Michelle Rowland
Greenway · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“Failure to comply with the identity verification requirement in ART proceedings would result in the tribunal being required to dismiss the matter.”
“Courts must retain a high degree of discretion in the management of proceedings. This means that the FCFCOA will also be able to extend time for satisfying the identity verification requirement or dispense with the requirement altogether where appropriate.”
“The bill provides safeguards for vulnerable applicants of the ART and will notapply these changes to reviews relating to social security, veterans entitlements, the National Disability Insurance Scheme or aged care where written reasons may play an important role.”
“Improving ART efficiency and operations The bill makes amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024and other Commonwealth legislation to expand tribunal powers, improve tribunal processes, increase efficiency, avoid administrative delays, and aid the management of caseload surges and backlogs—particularly in migration matters…”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) commenced operation on 14 October 2024, replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Australia's primary federal merits review body.”
“It will provide an important touchpoint, and a further opportunity to protect the integrity of the merits and judicial review systems through identification checks.”
The complete record
Every one of 366 lines we hold for Michelle Rowland, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“It will also ensure even greater penalties are available for those that exploit their position of trust as a religious official or other leader to spread violent extremism, or seek to radicalise children. The bill will introduce an aggravated sentencing factor for Commonwealth offences motivated by hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin. Courts will be required to consider hate motivation when sentencing, ensuring any sentence acknowledges the additional harm to society caused. The bill will introduce a new framework to allow certain organisations to be listed as prohibited hate groups where they engage in hate crimes, or support or advocate the commission of these offences. These groups which seek to spread hate, fuel division, and stoke violence, have avoided criminality for too long.”
“We must take our responsibility as a parliament to stamp out hate incredibly seriously. Government response The government has announced a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion to examine the roots of hatred and division and to strengthen the bonds that hold our society together. But we cannot wait for its findings to act. Waiting a year gives in to the very people this bill seeks to target and leaves the safety of Australians exposed. Today, the government introduces the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026—a legislative package designed to combat hate, dismantle extremist networks and prevent violence before it occurs. Criminal amendments This bill will increase penalties for those advocating or threatening violence against groups because of their protected attributes.”
“This hatred is corrosive to a multicultural democratic society. This bill targets those that support violence, in particular violence targeted at a person because of their immutable attributes. This conduct is criminal, but, more than that, it is the seed of extremism, the roots of terrorism. It must be stamped out with the full force of the law. Organisations that proffer these hateful ideologies must be outlawed and their composite members held accountable. Indeed, some of the cowards who spread hate as part of one such group have announced they will be disbanding in anticipation of the effectiveness of these laws. Those that seek to exploit their position of trust, or radicalise our youth, must be met with serious penalties. Visitors to our country who espouse these hateful views must be removed.”
“Australia is proudly home to a significant population of Holocaust survivors. Many of those attending the Hanukkah event survived, or were descendants of those who survived, that darkest period of modern history. They stood side by side with others who had fled persecution. They came to Australia seeking safety, a refuge from this most insidious hatred, seeking a community that saw their Jewish heritage as a contributor to the richness of the Australian character. That sense of safety has been shattered. As a community, as Australians, it is our responsibility to rebuild that trust. The violent terrorist attack we saw in Bondi did not occur spontaneously. Violent extremism starts with words, words of hate spread throughout the community by pernicious individuals and organisations.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Bondi attack and antisemitism 14 December 2025 will be marked in history as one of Australia's most horrific and most tragic. Fifteen innocent lives were lost, many more injured, and a national conscience was left forever scarred. This Thursday, 22 January, will be observed as a national day of mourning. Flags will fly at half-mast, and Australians will pause to honour the victims and reflect on the courage and compassion shown in the face of unimaginable horror. Australia's many diverse communities are connected through generations by an invisible string that binds them to the culture, practices and beliefs of those who came before them. This vein of history brings richness and a sense of identity but, when confronted with hate, can be a source of trauma and pain of memory.”
