Ed Husic
Chifley · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“The tragedy of that poem has befallen generations from then to now—the fact that we enjoy being in the sun so much. In many respects we have paid for that enjoyment, and in many cases we've paid for it with our lives, with the cancers that have emerged, particularly melanoma.”
“It's been that sacrifice that he made combined with the observation that, in so much of what he did, there was an absence of gravitas and ego. Richard was us. He walked amongst us all, containing that special talent and gift that he had, with desire to save others. That, I think, marks him out.”
“A lot has been said about what Richard Scolyer has done in terms of his professional, scientific and research background. But I want to come back, if I may, to the remarks I just reflected on. When we think of the Australian character we think of our ability to overcome with physical attributes.”
“These things include not just our toughness and not just the fact that so often the Australian character is defined by a very heavy physical element, of being able to survive the elements themselves. One of the big things that's helped this nation survive is our know-how and smarts.”
“When I paid my condolences to Richard's wife, Katie—and Katie, Emily, Matt and Lucy were on the floor of the chamber with us yesterday—I expressed the view to Katie that her husband was a national hero. National heroes don't always attain that description of heroism because they've been successful.”
“I don't think any of us would not have been touched by that final letter that he penned, knowing how hard it would have been to write those words—every single letter in those words, every apostrophe and particularly the full stop.”
The complete record
Every one of 336 lines we hold for Ed Husic, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“While I'm at it, if we're talking about regulatory arrangements which we are expecting the AER to benefit from, can we please stop just watching foreign buyers get our gas—demanding to have access to it and saying it's a sovereign risk if they don't get it at the right price—and then resell it? We have had countries resell Australian gas after demanding access. No-one has a problem with foreign buyers using gas for themselves, but if they tell us we can't change our gas arrangements or our gas prices and they then sell the same amount of gas as east coast households and businesses use—this is extraordinary. We cannot sit by and watch Japan and Korea resell our gas, which Japan in particular has done it for four years in a row, when we have been crying out for uncontracted gas at a better price.”
“Instead of having these executives, like what we've seen out of Santos, say, 'If you don't like it, go get the supply yourself,' and, 'If we don't like it, we'll take our capital elsewhere'—this is just tantamount to trying to thug the market, but it also defies common sense. They should do a better deal. Given that 80 per cent of our gas is exported, they're doing very well. They're doing very well on a historical basis. These gas companies are doing very well relative to when they made the investment. They were charging $3 a gigajoule and they have now got $12 a gigajoule. They've made more than enough profit to be able to do a better deal for Australian consumers.”
“We should not be dictated to by export prices. The cost of doing business in this country for these gas companies who say, 'If you do anything against us you, we'll take our capital away'—as if, when they are fleecing the export market—is to give us a much better, much more competitive gas supply arrangement, with fairer contracts at way better prices. I would argue that the $12 cap, in this day and age, is too high. It should be lower. Australia should have the courage to argue. With bountiful supply of our own resource, we should demand a better price because it confers on us great commercial and economic strength. Most other countries get it. Most other countries are prepared to stand up for themselves, as should we.”
“It's because of the profiteering of these gas companies that want to maximise profit and refuse to do a longer contract, because they hope that, at the end of the 12 months, they can get a better price. This is what we're dealing with. Those opposite will go on about why gas prices are so high, but they'll do nothing about it. When we tried to cap gas prices, they voted against it. Their answer, taking the cue from the very gas companies that thug our manufacturers, is, 'We'll just get more supply.' Yes, we can get more supply, but we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that more supply alone will result in a better price. It can put, to some extent, downward pressure on price, but it's not the answer alone. We need to get more supply at better prices of an Australian resource—our gas, our prices.”
“On top of that, the Santos executive said: The truth is manufacturers do not have the appetite for the large amounts of capital— No wonder—or, as the kids say, 'No duh'— They want risk-free, long-term contracts on a cost-plus-margin basis. Oh, the horror! The horror that manufacturers would want a better price for their energy! I come back to the point that this is not a market; this is dictated to by companies with great market power. When manufacturers go and seek a contract length of greater than 12 months—this parliament needs to know that that rarely happens. Manufacturers that need gas as feedstock cannot get a contract longer than 12 months. Why?”
