drives innovation. By maintaining integrity and trust in the systems that support it, this bill will help ensure that opportunity endures. It may be modest, but it's meaningful. It is, in every sense, what good government looks like—practical, careful and built to last. I commend the bill to the House.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise in strong support of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. It's a bill that brings one of our most important democratic laws into the modern age. At its heart freedom of...
I rise in strong support of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. It's a bill that brings one of our most important democratic laws into the modern age. At its heart freedom of information, FOI, is about trust. Governments act on behalf of the people and the people have a right to see how those decisions are made. It's how citizens hold power to account—whether it's pension decision, a visa application or a policy made in Canberra. When people see how government works, they are more likely to trust it. When they can't, suspicion fills the gap. The purpose of FOI is simple: to put information and therefore power back into the hands of the public. But the FOI system we rely on today is not fit for purpose. It was built for a world of filing cabinets and fax machines, not for cloud services and automated data. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 was passed over 40 years ago. Back then a big data problem meant someone had lost their floppy disk. The scale of modern government could not have been imagined. The Department of Home Affairs alone now holds nearly a billion records. Across government, agencies processed over 43,000 requests in 2023-25, which is the highest number on record. The cost of handling them was almost $98 million—a 14 per cent increase on the previous year, which itself had risen 23 per cent the year before. Public servants spent more than one million hours on FOI work. That's one million hours not spent improving schools, hospitals or community safety yet, despite all that effort, delays keep growing. Applicants wait months, sometimes years, for information that should be routine. The system is creaking. It is expensive, outdated and increasingly exploited by those who use FOI not to shed light but to throw shade. Freedom of information is meant to strengthen democracy, not to be weaponised against it. But that is what has begun to happen. We now see automated bots generating hundreds of requests in a single day, coordinated campaigns designed to tie up staff and, regrettably, abusive behaviour directed at public servants. Some of those requests come from offshore and others arrive under false names. In 2024 the eSafety Commissioner received almost 600 automated FOI requests in a short period, diverting an entire team for months. That's not transparency; that is sabotage of the system intended to serve the public. Agencies have also reported requests that have exposed staff to harassment. Personal email addresses and phone numbers have been published online. Transparency does not mean putting public servants in the firing line. It means accountability with civility and openness with safety. This bill modernises the FOI framework from top to bottom. It balances three objectives: to protect the rights of Australians to access government information, to protect the people who administer that right and to make the system efficient and secure in the digital age. The amendments implement recommendations of the 2013 Hawke review, respond to the 2023 Senate inquiry and address issues exposed by the 2024 full court decision in Attorney-General v Patrick. They also reflect advice from the National Intelligence Community and the Australian Public Service Commission about the growing risks of anonymous and automated requests. First, the bill gives agencies stronger tools to deal with vexatious, repetitive and abusive requests. It empowers agencies to refuse requests made in bad faith or that are designed to harass staff while preserving the applicant's right to seek review through the Information Commissioner. It removes the ability to lodge anonymous or pseudonymous FOI claims. Applicants must identify themselves and, if acting for someone else, declare that fact. This closes a major security gap. Anonymous requests have been used by foreign actors to test government systems and gather data that can be pieced together for intelligence purposes. It also stops those who hide behind fake names from issuing threats or abusing to public servants. The bill introduces new protections for employee-identifying information, ensuring that personal details like names and direct emails are not automatically released unless disclosure is genuinely in the public interest. Senior executive officers remain subject to scrutiny, but junior staff, who carry out decisions rather than make them, will no longer have their personal details spread online. Transparency must never come at the cost of personal safety. Second, the bill brings FOI into the digital era. It modernises how requests, reviews and complaints are handled, allowing for electronic forms, online submission and clear communication with applicants. It gives the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the OAIC, flexibility to manage matters digitally rather than through outdated paper processes. It allows agencies to continue accessing requests even when statutory timelines have elapsed, ending the stop-start paralysis that currently occurs when a deadline is missed. It moves from calendar days to working days, aligning the act with modern administrative practice. These are practical, commonsense updates, the kind any efficient organisation would make. Third, the bill restores balance by introducing a 40-hour processing time cap on individual requests. This means one request cannot consume hundreds of staff hours while others wait indefinitely. Applicants whose requests exceed that cap can narrow the scope, discuss priorities or appeal. The cap is not a barrier. It is a safeguard to ensure the system serves everyone, not just the loudest voice. The bill also allows modest application fees for non-personal information, with waivers for financial hardship. Access to one's own records, such as a Medicare or a Centrelink file, remains free. Charging a small fee for large or commercial requests helps manage costs and discourages speculative or automated bulk lodgements. Fourth, this bill resolves several grey areas that have fuelled confusion and litigation. It clarifies what