“It is this demonstration of strength and solidarity that we must also emulate across this parliament. We must work not only to respond to this awful event but also to foster a society in which this very hatred has no opportunity to grow. In this place we represent every corner of our nation. We represent families who want to go about their lives in peace, and different communities that contribute so richly to our national fabric. We represent those who live in the best country on earth, a place where people should not be forced to live in fear because of who they are. As we bow our heads and say, 'Never again,' we must find ways to honour the victims and deliver for Australia not only with our words but also with our actions.”
“It was the strongest reminder that at times of extreme hardship and tragedy we see the best of the Australian character. In the days and weeks following the attack, Australians from all walks of life have rallied to support victims, their families and the wider Bondi community. It has been nothing short of extraordinary. People placed flowers at Bondi Pavilion, checked in on their Jewish friends, supported local businesses and acted as shoulders to lean on when it mattered most. As a representative of one of the country's fastest-growing and most diverse regions, I found it particularly heartening to see the display of solidarity and outpouring of support from so many different religious and cultural leaders in north-west Sydney and, I'm sure, right around Australia.”
“We stand together in this place as Australians united in grief but also committed to ensuring that the atrocity that occurred in Bondi against our fellow Australians can never happen again. As a nation we must respond with strength, not partisanship. This is what Jewish Australians deserve and it is an outcome that I am focused on ensuring we deliver, because an attack on Jewish Australians is an attack on all Australians. In the aftermath of the attack I had the solemn honour of standing beside Jewish Australians, fellow parliamentarians and the Governor-General at a commemoration organised by Jewish women's groups at Bondi Pavilion to pay respects and marks seven days since that terrible event. Together, we joined in remembrance of those who lost their lives, as a sign of collective unity and the need for action.”
“On 14 December Jewish Australians from across Sydney gathered at Bondi Beach to commemorate the first day of Hanukkah. What should have been a joyous celebration of the victory of light over darkness was instead forever tarnished by a targeted act of pure antisemitic evil. What occurred that day is an unfathomable tragedy that took the lives of 15 innocent Australians, including young Matilda, only 10 years old. Let me be clear: there was nothing random about this act of violence. This was an act of terror by individuals with hate in their hearts and guns in their hands. I extend my deepest condolences to all who innocently lost their lives and to the families, loved ones and all those in our community who have been affected by this terrible devastation.”
“So, for someone to be able to actually live the life they wanted is a good thing. ' So, m ate, my last duty is , for one last time , I doff my hat ( my titfer ) to you. Well played, son. Rest in peace. ' Vale Graham Frederick Richardson.”
“He believed in the role of Head Office in campaigning, in managing party affairs, managing the factions and in advising governments. He was close to every General-Secretary except one, since he left the role in 1983. He provided counsel and advice to all party officials—whether they wanted it or not! For Party Secretaries taking a call from Richo was often like mowing the lawn. Something you didn't want to do, but you knew you had to. I think that even up to the day he died, he would consider himself the General Secretary in absentia. … … … Finally, one last reflection. No matter what your opinion of Richo was—Graham actually got to live the life he wanted. He wanted to be involved in politics. He wanted to be a player in government. He wanted to make changes to society and above all, he wanted to help people.”
“The major economic and resource departments of the Government were monstering the much smaller Environment Department throughout the assessment process. They were pro-industry. Graham read the draft and final cabinet papers and studied the maps four or five times. So, when he went into the detailed Cabinet discussions he knew the names, numbers and values of every forest coope in South West Tasmania. That's why over 20% of Tasmania is now world heritage-listed. Ditto the protection of the Daintree and the Wet Tropics. Ditto Kakadu. … … … No reflection on Graham Richardson would be complete without mentioning that he was a devoted Head Office loyalist. All his life he supported the machine he helped create—sometimes to his own detriment.”