“Santos, by the way, buys up a lot of domestic gas supply so it can top up its export loads and flog those off at much higher prices, which puts pressure on the local gas market. Be that as it may, we can come back to that at another time. Let me give you an example. I said that was exhibit A of the tone-deaf nature of gas executives. The gas executive said: If manufacturers are concerned about gas prices, why are they not investing in new gas supply sources? That is like asking a buyer in a market to invest in supply. You turn up to the market to obtain supply. When the customer objects to the price of supply, the supplier says, 'If you think you could do better, go do it,' which is just bizarre logic.”
“Mark Vassella, the CEO of one of the biggest steel manufacturers in this country, BlueScope, spoke to the National Press Club and talked about how their overseas competitors could get gas in the US at $3. Santos executive Stephen Harty disputed that, saying that there was no such thing as $3 gas in the US, and then went on to quote Henry Hub gas prices at $4.90 a gigajoule in Ohio—this is in an op-ed that Mr Harty submitted to the Australian Financial Review on 21 October—and then said that the average industrial gas price in Ohio, where BlueScope's North Star plant is located, 'was more than $17 a gigajoule, higher than Australia's gas price cap of $12 a gigajoule'. Mr Vassella may want to investigate and respond to those claims.”
“The sad reality is—and it's been reflected upon by the ACCC in its twice-yearly reports—that, with the measures that have been put in place like the heads of agreements, the gas trigger and the code of conduct, it is hard to see that there is a demonstrable effect or a significant downward pressure on prices as a result of these interventions. They've been treated as a joke by the gas companies themselves, who make out that they have compromised and been able to do a better deal for consumers—but quite the contrary exists. Some of the behaviour of the gas companies and their executives is extraordinary and portrays completely tone-deaf behaviour by them. Exhibit A is a Santos executive—I don't think it is extraordinary that we have Santos being tone-deaf; they've demonstrated their capability to do this time and again.”
“I've intimated a few times that there is a label applied here—'the gas market'. It's very important to emphasise that this is not a gas market. This is not a situation where there is equal power between the supplier and the buyer. This is a market where there is extraordinary market power held by the gas companies themselves, who set price and contract terms in ways that, frankly, operate against the national interest. Their pricing is way out of line with international pricing, despite, I'd say, misleading suggestions to the contrary. They provide contract terms particularly to Australian manufacturers that are, frankly, unacceptable for manufacturers who rely on gas for feedstock. These are unacceptable terms.”
“The way it operates at the moment is that the ACCC releases a report every six months but that report reflects on data captured six months earlier—so it releases a report in the middle of the year talking about summer prices and a report at the end of the year talking about winter prices. There's got to be a much more dynamic way to measure the behaviour of the so-called market, the prices that have been achieved in that market and the contracts that have been offered. If there is reform to be done, it is that this work needs to happen on a much more frequent basis. We're on the cusp of, for the first time, seeing inflation data being reported not on a quarterly basis but on a monthly basis. If we can do that on something as big as that in the economy, we can definitely move quicker on reporting on gas pricing.”
“The three bodies—AER, AEMC and AEMO—have operated for 20 years without full financial or operational control. The separation empowers the AER to strengthen its independent oversight of energy markets, in particular gas infrastructure, pricing transparency and competition conditions. It does a lot of work in the gas space, which I want to reflect on, and I hope that it does more work in it. The ACCC does quite a lot of work. I commend the ACCC. Twice a year it does a very important overviews of the performance of the so-called gas market in this country. If I had one suggestion, one area of reform is a much more dynamic approach to assessing the state of the gas market.”
“The AER regulates billions of dollars in network revenue and oversees hundreds of energy market participants yet still relies on the ACCC for staff and resourcing. We want the bill to address this, and that's what it does. It separates the regulators; it makes the AER a fully independent Commonwealth entity with its own staff, its own budget and its own governance. It will be able to make decisions faster, cleaner and more efficiently, respond to market circumstances and enforce rules in real time. It's one of the three bodies overseeing an area of particular interest of mine—the national gas market. It's notionally referred to as a 'gas market', and I want to come to whether or not that term is a sustainable one in this day and age.”