constitutes a cabinet document, reinforcing the confidentiality that underpins collective ministerial responsibility. It refines the deliberative process exemption, providing clearer guidance on what internal advice should remain confidential to protect the integrity of decision-making. It ensures that documents belonging to a former minister can be appropriately handled when portfolios change, addressing the uncertainty identified in the Patrick case. It confirms that material stored on government systems that relates purely to a public servant's private affairs—a family email, for instance—is not a document of an agency. These clarifications save time, reduce disputes and bring certainty to both applicants and agencies. The bill also strengthens the role of the Information Commissioner to ensure faster and more efficient reviews. It allows the commissioner to remit matters back to agencies with directions for reconsideration where that would achieve a quicker, better outcome. It permits reviews to be resolved by agreement between parties without the need for formal written decisions every time. It limits automatic party status in reviews to the applicant and the respondent, while allowing others to apply if genuinely affected. These measures let the OAIC focus on resolution, not red tape. The objects clause of the FOI Act is being rewritten for the first time in four decades. It will now expressly recognise that, while openness is fundamental, it must operate, as far as possible, consistently with the protection of private interests and the effective operation of government. The balance has always existed in practice. Now it will be clear in law. These reforms have been carefully tested against Australia's international human rights obligations. They promote the right to privacy under article 17 of the ICCPR by limiting the unnecessary release of employee information. They support the right to freedom of expression under article 19 by keeping genuine public interest information accessible while protecting security and privacy. The application fee framework includes mandatory hardship waivers, ensuring no Australian is priced out of transparency. The opposition will say this bill limits access. It doesn't. It fixes a system that is collapsing under its own weight. A broken system is not transparency; it is bureaucracy. Under the previous government, delays grew, trust fell and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner was left underresourced. They had nine years to act and did nothing. When secrecy suited them, they kept the blinds drawn. We saw it with robodebt, a scheme cloaked in denial and exposed only by a royal commission. This government is taking the opposite approach. We are fixing the system so that sunlight reaches where it should, efficiently, safely and fairly. Transparency is not an abstract concept; it matters in the communities we represent. It matters to local journalists in Joondalup, who lodge an FOI to see how a grant is delivered. It matters to a community group in Kingsley seeking information about housing programs. It matters to small business owners in Currambine needing clarity on licensing or tender processes. It matters to advocates in Edgewater and Beldon helping families with disability or aged-care services. And it matters to pensioners in Woodvale waiting for a Centrelink file. A modern FOI serves all of them, people who simply want answers from the government. This bill complements the broader integrity framework of this government, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, public interest disclosure reforms and the APS Integrity Taskforce. It reflects a belief that integrity and efficiency go hand-in-hand. The amendments reduce duplication between agencies in OAIC so public resources are spent on outcomes, not process. The result will be faster, fewer disputes and better service for applicants. The reforms will deliver modest net savings through administrative efficiencies, but their real value is institutional, restoring confidence in a framework that has lost both speed and credibility. They will ensure FOI officers can do their job without fear of harassment, and reaffirm that transparency and respect for staff can coexist. Some governments hide from scrutiny because they fear it. This government welcomes it because we learn from it. We know sunlight makes systems stronger. We want citizens to ask questions and for answers to come quickly, clearly and safely. The amendments in this bill do not weaken scrutiny; they make scrutiny work. They give Australians confidence that their right to know is respected and that the system administrating that right is robust and humane. Labor has always strengthened democratic institutions. We introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 1982, the 2010 reform act and the independent Information Commissioner. We established the National Archives and the public interest disclosure scheme. This bill continues in that tradition, ensuring that Australians can trust both the government that serves them and the systems that hold it accountable. In a world of misinformation and deepfakes, the antidote is credible information from credible institutions. A functional FOI system helps deliver that. It shows the state does not fear transparency and that truth does not wait for a whistleblower or a leak. It shows the machinery of government can adapt to the technology of the times, and it shows we can be both open and secure, transparent and accountable without being naive about the risk. This bill is about trust, balance and modernisation. It brings a 40-year-old law in line with contemporary practice. It protects the Public Service, empowers genuine applicants and restores the integrity of the FOI framework. It ensures freedom of information remains exactly that—freedom with purpose, not freedom with boundaries. Openness without order breeds chaos, and bureaucracy without openness breeds cynicism. The amendments in this bill strike the right balance between the two. They make the system fairer, faster and safer, and will help rebuild confidence in government decision-making, the confidence that comes when Australians know they can see for themselves. This is reform about good government, not politics. It will outlast parliament as all good legislation should. I commend the bill 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; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise in strong support of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix laws that are failing the environment, our...