“So contrary to his image, Graham championed the causes of those that were doing it tough—a trait best summed up by the ever-astute John Della Bosca who said, 'Graham's reputation suffered from a misinterpretation of his well-known " whatever it takes " motto. But in reality, he was a compassionate, public-spirited man whose sympathy was always with the underdogs.' … … … It surprises many that Graham was actually a 'details' man. His reputation was sometimes shortened to being just a short-term political opportunist. The reality was, as most insiders and the more astute journalists, and certainly all staffers knew, he worked hard to get across the details. He also had the inquisitive mind—always asking the right questions. For instance, on the decisions to protect Tasmania's South West Forests, he was up against some powerful forces.”
“As they told their story of how hard life was, with many of them not having proper meals, Graham noticed that the kids just wore sandals and had blisters on their feet from ill-fitting shoes. Graham then picked up the phone to the PM, Bob Hawke, and said 'Mate, what are you doing for lunch?' Richo didn't wait for a reply, he said 'You are now having lunch with a group of young women and their kids as they haven't had a decent feed in a while and you need to hear what they've got to say. And then you are going to fix it.' Again, not your regular Senator. And this was not an isolated case.”
“… … … While Graham had humble beginnings, it has been a long time since he could be considered a battler. Killara, Paddington and finally Dover Heights are not exactly worker enclaves. Not many worker cottages in the Heights and certainly no revolution is ever going to start from there. However, no description of Graham is complete, without reference to his life-long commitment to helping those that struggle. As he told us and his son D'arcy as well… "When you are someone, remember always look out for the little people". And he did. Both in office and his private life. The best example is told by my fellow staffer, Morris Iemma. He recalls how a group of young sole-parent mums came to visit Graham with their kids when he was the Social Security Minister.”
“Hawke and Keating, a young Kim Beazley, and a long list of very impressive and articulate Federal Ministers. Graham was not quite in the same league as those. While Graham spoke very well, especially to the Party faithful—he COULD sell a message. People could, and did, relate to him. He would walk down the street and people would yell 'give it to them Richo'. I'm not sure today of the exact reasons why people identified with him. Maybe a factor was that people got to know him through his election night coverages, where he would cut through the white noise—even chiding his own side sometimes. But I think of greater importance was that he used simple language to explain complex things. He cut through political spin and called a spade a spade. Because as he often said: "the mob will always work you out".”
“All those measures significantly improved Australia's overall sports scene and our Olympic Games results then, and in the decades that have followed. Australians have long held a fascination and love for the Antarctic. It conjures up images of adventures and wilderness. But, our Antarctic expeditions had been poorly serviced. Graham developed the business model to build Australia's first, and only, icebreaker supply and scientific vessel to service our Antarctic bases. And he convinced his colleagues to spend a little extra so that the icebreaker—the Aurora Australis—was built by Carrington Slipways in Newcastle. Launched by Hazel Hawke, it dutifully served Australia from Hobart for more than 30 years. … … … Graham served at a time when there were great orators. Wran in NSW.”
“And so, in all his portfolios, and party roles, he always showed up to defend his position, argue his case and often cop a return serve. … … … Graham's most recognised Ministerial achievements focus on his work protecting Australia's most precious natural environmental assets like the Daintree, Tasmanian Forests, more of Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef. But, he made some other major significant contributions to public policy. He drove through the largest funding package for initiatives to improve health outcomes for Indigenous peoples; programs that made a real difference to people's lives. He rewrote the model of sports funding and super charged sports funding in Australia. He reformed the AIS; directly funding coaches for the first time and reorganising funding priorities to focus on the 10 key sports.”
“At the airport on the return from the rainforests, we reflected on how we had been ambushed and roughed up by outside timber workers. Graham said that was not a fair hearing for himself NOR for the people of Ravenshoe. They weren't heard either. So, Graham said "we're going back!" And two weeks to the day that we were bashed, we were all back in Ravenshoe in the Town Hall. Although this time we had four federal police with us. We still got booed and they ended up turning their backs on us. But it reinforced the message that Graham repeatedly told his staff: "you must always show up". That is, if you make decisions that directly impact people's lives and livelihoods, they have a right to hear from you, and you have a duty to explain your decision to them 'face-to-face'.”