“As to independence, while the AER have been under the umbrella of the ACCC, it does not suggest for one moment that the ACCC has impeded their ability to do their job. But this will give the AER the ability to progress the work that it is doing in a very important space and allow it to act decisively and transparently in the interests of households and businesses, who depend on affordable energy. When it comes to our gas and electricity, Australians deserve a fair deal, and it is important that we have a regulator that's oversighting that. The AER, as I indicated, long operated as a part of the ACCC, a structure that made sense 20 years ago. But, really, times have changed, and it doesn't remain the case that it makes sense today.”
“Thanks, Deputy Speaker Young. It's great to see you again. You're working very hard for that role today, I might add, sir. I also want to commend my friend the member for Adelaide, who referred to a regulator as a superhero. I think you referred to the AER as superheros—that's maybe the first time in the parliament that regulators have been spoken about so effusively, so well done, Mr Georganas. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025, because I think it is important for the Australian Energy Regulator, particularly at this point in time, that we give them the independence, the efficiency and the resources that they need.”
“In the UK, the Blair government championed this. We did have some of that here in this jurisdiction, particularly at the federal level. Whether or not we reinvigorate that approach is another question altogether and probably a question for another time. But it is worth considering. So I certainly commend the bill to the House, and I am grateful for the chance to make a contribution on it.”
“Having measures like this in the bill, if they allow for a much more measured and balanced approach to the rollout of these things, so they don't become an issue like in other countries and so we don't import that issue into our own country, is very important. I'll leave my remarks at that. I think the bill is an important way in which to send a signal about being able to reduce the number or the range of regulations that are put in place. I suspect, in time, we'll probably also have a fresh look at 'one in, one out' rules when it comes to red tape—that is, if you are bringing in a new set of measures, where are you reducing measures elsewhere so that that is a constant way in which you improve on the growth or counter the growth of red tape? That is something that has been embraced in times passed.”
“Because data centres use a lot of water as well, you've got to make sure that that resource is available, bearing in mind that it should not be assumed that, just because water systems are available in cities, that is an equal and standard case in our regions. Water supply is obviously, in different parts of the country, just as big a concern. So the fact that there is a demand flexibility incorporated in this omnibus bill is very important, and, if it is a measure that can provide for a sharper, clear-eyed assessment about the way in which we roll out the construction of these new data centres, I think it will be a valuable thing. I say this as someone who very much values the role of technology and, in particular, its uptake by Australian business. But getting it right and getting the balance sorted out is very important.”
“So it's not just a call on energy; it's a call on skills as well, particularly if that occurs in regional areas, where the ability to call on those skills may not necessarily be available. So I do think, as much as we obviously value the role of data centres supporting local business—and I think there is a case to be made that a lot of these firms could do more to demonstrate the residual benefit to Australian industry of that processing power through their centres—and there is a benefit there, we should also be 'eyes wide open' on the challenges. Letting it rip in terms of data-centre development in this country sounds great on paper. It doesn't necessarily guarantee a smooth energy transition. You've got to ask the question about what it does in terms of skills.”
“For instance, Amazon and Google are looking to set up new data centres. Obviously other generative players would be looking to do the same. So, this is something we need to keep tabs on. If we are boosting renewable energy supply and we are seeing that new supply getting taken up by new centres, that's an issue. It is also a challenge in that we have a target of building 1.2 million new homes by 2030. We also have a raft of state governments that are undertaking infrastructure investment and rolling out that investment in different parts of the country. So there's a demand on skills availability between the housing sector and infrastructure. The building of these new centres is not a small thing. It does require skilled people to be able to undertake that construction work.”