I rise in strong support of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix laws that are failing the environment, our economy and our communities. These bills are about balance and progress—protecting the natural heritage that defines us as Australians while enabling the clean energy industries, homes and infrastructure our nation desperately needs. The truth is simple: the environment and the economy are not at odds. If we get this right, they grow together—cleaner energy, stronger regions, more jobs and a healthier planet. Labor has always been the party of the environment—as the member for Bennelong said, from saving the Franklin River and protecting the Daintree and Kakadu to building the world's largest network of marine parks and leading the national effort to tackle climate change. Today, Labor is leading once again, modernising our environmental laws to meet the urgency of the climate crisis and seize the opportunities of the clean energy transition. The current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not delivering. Professor Graeme Samuel's independent review said it plainly: our laws are failing the environment, business and the community. Five years after that review was handed to the then environment minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, the environment is still in decline and major projects still take too long to get approval. That's why these reforms matter. They're about ensuring our environmental protections actually protect and our approval system actually works. These bills deliver on the three pillars recommended by the Samuel review: stronger environmental protection and restoration; more efficient and robust project assessments; and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. It's a balanced, pragmatic package—better for business, better for the environment and better for the Australian people. We can't build a future made in Australia on a foundation of environmental decline. Our unique species and landscapes, from Ningaloo to the Great Barrier Reef, are irreplaceable. This bill introduces national environmental standards, legally enforceable benchmarks setting out in plain language what must be protected and what cannot be lost. Those standards will cover matters of national environmental significance, offsets, First Nations engagement and data transparency, providing clarity for investors and certainty for communities. A key safeguard is the 'no regression' clause. Future governments cannot weaken these standards without improving environmental outcomes. That's an enduring legacy. This bill also defines unacceptable impacts, creating clear, up-front criteria for what simply cannot be approved, because some things, once destroyed, are gone forever. Protection statements will ensure that decision-makers know exactly what they must consider when assessing risk to threatened species and ecological communities, cutting ambiguity and strengthening protection. For those who break the rules, penalties will be tougher, linking fines to the value of any illegal gain so no-one can treat environmental harm as just another cost of doing business. If you damage our shared natural heritage, you will pay for it properly. Most importantly, this bill replaces the weak notion of 'no net loss' with a higher bar: net gain. Every approved project must leave the environment better than before. That's a fundamental shift from merely avoiding damage to actively delivering restoration. Through the new restoration contributions network, proponents can either deliver their own offsets or contribute to a national restoration fund that supports large-scale strategic recovery—less piecemeal rehabilitation and more genuine renewal. When we restore landscapes, we restore confidence. If we want to hit 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, we need environmental laws that are strong and streamlined. Right now, too many renewable and critical minerals projects are stuck in duplication between Commonwealth and state systems. This bill fixes that, reducing duplication by accrediting state and territory systems that meet our new national standards and maintaining protection while cutting red tape. A new streamlined assessment pathway will fast-track quality proposals, reducing average assessment timeframes from 70 days to as little as 50 and saving the economy up to $7 billion a year, because time is money and delay is costing jobs, investment and progress towards our renewable targets. We'll also make bioregional planning a cornerstone of the system, mapping regions to identify both development zones and conservation zones. Projects in development zones can proceed with certainty about what's required. Those in conservation zones face a clear no. That gives industry clarity, gives communities confidence and gives ecosystems breathing space. Strategic assessments will complement this approach, allowing governments and proponents to plan across whole landscapes rather than project by project. This is smarter regulation—stronger at the environmental level and simpler at the project level. The bill also strengthens the National Interest Framework, creating a transparent, limited mechanism if the project is of demonstrable national interest, such as emergency infrastructure or essential renewable transmission, to proceed with published reasons and conditions. It also mandates emissions disclosure. Proponents must report their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions and show how they'll manage them, aligning environmental approvals with the safeguard mechanism and national climate goals. That means every major project must be part of the decarbonisation story, not an obstacle to it. Australia is in the midst of an energy transformation unlike anything since the industrial age. The global shift to renewables is not a choice between the environment and prosperity; it is prosperity. As of this month, our government has approved 111 renewable energy projects, generating enough electricity to power more than 13 million homes; 69 are already producing clean power, 15 provide grid-scale storage and 29 more, including four major hydrogen hubs, are building the backbone of a renewable energy superpower. In October, half of all electricity in the national grid came from renewable sources, the highest monthly share on record. Coal generation has fallen to 46 per cent, and renewable output is up by around 30 per cent since Labor came to government. That's progress, powered by the Capacity Investment Scheme, Rewiring the Nation, and the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. But, to keep that momentum, we need planning laws that move as quickly as our ambition. If we don't pass these reforms we'll slow down the renewable rollout, the transmission lines, windfarms and community batteries already cutting across regional Australia. This bill clears the path, with faster approvals, better coordination and stronger investor confidence to build