“When it came to negotiating, there was often a nuance to Graham's tactics, taught to him by his political mentor, the legendary Bruvver John Ducker. A nuance but not subtle: you just openly tell the person what you would actually do, and then just do it. … … … Whenever there is discussion about Richo's ministerial career and legacy—a great legacy—the commentary often reflects the day that he, along with fellow staffer Simon Balderstone and myself, got manhandled a little in Ravenshoe, North QLD. We were there prosecuting the case to World Heritage List the Wet Tropics—often shorthanded to—"the Daintree". As it is well reported, I won't recount the story (suffice to say it was a bit scary), but rather describe its instructive postscript.”
“At times, I felt I was still his chief-of-staff in perpetuity. … … … It has been well documented that Graham was the consummate, and sometimes, ruthless political dealmaker. He often forged those lasting friendships over a meal. Many deals, friendships and plots were forged over meals, the most famous being "the night of the long prawns," where he brokered a deal between Michael Knight and John Coates to end an AOC/Government financial stalemate. So, when it came to fighting political battles—Graham's weapon of choice was the Chopsticks! He was a master of the dark art of "lazy Susan diplomacy". Nothing much got past Graham and certainly not the lazy Susan at Sydney's Golden Century. … … … Graham—of course—had a reputation for being a hard political operator and tough negotiator.”
“Later, I served as his chief-of-staff and for decades was the behind-the-scenes "number cruncher" or scrutineer on those election night coverages from 1984 onward. We pioneered election night coverages—well before the AEC did two party counts on the night. And it is those coverages that first exposed the public to the young brash senator with the bouffant hair. While we are very different people—with different personalities and priorities, we immediately clicked from day one. And so, it was from boss to mentor, election guru to lunch and footy buddy, to a dear friend. Even though we disagreed on many things, we only ever had one argument in 42 years. I apologised, even though I was right, and we moved on. Although I formally stopped working for him in 1990, at times over the years I think Graham never accepted that resignation.”
“I rise today to pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Graham Richardson, a stalwart of the New South Wales Labor Party and someone many, from all sides of politics and the commentariat, regarded as a mentor and friend. I pay my condolences to his family, particularly his wife Amanda and their son D'Arcy. However, I do want to spend the balance of my contribution today reading into Hansard a tribute by someone who knew Graham for more than four decades. The following are the reflections of Mr David Tierney on the life of Graham Richardson: I, David Tierney, have known Graham Frederick Richardson, or 'Richo' for over 42 years. In 1983, when Graham first got elected to the Senate, he hired me as his researcher. I was 21 and it was my first time in a suit.”
“Ultimately, their aim—like ours—is for the CSIRO to remain strong and sustainable over the long-term. We take this seriously, as I know the member does, because we all value the contribution that CSIRO scientists make to the nation. We want the CSIRO's research facilities to be safe, fit for purpose and capable of securing Australia's critical scientific capabilities.”
“I thank the member for her very important question. As she knows, the CSIRO is an asset to our nation and all Australians should be proud of it. We all want a strong and sustainable CSIRO that's aligned with our national science priorities. That is in the national interest. There has been a decision, taken by the government through the MYEFO process, to provide additional funding for the CSIRO, the details of which will be communicated to the public at the appropriate time. The CSIRO continues to receive significant base funding of close to a billion dollars per annum from the government, and I assure the member that this hasn't changed. Decisions on staffing and the prioritisation of resources are a matter for the CSIRO's board and management, and the government respects the CSIRO's operational independence.”
“The establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board will promote community safety and justice outcomes, as it will ensure these critical decisions are made by independent experts who are best placed to make the robust assessments of risk required to protect the community. I commend the bill to the House.”