“Louisa Kinnear, from the Australian Energy Council, makes that same point. She says: In the US, data centres are a major source of demand growth resulting in shortfalls of energy capacity. The US consequently faces a dilemma -in a time where it can take many years to develop and build new energy assets, how can it service this rapid uptick of energy demand while keeping energy prices affordable? She goes on to say: Australia too is grappling with the extent to which data centres might drive future demand, although we are not seeing the levels of demand growth being experienced by our American friends. Not yet. A number of major US tech firms that are experiencing the types of problems Ms Kinnear has identified have sought other jurisdictions in which to set these data centres up.”
“If we are going to cut red tape and we are going to bring these data centres online a lot quicker, we also need to know that they use a heck of a lot of energy, particularly if they are platforms supporting the operation of generative AI, and that we will need to stagger the way these centres are built. Right now we are going through an energy transition. Right now it is terrific to see that renewable energy is, more and more, forming the energy generation base of this nation. But a lot of these data centres tend to soak up a lot of energy use, which has become a hot topic in the US, where a lot of these centres are getting built. The concern is that there's a lot of investment in this for the benefit that comes out and the amount of energy that gets chewed up as a result.”
“This aligns with the National Energy Performance Strategy and reflects our commitment to the evolving regulatory framework with the emerging energy needs and technologies. The reason I'm supportive of this is that right now, just as the latest trend is to read Ezra Klein's text on abundance, the other big idea is that we'll improve our technological capabilities by allowing many data centre flowers to bloom in this country. A lot of US tech players are very keen to set up a raft of data centres across this country. The promise is that if we get these data centres built it will be a good thing for our capability in areas such as artificial intelligence and what that might unleash for the nation. That's all great in theory, but it's a basic theory. It doesn't necessarily guarantee that.”
“So, you can cut the red tape as much as you want, but if the system, particularly a legacy system, takes time to accurately and efficiently record that, it is going to be a challenge. Again, I make the point that what is said in theory—cutting red tape, the idea that we'll make it easier for the general public—is all very good, and we all support it. But we also need to make sure we make the investments in the systems to make that happen. That is critically important as well. The other elements of this bill that are noteworthy relate to some of the changes that have made in schedule 4, part 6, around improving energy performance and that there'll be measures to introduce demand flexibility as a new object of the act. Demand flexibility would be enabled, and consultation would occur.”
“It's not guaranteed that the private sector always does it better than the public sector. It is a challenge, but if we get 'tell us once' right it does make a difference to the general population. What is also important is that systems for recording data are modernised. Again, regardless of what side of politics is in power, there is the challenge of the amount of money we dedicate to the turnover of antiquated IT systems. It costs a lot of money to get that done, and sometimes governments decide they won't do that, or they'll defer it—yet again. Again, we've seen both sides of politics doing this. Some of those bodies exist within the remit of Services Australia or like bodies, where the money hasn't been put in place.”
“I think it's a good thing, as the population gets more digitally savvy and can work with these systems, that they need only provide information once—that a system captures and records information once, not multiple time, when a member of the public wants to engage with and get action from a federal government department. This isn't a challenge just for government, by the way. Red tape also exists in major corporations, where people are forced time and again to provide information to organisations in order to obtain a service that they desire. The notion that government is awash with red tape and the trope that it is an inefficiency of federal government—I don't think people need to believe that. Big organisations develop a multilayered approach to getting things done.”
“Off the back of people reading Abundance we've had this surge in focus, which is great, but let's see what it actually yields. 'Tell us once' is great. Governments of both sides have been pursuing this for a decade. We have had hand-on-heart commitments by the other side of politics, when in government, that they would get this right, supported by a public service that said in all honesty that said they would get this done. Here we are 10 years later, again committing to do this. Do I think this is wrong? No. I think it's very good. I think it's important that the general public are not left on hold for an extended period of time, waiting for service, when contacting Services Australia.”
“I think it's important that we always find efficiencies in the way that we do things, efficiencies that will improve the way we use the resources required to get things done and the speed at which we provide services to the general public. I think it's always important that the public sector in particular rethink its approach to getting things done, and it doesn't matter which side of politics is in government. If I may put it in rather stark terms, in many respects the Public Service sees the political parties as renters: at a certain point in time they occupy a bit of real estate, but the systems will always go on and will always stay the same. It is incumbent on whichever political party forms government to look at whether or not those systems are fit for purpose, and clearly one aspect of that is looking at red tape.”