here in Australia. It replaces an outdated system that too often said, 'No, because it's hard' with one that says, 'Yes, if it's responsible.' That distinction matters, because the climate crisis doesn't wait for paperwork. We need transmission lines that connect regions, solar farms that power industry, and wind and battery projects that stabilise the grid. The world is moving fast. Investors are voting with their capital. Communities are demanding action. Labor's reforms make sure Australia can lead, delivering renewable jobs, regional development and secure, affordable power to households and businesses. This bill gives the renewables sector the certainty it's been asking for: clear standards, faster time lines and integrity in decision-making. That's how we build confidence and momentum in the clean energy transition. Strong laws work only if Australians trust them. That's why this bill delivers the third pillar: accountability and transparency. It establishes the National Environmental Protection Agency, our first truly independent national environmental regulator. The EPA will consolidate regulatory functions, ensure compliance and enforcement, and have the power to issue environmental protection orders when harm is imminent. For the first time, Australia will have an independent watchdog to hold rule breakers to account and restore public confidence. The EPA won't duplicate state agencies; it will complement them, setting consistent national standards and ensuring that accredited processes live up to them. Alongside it, we'll establish Environment Information Australia, a statutory body to improve the quality and accessibility of environmental data, because we can't manage what we don't measure. High-quality data means better decisions for government, businesses and communities alike. It means transparent, state-of-the-environment reporting and an end to the data gaps that have undermined trust. Together, the EPA and EIA will make our environmental system not only stronger but smarter. The bill also deepens First Nations involvement in decision-making, embedding the Indigenous Advisory Committee at the heart of environmental governance. It requires consultation with First Nations peoples in developing standards and ensures that cultural knowledge informs species listing and conservation planning, because caring for country has always been about partnership—learning from the world's oldest continuous culture to protect Australia's oldest living landscapes. These reforms also provide certainty for industry, reducing duplication, speeding up approvals and creating a level playing field that rewards responsible operators. When the rules are clear and consistent, investment follows. That means more renewable projects, more local manufacturing and more jobs, particularly in regional Australia. It means faster delivery of housing and infrastructure projects that communities desperately need. And it means that businesses can plan with confidence, knowing that their proposals will be assessed on transparent criteria, not politics or delay. Environmental groups support this reform, because it strengthens protection. Industry supports it, because it streamlines approvals. That's the definition of balance, and it's exactly what this parliament should deliver. We've talked about reform for a decade. We've had review after review, report after report, while our natural environment keeps declining and the approvals pipeline keeps clogging. Every day we delay, another threatened species edges closer to extinction and another renewable project that could lower bills and emissions sits waiting. The Samuel review laid out the blueprint. This bill delivers it. Now the choice belongs to this parliament: will we act in the national interest or let another five years pass while our laws fail both nature and the economy? I say to the opposition: you were handed the Samuel review five years ago and did nothing. Now is your chance to fix what you broke. Will you really vote against the faster approvals that industry has been calling for and against a system that cuts red tape and boosts productivity? And, to the Greens, will you oppose stronger standards, tougher penalties and the new EPA you've long demanded just to make a political point? Australians are tired of ideological gridlock. They want progress, not pointscoring. They want us to get on with it. Our door is open to anyone from any party who wants to protect the environment and deliver the projects Australia needs. These reforms will unlock billions in clean energy investment, much of it flowing into regional communities. They fast-track transmission projects under Rewiring the Nation, create skilled jobs for electricians, engineers and apprentices, and open new opportunities for regional manufacturing through Future Made in Australia. They'll ensure environmental approvals support housing construction and renewable supply chains, the twin foundations of sustainable growth. They'll restore confidence in a system that too often divided Australians between environmental protection and economic development. In truth, those goals were never in conflict. Healthy landscapes sustain agriculture, tourism and regional economies. Clean energy underpins competitiveness and cost-of-living relief. This bill unites these priorities, protecting what makes Australia special while powering what makes Australia strong. These reforms are about responsibility to future generations and the country we love. My electorate, like many others, is home to people who want practical action on climate and the environment, not slogans. They want to know that the wind farms on our horizon, the solar panels on our roofs and the nature reserves in our suburbs all form part of a coherent national plan. They want a government that can walk and chew gum, protecting the bush and building the future at the same time. That's what this bill does. It brings together environmental integrity, economic growth and climate responsibility into one clear framework. It restores trust that environmental decisions will be made on evidence, not ideology, and ensures that we decarbonise and also regenerate. Australia's environment is one of our greatest national assets. It deserves laws that are modern, effective and capable of meeting the challenges this century. This bill strengthens protections, streamlines approvals and ensures accountability, all while accelerating the clean energy transformation. We can get this done to deliver on what the Australian people sent us here to do. Every day we delay, our environment degrades further, and every day we delay is one we could be building the renewable energy and housing our future demands. I commend the bill to the House.
Energy | Private Members' Business | House debates
Those opposites certainly have short memories, don't they? I rise to oppose this motion by the member for Wannon. Before I came to this place, I worked as an electrician. My work on the tools...
Those opposites certainly have short memories, don't they? I rise to oppose this motion by the member for Wannon. Before I came to this place, I worked as an electrician. My work on the tools taught me a lesson I value to this day: you can't keep patching over faults and expect the system to hold. The truth is simple. A decade of delay and denial under those opposite left Australians with a broken energy system that was outdated, unreliable and far too expensive to run. So let's be clear: Labor is cleaning up their mess. For 10 years, the coalition refused to listen to experts. They blocked investment and they allowed ageing coal stations to be run into the ground. Now, they have the gall to lecture this parliament about affordability. It was their neglect that made power unreliable and left households exposed to global shocks. Since coming to office, this government has taken action at every level to fix what the coalition broke. We delivered three rounds of direct energy bill relief for homes and small businesses—relief those opposite voted against every single time. We've acted to cap coal and gas prices, shielding Australians from the worst of the global energy crisis. And we're reforming the market itself. This includes new rules that ban sneaky price hikes, late payment fees and card surcharges and that force retailers to put hardship customers on their best available offer. That's real reform that makes a difference to the lives of everyday Australians, like people in my electorate of Moore. We're helping bring their power prices down for good. We're expanding access to rooftop solar and cheaper home batteries. We're investing in energy efficient homes and we're building a modern renewable grid that doesn't rely on expensive, unreliable coal. And the results are coming through. According to the Australian Energy Regulator, wholesale prices have been falling since late 2020 thanks to increased renewables and government action. The Australian Energy Market Commission projects that prices will decline through to 2030 as more clean energy enters the grid. And the Australian Energy Market Operator confirmed that renewable power—firmed with storage and backed by gas—is the lowest way to keep the lights on. In other words, the experts agree: renewables are the cheapest form of new energy, even when you include storage and transmission. Recent research by Griffith University's Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research backs that up. They found that electricity costs today would be as much as 50 per cent higher if Australia had relied solely on coal and gas instead of pursuing renewables. Their modelling found that, across every major region, a grid based on renewables and storage is 30 to 50 per cent cheaper than the 'what if' scenario where we stuck with coal and gas. So let's be clear: investing in renewables isn't just about emissions; it's about economics. It's a smart way to deliver cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy for the long term. Yet the member for Wannon still wants to take us down the nuclear fantasy path. That is the most expensive, the slowest and the riskiest energy option on the table. As an electrician, I can tell you this much: no household will see cheaper bills from a reactor that doesn't even exist. Australians know who's actually doing the work to make energy fairer and more affordable. It's this government, cutting bills now, rebuilding what the coalition broke and making the system fair again. So, instead of finger-pointing, the opposition might consider apologising for the decade of dysfunction that landed us here in the first place. This motion is pure theatre—all heat and no light. It ignores the facts, the data and the progress being made. It underestimates Australians' intelligence and their lived reality. And that's insulting. Labor has a plan, backed by experts, backed by industry and built for the future, to deliver cheaper, cleaner and more reliable power to every Australian household. That's what we're doing. We're getting on with the job, and that's why I oppose this motion.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
To that I say, 'That's fine,' because this is exactly the kind of measure that should have bipartisan support. It's practical, it's proportionate and it's temporary. It helps the people who get...
To that I say, 'That's fine,' because this is exactly the kind of measure that should have bipartisan support. It's practical, it's proportionate and it's temporary. It helps the people who get up early, work hard and keep our communities humming. This is not about some sweeping deregulation of alcohol taxes. It doesn't undo the public health settings that have kept Australians safer. In fact, this pause is not anticipated to increase consumption. Prices aren't going down; they're just not going up every six months. We're not talking about cheaper beer. We're talking about stability for businesses. As a government we believe in responsible enjoyment, fair taxation and vibrant communities. This bill sits squarely in that tradition. Some have questioned whether pausing beer excise might conflict with health obligations under international law. But this bill clearly meets every test of legitimacy, connection and proportionality. This bill meets all three tests. It serves a legitimate objective, it is rationally connected to that objective and it's proportionate. The objective is to support small businesses and regional tourism, not promote consumption. In other words, it's a measure to keep pubs open, not to pour more pints. In Moore, you can see why this matters. In Joondalup, small bars and local breweries are part of the city's new energy, creating jobs and giving young chefs, baristas and brewers a start. In Mullaloo and Sorrento, the local surf clubs rely on social functions and bar takings to fund lifesaving equipment. In Duncraig, Padbury and North Beach, community clubs are places where people gather not just to drink but to connect, to celebrate milestones, to mourn losses and to raise money for good causes. When those venues