“For bringing this on, I hold to account Ezra Klein, the US writer who has written the book A bundance , which I have in my Audible list of books to listen to on my drive to Canberra. I haven't quite got to it yet, but apparently he's made some sort of impact. Now it's the thing for us to reimagine red tape reduction, and that's what we're doing. But it is about getting the balance right on red tape reduction, because one person's cut to red tape is another person's cut to protections and to systems that have been put in place in response to issues that the public have raised. Do I think it's a bad thing for governments to cut red tape? Of course not.”
“If you've been in place long enough, what's old is new again. It should not be particularly surprising that from time to time governments of both political colours will determine that there is a point at which we are going to attack red tape. I remember my friend the former member for Kooyong being very energetic, doing his red tape 'bonfire of the vanities' routine in times past. Only Josh Frydenberg could get a lot of media coverage pushing for red tape reduction. He did a very good job on it. We swore that we would cut it back. I liken this process to weeding—you do one cut and then you have to come back again, months or years later, to attend to the growth of red tape.”
“The reason I speak on this bill is that, if we've learnt anything out of that pandemic, it's the need to better coordinate, to not treat people in different regions differently and to be able to do what we can to coordinate a response—particularly standing up greater levels of support for vulnerable communities. In large part, the way to do that, I would argue to the House, is setting up something like a CDC that can do just that and work across jurisdictions. I hope, when we say we've learned the lessons of the pandemic, we genuinely mean it, and I'm proud of the fact that this CDC is evidence we may be doing something to do better.”
“But I did feel really strongly, and I still feel really strongly, about the fact that Western Sydney was treated differently. We didn't have national or state leaders in, and we didn't have the supports that were needed, and we didn't have the coordination required to help people in need. The other thing, to talk about salt in the wound, was that the areas that were hit hardest by COVID were also hit hardest by COVID related fines. In Mount Druitt, nearly $1.4 million in fines were handed out to people in the areas I represent, some of which are huge low-socioeconomic areas. So they were not given the support—the vax hubs and the mental health hubs—and they were locked down, treated differently and fined hard.”
“Why wasn't this done across Western Sydney? It shouldn't be that way. Public health is too important to be politicised. The reason why we're proud of our public health system and our universal health care is that it reflects a value of this nation. Australia says that, regardless of your income or where you live, we should fight to make sure you get the health care that you need. I'm proud of the fact that our country values that and that it fights for it. To be frank—putting aside the politics—both sides of politics get the importance of Medicare and a universal healthcare system. We may have different levels of commitment to it, but I think we have now gone beyond thinking that Medicare will be dismantled. It's about the level of investment in it.”
“In Mount Druitt, which I represent, we fought for ages to get a vaccination hub and were denied it. There was no support out of the federal government or the state government, the Berejiklian government, to get that vaccine hub. The Premier was questioned repeatedly about this, at a time when 3,000 people a week were getting infected. The hardest thing for me is hearing stories about kids orphaned because both their parents died as a result of COVID. That was too hard. That is still, for me, a scar in my mind for the people who I represent. They didn't get the support that they needed. Mental health support hubs were set up in Liberal electorates but not in the areas that were hardest hit. That is a fact you can go and see. In the electorate of Lindsay—the state electorate of Penrith—they got a mental health support hub.”
“When they locked down Western Sydney—and from my recollection no national or state leader visited when that lockdown occurred—people at the time felt like they had been discriminated against and racially profiled because of where they lived. That was absolutely a point that was raised in a report by the Australian Catholic University and the United Workers Union, who said that people from Western Sydney suburbs felt targeted and racially discriminated against compared to Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs residents, who were allowed greater freedoms in the lockdown. So we had that. The other thing that got to me was that, at the point of lockdown, the supports that were necessary for the region going through the lockdown—a region that contained essential workers who sustained the city during COVID—were not provided. Here are some examples.”