struggle, the ripple effect hits everyone, from the brewer who supplies the kegs to the musician who plays on a Friday night. As someone who once ran a pub, I know how easily margins get eaten up—by electricity, wages, insurance and, yes, excise. The margin on a pint is thin at the best of times. For many operators it's the difference between keeping on that extra staff member for a Sunday shift and cutting hours. So when the government takes a modest step to hold the excise steady, it's not about handouts; it's about fairness and breathing space. The Australian brewing industry has evolved dramatically in the past two decades. We've seen an explosion of independent brewers, from small local operations to national names. Many of them operate on tight margins to compete with international giants that can spread costs across multiple markets. A two-year freeze helps level the playing field just a little. It gives small operators time to invest in quality, in staff training and in sustainability, like switching to renewable energy, local ingredients or recyclable packaging. It also supports regional tourism that flows from our pub and brewing culture. People don't just visit Margaret River or the Swan Valley for the wine; they go for the whole experience: the food, the music and the community atmosphere. When local hospitality thrives, local tourism does, too. This measure fits within a broader economic story: a government that's managing inflation carefully while supporting small business. In the same budget that delivered cost-of-living relief for households, energy rebates and tax cuts for workers, we also found room to support the industries that keep our main streets alive, because you can't separate economic policy from community life. You can't claim to be for small business if you ignore the local pub that's been part of your suburb for more than 30 years. When those doors close, they rarely reopen. So while this bill might sound like a technical tweak to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, its effect is deeply human. It keeps people in work, it keeps venues viable and it keeps communities connected. For those who enjoy the fine print, yes, this amendment inserts a new section into the Customs Tariff Act. It defines a CPI draught beer rate and sets out that the indexation factor will be treated as one on the four specified dates. In plain terms, it hits 'pause' on the automatic tax rises for draught beer—no hidden fine print, just the two-year freeze. It aligns with the corresponding section 6L of the Excise Tariff Act 1921, ensuring parity between imported and locally produced draught beer. It applies retrospectively from 1 August 2025, the date on which the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2025 took effect in accordance with parliamentary convention. The retrospective application is wholly beneficial. Nobody is out of pocket and no duty payer is disadvantaged. Let's be honest: this pause won't change the world; it won't double the profit margin of every pub in the country. But it will make a difference at the margins, where most small businesses live and die. It gives stability for two years, which, in the life of a small business, is a lifetime. And, when indexation resumes, it resumes at the paused rate, not with the accumulated catch-up that wipes out that benefit. That's good design. It means that, even after the two-year window closes, pubs will still be better off than they otherwise would have been. There's something symbolic about this measure. Australia's pubs are not just commercial enterprises; they're civic spaces. They host wakes, weddings, trivia nights and community fundraisers. They're where locals gather after a footy match or after a long week at work. In that sense, supporting pubs is supporting social infrastructure. When I ran my own pub, I saw that firsthand. A pub isn't successful because of its margins; it's successful because the people feel like they belong there. Belonging matters, especially in times like these when too many people feel disconnected. So, yes, this bill has an economic purpose, but it also has a social one: to keep our communities connected through the places that have always brought us together. Some critics will say: 'Why just draught beer? Why not spirits or wine?' The answer is straightforward. Draught beer is unique. It's served in licensed venues with responsible service obligations, it's a major employer of hospitality workers, and it's a segment most exposed to the automatic CPI indexation that makes forward planning difficult. Others will say it's tokenistic. To them I'd say: tell that to the publican who's been trying to make payroll while juggling rising costs on everything from utilities to insurance. For that person, a two-year pause on hikes isn't tokenistic; it's tangible relief. And for the staff who keep those venues running—bar staff, kitchen hands, cleaners and security guards—it's the difference between uncertainty and stability. To everyone in the industry—the brewers, the bartenders, the chefs, the cleaners and the delivery drivers—this bill is for you. It says your work matters. It says the government sees the pressure you're under, and it says we're willing to act pragmatically, not ideologically, to give you a fair go. In the end, this bill is about more than beer. It's about backing local businesses, easing pressure on working Australians and keeping doors open on the places that bind our communities together. It's about recognising that when we talk about the economy we're really talking about people—their livelihoods, their relationships and the small joys that make life worth living. As someone who has pulled a few pints, I can tell you this: there's no better measure of a community's health than the sound of laughter at the local pub on a Friday night. This bill helps keep that sound alive. I say cheers to that. I commend the bills to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, which accompanies the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. This is a bill that, if you forgive...
I rise to speak in support of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, which accompanies the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. This is a bill that, if you forgive the pun, goes straight to the taproot of Australia's hospitality culture. This bill does something simple, sensible and overdue. It pauses the indexation of the customs duty on draught beer for two years, from 1 August 2025 to 1 August 2027. It means that, for the first time in a long while, pubs, clubs and breweries across the country will get a breather from the automatic six-monthly CPI hikes that have been hitting them like clockwork every February and August. I know this might seem like a small change in the grand scheme of tax law, but for venues that are at the heart of our communities, for the small-business owners, for the shift workers, for the kitchen staff and for the locals who rely on them, it matters a lot. And I can say that with a bit of personal authority, because before I stood in this place I ran a pub myself. I know what it's like to watch your margins shrink every time you get an excise notice in your inbox. I know the pain of seeing the price of a pint edge up, not because of better wages or better hops but because of automatic indexation tied to the CPI. This bill gives some breathing space to those who've been gasping for it. This is a measured, temporary and responsible pause for an industry that's been doing it tough. In Moore, that means pubs and clubs, from Joondalup to Mullaloo and from Kingsley to Duncraig—family-run venues, where staff know your name, where the kitchen serves a proper parmi and where community sport teams celebrate a win on a Saturday night. Paddy Malone's in Joondalup, Whitford's Brewing Company and Carine Glades Tavern—they're not just places to have a drink; they're employers, they're training grounds, they sponsor the local footy club, they host charity raffles and they give apprentices a start. When you help a pub stay afloat, you're helping a whole ecosystem of workers and suppliers: farmers, truck drivers, musicians and hospitality staff. When those venues are stable, the whole economy benefits. This bill doesn't touch packaged beer or retail sales. It's specifically about draught beer—the stuff poured from kegs into a glass. That's deliberate. The benefit goes to where it's needed, not into supermarket aisles or bottle shop chains. In the 2025-26 budget, this was part of the Supporting the Hospitality and Alcohol Producers Package—a recognition that, while Australia's economy is resilient, the hospitality sector still carries the scars of the pandemic and cost-of-living pressures. We know that, for many pubs, even a one per cent increase in excise adds thousands of dollars a year to their costs. When those hikes come twice a year, it's hard to plan. This measure says that for the next two years you can plan with certainty. You can lock in prices, pay your staff and get through the next couple of winters without an unexpected hit. The Treasury has estimated a cost to revenue of around $95 million over five years. That's not loose change, but in budget terms it's a modest and targeted investment, one that supports tens of thousands of small businesses, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the tourism economy that depends on them. It's a structural, not temporary, improvement in fairness. When the indexation resumes, it resumes from a frozen rate, so pubs don't face a double whammy down the track. Now there will be those opposite who say they support the bill in principle, but they do wish they thought of it first—
Mining Industry: Critical Minerals Strategy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How is the Albanese Labor government diversifying the global supply chain of critical minerals and rare earths...
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How is the Albanese Labor government diversifying the global supply chain of critical minerals and rare earths and boosting Australia's resource sector here at home?
Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
There was a time when the member for New England stood for something. He was a country maverick who crossed the floor more than anyone else, a man who wouldn't take a script from anyone—not...
There was a time when the member for New England stood for something. He was a country maverick who crossed the floor more than anyone else, a man who wouldn't take a script from anyone—not the press gallery, not the suits in Canberra and certainly not his own party. He was loud, but it came from conviction and from a genuine belief that the bush needed a fighter, and for a time he was that fighter. He still stands for something, but it's no longer the people he once championed. The conviction remains, but the compass has spun. The fight that once came from the soil now comes from the studio light. The bill before us, the so-called Repeal Net Zero Bill, is the product of that drift. It tears down; it doesn't build. It looks backwards, not forwards. It scraps the Climate Change Act, abolishes the Net Zero Economy Authority and deletes every reference to net zero it can find, as if deleting the words will stop the weather. There is no courage in it, just confusion. It's a long way from the plain-spoken pragmatism of the farmers, workers and small-business owners who actually keep the regions running. I represent Moore, a coastal electorate where people know the value of hard work and fair reward. They know when someone is offering a fair go and when they're just selling nostalgia. The people of Moore don't want another round of arguments from last century; they want cheaper bills, steadier jobs and a government that treats clean energy as a tool, not a target. In Joondalup, small firms are cutting costs with solar. In Kingsley, retirees are counting every dollar. In Mullaloo, apprentices are wiring up industries of the future, not patching up the past. When they talk about the past, it's in words like 'shutdown' or 'decommission'. The member for New England says net zero is pointless. He says we'll be stronger if we walk away from the world. He says renewables are future landfill. But, while people suffer through droughts, tariffs and the embarrassment of being a century behind, it's his words that seem pointless. Once the member for New England stood up for rural Australians in this chamber, but this bill gives them only an echo, distant and unclear—the sound of politics stuck in neutral. It's a squeaky-wheel performance of masculinity chasing overseas strongmen instead of shaping Australia's future here at home. Net zero isn't ideology; it's industry. It's 33 per cent of Australian homes now topped with rooftop solar. It's farmers earning carbon credits to diversify their income. It's regional towns like Geraldton and Kalbarri turning wind and sun into wages and opportunity. Since Labor came to government, renewable generation has risen nearly 30 per cent. Investment hit $12.7 billion last year, including $9 billion for new, large-scale projects. Over four million homes now produce their own power—the highest per capita in the world. That's not ideology; that's the Australian instinct to get on with it. The National Party, once a party of practical men and women of the land, has walked away from net zero entirely. In doing so they've walked away from their own communities' economic future. Instead of backing farmers and regional workers, they have backed fantasies. Instead of standing up for regional opportunity, they have surrendered to political nostalgia. Every time they turn their backs on net zero they turn their backs on regional jobs and investment. Yes, the member for New England once stood up for the bush. He stood for independence, decency and the right to have a go. But this bill is not that. It's not maverick; it's mimicry. It's not rebellion but retreat—a retreat that would leave this country he loves weaker, poorer and more divided. Now we see it plainly: the retreat is complete. Australia deserves better. The bush deserves better. This parliament must do better. I oppose this bill because standing up for regional Australia means standing up its future, not dragging it back into someone else's past.