“The Victorian government was continually chipped and criticised by senior representatives of the former Morrison government. The federal government joined with Clive Palmer to put pressure on the WA government to bring down its borders and stop the lockdown that protected that state. That happened at the time. It was astounding. No Western Australian forgot the fact that Scott Morrison and Christian Porter, the Attorney-General, sided with Clive Palmer to bring down that lockdown. That was staggering. So it seemed to me we were all in it together as long as you voted for the coalition, and I don't think that's acceptable from a public health perspective. That is a significant and, I appreciate, offensive remark for members of the coalition. I get that. But that's how it was felt.”
“There were a whole lot of questions about why it was allowed to be docked at that point and why those aboard were just released en masse—2,000 people—into the community when there was evidence that COVID was being experienced on that vessel. The New South Wales government did a good job on a lot of things, but I had big differences with them about locking down Western Sydney and dividing the city in half, and it seemed to be accepted by the former federal government. There was a saying at the time, 'We're all in this together,' but the former federal government did undertake partisan attacks on state jurisdictions. I remember the Palaszczuk government in Queensland calling for support to set up quarantine facilities. They couldn't get anywhere.”
“There was a $60 billion rounding error on JobKeeper, and not everyone got access to JobKeeper. I remember talking in the parliament about workers at places like dnata who were in the electorate I represent and who couldn't get JobKeeper and were laid off and couldn't maintain contact with their work. I want to thank the Transport Workers Union for maintaining the focus on that issue. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the former government would not amend its JobKeeper provisions to allow for people to be sustained in their employment. I spoke in this place about the docking of the Ruby Princess . I have friends I went to school with whose parents were on the Ruby Princess and died as a result of getting COVID on there.”
“We had leaders of this former government encourage attendance at mass events when scientists and medical practitioners were saying that that was the worst thing to do—to attend major sporting events and be part of a potential distribution of COVID. They then had to walk that back. We tried to get vaccines developed here. Unfortunately, it didn't work, but I commend the former government for encouraging that. But then, when it was clear other jurisdictions were developing the vaccine and we needed to order the vaccine in large numbers for the population, that didn't happen, and we were in the back of the queue in terms of vaccine purchase. I don't need to mention the COVIDSafe app in any great degree; that did not work out as a great contact-tracing platform.”
“I found it a bit hard, as a member of this parliament, to see a government response to COVID relegated to a dixer—a three-minute response in question time—as opposed to taking the serious step of convening a ministerial statement that would walk through what the risks were and what things needed to be done to help prepare the nation. I was critical at the time, too, of the former health minister. I appreciate that he did undertake a number of things at that point in time, but the country should have been taken into the confidence of the government and walked through what was being done ahead of what we actually experienced.”
“But perspective also gives you a different vantage point from which to review past events, and the history, as it was experienced in our part of the world and in Western Sydney, was different. I also think it's important to recognise that the incoming coalition government of 2013 did make cuts to pandemic preparedness that had been worked on back in 2008 and 2009 by the government before them, because people recognised that you need to. Even though it might not affect you straight away or during your course of government, at some point it will, and it's important to replenish the institutions that manage it. When we started to see evidence of COVID emerging in late 2019 and early 2020, the concern about what effect this would have started to mount.”
“Even though we have differences of opinion, I do respect his contribution to the debate and his contribution in the last government, particularly being part of a government responding to COVID. However, while I might have regard for him, we do have different opinions. We have different opinions on the way that the COVID pandemic was managed by the former government. I think it is important that some of those differences be put on the record. The former deputy prime minister may be proud of Australia's response to COVID, and there were a lot of elements to be proud about relative to other nations. What we saw in terms of their responses and the impacts on their populations was pretty significant.”
“We've had other major public health threats as well. Sometimes the distance between those events means that our collective memory fades. We don't necessarily put the same amount of investment in being able to protect and prevent the impact of some of these things on the broader public. Or there are, understandably, advances in care and containment that would not require of us the same level of approach as has previously been experienced. However, I think there are some important things that do need to be reflected on. My contribution in this debate was brought on by listening to the former deputy prime minister and member for Riverina, who I've got a lot of regard for.”