Workplace Relations | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise as a proud ETU member and qualified electrician. I know what it means to work long hours in tough conditions away from family, building the infrastructure that powers our economy. I know...
I rise as a proud ETU member and qualified electrician. I know what it means to work long hours in tough conditions away from family, building the infrastructure that powers our economy. I know the pride in that work and the frustration when the cost of living keeps rising but the wages don't. Across Western Australia, workers are doing it tough. Rent, groceries and fuel are all up while too many employers still treat fair pay and safe conditions as optional. That's why Labor's same job, same pay reforms matter. They have restored balance, ensuring employers can no longer ignore their workforce. But sometimes, even with fair laws, workers must stand together and use every lawful tool available, including protected industrial action, to make their voices heard. That's what ETU members are doing at Bechtel's Pluto Train 2 near Karratha. They're building a project worth billions, yet too often people who build our prosperity are the last to share in it. They're only asking for fairness, safety and respect, to be paid for every hour worked, for super to reflect real hours and for rosters that let them get home safely to their families. Those are modest, reasonable claims grounded in dignity, not excess. Industrial action is never taken lightly, but sometimes standing still costs more. ETU members are united. They are strong, and they have my full support in their fight for a fair and safe modern agreement, because a strong economy depends on workers who are safe, respected and fairly paid.
Climate Change | Private Members' Business | House debates
I rise proudly to support the motion moved by the member for Griffith. As a member of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, I know how critical this decade is....
I rise proudly to support the motion moved by the member for Griffith. As a member of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, I know how critical this decade is. As the dad of two young boys, I know exactly who will live with the consequences if we fail to act. We've accepted the independent advice of the Climate Change Authority and set a responsible, science-backed 2035 target to reduce emissions by 62 to 70 per cent below the 2005 levels. That is the right call, the call demanded by Australians who understand what is at stake, and who want us to seize the economic opportunities ahead of us. Our government is grounded in reality. The national climate risk assessment spells it out. Climate change risks are cascading, compounded and concurrent. No community, not one, is immune. From heatwaves to coastal erosion, from bushfire threats to biodiversity loss, we are already seeing the impacts in Western Australia and across the country. Treasury's modelling reinforces this message. If we delay, or we adopt a disorderly transition, our economy could be up to $2 trillion worse off by 2050. That's lower wages, higher power bills, fewer jobs—a profound failure to plan. The global shift to clean energy is the biggest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution, and Australia is uniquely placed to win. We have the sun, the wind and the minerals to turn those natural advantages into prosperity. Our plan is to do exactly that. I am a former electrician, so indulge me while I run through the technical numbers. Since May 2022 we've added over 18 gigawatts of wind and solar to the grid, a 45 per cent increase in capacity. That's enough to power six million homes. We've helped drive the installation of over 100,000 home batteries, helping households cut bills and strengthen our grid. We're backing renewables not only with storage but with firming capacity so that, when the wind drops or the sun sets, the supply keeps flowing and our families' bills don't spike. We are decarbonising transport with the first-ever New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. We're helping industry do the heavy lifting, including through the $5 billion Net Zero Fund and the strengthened Safeguard Mechanism. We are positioning Australia not just to reduce emissions but to export clean energy, clean technologies and clean jobs to the world. Crucially, we're adapting to existing climate impacts. That means investing in resilience, securing water supply, protecting critical infrastructure and supporting communities out on the front line. This motion asks the opposition to join us, to leave the climate wars behind and to stop treating the future of our children like a factional football. It asks the opposition to recognise that leadership is not saying no loudly; it's building something better, because out in the real world—outside the echo chambers of the climate culture wars—Australians are getting on with it. In my electorate of Moore, we are blessed with natural environmental treasures: the Yellagonga wetlands, our magnificent coastline and the biodiversity of our local bushlands. The Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park dedicate countless volunteer hours to restoring our precious wetlands. Parents for Climate, including passionate advocates like Emma Coupland and Sonya Elek, organise locally because they understand that protecting the planet is about protecting our kids. This motion does exactly what responsible parliamentarians should do: it listens to experts, aligns ambition with action and keeps Australia economically competitive. The alternative—we know it too well—is years of denial and delay and 23 energy policies from those opposite with zero actually delivered, and they're still talking about a $600 billion nuclear mirage. The Australian people rejected that approach at the last election. They want action now. Climate change is the defining test of our generation. History will not forgive cowardice, nor will it reward complacency, but it will remember courage. It will remember those who chose to build, not block. For my boys and for the families of Moore and Griffith, and for families right across the country, we must get this right. I commend the motion.