“I think it's an important and enduring part of our long-term public health architecture. An interim CDC was established in January last year, and this bill will bring to life what's required, particularly in transferring public health responsibilities to the director-general of the CDC and for the Biosecurity Act, the National Health Security Act and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Act. It will have a number of other important functions to be embedded in this CDC. The CDC idea was brought to the fore during this last pandemic, which we had to all endure. As indicated, we've had to go through these once-in-a-generation pandemics. Often, people would remind us of the experience of our forebears through Spanish influenza back in the last century and how devastating that was.”
“The reality is that many people recognised we needed such a centre to help us with moments in time where there were threats to public health at a large scale and that we needed a coordinating body that could best inform and draw together efforts to combat those moments in time where public health was under threat. Clearly, having something like the Australian Centre for Disease Control is one of those investments in the long-term health of the nation. It will be an independent, non-corporate Commonwealth entity, with the bill establishing the roles, the powers, the functions and the duty of the agency and its director-general. It was a commitment made by former shadow health minister Chris Bowen that then continued to be championed by the now Minister for Health, Mark Butler.”
“We debate a lot of things in this place. We move new legislation that becomes law and we set up new institutions. Understandably, there is sometimes confusion or not necessarily an appreciation of the significance of the moment, but I think this bill represents an important long-term contribution to the better health of the nation. We have said, through the course of a once-in-a-generation pandemic, that we would learn a lot of lessons. Now it's time to back that up with hard evidence. I would submit to the House that this is one of those cases that demonstrates just that. We've moved beyond the talk, and we're setting in place something that has been called for for nearly 40 years.”
“It is the missing link that sits at the foot of some of the fastest growing areas of Western Sydney, where housing estates are sprawling. The federal government and the New South Wales government need to work to fix the missing link and improve public transport in our part of Western Sydney.”
“We are now, though, not just seeing the availability of money but seeing a proliferation of consultation. Transport for NSW seems to be focused more on consulting and putting flyers in people's letterboxes than on building and starting the process of widening that road. They don't need to do more consultation. Here's what residents want: they want the additional lanes built, they want the flyovers built, they want the congestion to end. There—I've given them free advice that doesn't require any consultancy fees. They just need to get on with the job. I know every MP in our area wants to see that as part of a $1 billion roads plan for that part of Western Sydney. The other thing that needs to happen is the extension of the Sydney Metro. The metro stops, bizarrely, at Tallawong and should be extended to St Marys. It is the missing link.”
“This was the reason why I held, for example, the Chifley Housing Forum just the other week that was kicked off by New South Wales Housing Minister Rose Jackson, bringing members of the community together to start charting the types of things that we can do to build more homes in our area. I've also had terrific conversations with federal Housing Minister Clare O'Neil, who will be visiting Chifley, where we'll be convening roundtables again to plan and chart the course for how to build more social and affordable housing in our area. It is really important that we get on top of that. Infrastructure is another important thing in our area. Last year we announced that the Albanese and Minns governments would dedicate over $520 million to help build Richmond Road, to expand it, and also to address bottlenecks in that part of north-west Sydney.”
“It's a truism that a cornerstone of opportunity is a roof over your head. You can do so much more with your life, knowing you've got the security of accommodation. It means that you've got a platform for employment, better health and education. It is why in my part of Western Sydney I am pushing so hard for more social and affordable housing. We estimate that we need at least 5,000 homes like that. There also needs to be an emphasis on creating more crisis and transitional accommodation to help people fleeing domestic violence. There's never been a better time to build more social and affordable homes, given the amount of resources that have been dedicated by the Albanese government, which is teaming up with state governments, particularly in New South Wales, to be able to build these homes.”
“But if the behaviour of ANZ post the banking royal commission is anything to go by—and the number of contraventions and the fact that it secured the biggest corporate fine—then we need to go harder to protect trust in the financial system, and I'd certainly urge ASIC to do so.”