“The purpose of parole will continue to be the rehabilitation and reintegration of federal offenders and the protection of the community. These amendments will ensure the board has key decision-making powers, including the power to make, refuse to make or amend parole orders for federal offenders and to deal with other relevant matters such as release on licence orders, breaches and revocation of parole or licence orders, overseas travel requests, and the ability to amend orders in certain circumstances. The amendments to the Crimes Act will also provide the board with the discretion to manage statutory deadlines for people being considered for parole. The legislation also provides for the necessary transitional arrangements.”
“The board will also retain discretion to consider all information that is known and relevant to a decision and will have the appropriate information-sharing powers to support their decision making. To reinforce the board's independence, this legislation explicitly states that the board is not subject to direction from anyone in performing or exercising its functions or powers. To support transparency and accountability, the chair will be required to develop an annual report to be tabled in parliament on the board's performance and its functions. The bills will also provide for a legislative review to commence three years after the board's commencement. The amendments to part 1B of the Crimes Act will replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for parole.”
“The legislation will provide for the decision-making arrangements, structure and framework of the board to make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detained persons, in accordance with part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914. It will set out the membership of the board, the appointment process of board members and the mandatory requirements for board positions. These requirements will ensure that the board's membership includes individuals who have a diverse range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of people and groups of people significantly affected by the board's decisions.”
“I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Commonwealth Parole Board bills. This legislation will ensure that decisions about the release and management of federal offenders are made by people who have the appropriate skills and experience to make decisions about an offender's prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community and, ultimately, the risks they pose to community safety. These bills will provide for the establishment of an independent Commonwealth Parole Board as a secondary statutory structure in the Attorney-General's Department. The members of the board will be independent, statutory office holders.”
“Finally, amendment (11) would remove an item from the bill that would have amended the Ombudsman Act to provide that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate action taken by the part of the Department of Home Affairs prescribed by regulations. Home Affairs now maintains a distributed intelligence capability, making it no longer possible to prescribe 'a part of' Home Affairs in the regulations. In removing this item from the bill, Home Affairs would be treated in the same way under the Ombudsman Act as AUSTRAC and the AFP. Existing provisions in the bill would allow the Ombudsman to consult with and refer complaints about the intelligence functions of AUSTRAC, the AFP and Home Affairs to the inspector-general to ensure that complaints are directed to the appropriate oversight body. I commend the bill to the House.”
“Amendment (7) would insert a requirement that, if the inspector-general decides not to inquire into a matter referred to the inspector-general by the committee, the inspector-general must advise the committee of that decision. This would ensure the committee is advised of the status of any referrals it makes to the inspector-general, and would implement recommendation 5 of the committee report in full. Amendments (8), (9) and (10) would modernise procedural provisions for the committee contained in schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act, and would implement the majority of recommendation 9 of the committee report. These provisions relate to outdated arrangements for travel costs, clarifying the ability to provide directions to persons present at private meetings and improving arrangements for the destruction of classified material.”
“Amendment (1) will also ensure that the committee has the opportunity to obtain briefings on any regulations made to support the committee in their oversight of Home Affairs. In addition to expanding the oversight jurisdiction of the committee, the bill would make a range of amendments to provisions establishing the committee functions and procedures. Amendments (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) make minor technical amendments to the Intelligence Services Act to clarify and streamline the committee's expanded oversight functions and its procedures. These amendments would implement recommendations 3 and 4 of the committee report in full. The bill would also enable the committee to request that the inspector-general conduct an inquiry into a matter.”
“The bill would expand the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to include oversight of the intelligence function of Home Affairs as defined in regulations. Amendment (1) would provide additional consultation and notification requirements in relation to the making of these regulations, implementing recommendation 1 of the committee report in principle. Amendment (1) would ensure appropriate consultation with the inspector-general occurs before any regulations are made, providing for or varying the means of Home Affairs' intelligence function. This will allow the inspector-general's views to inform the drafting of the regulations to ensure they can be operationalised effectively and allow for robust oversight.”
“Strong and effective oversight mechanisms are an essential part of advancing Australia's national security interests. The Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025 will enhance existing parliamentary and statutory oversight mechanisms to ensure that oversight of the national intelligence community is holistic and commensurate with agencies' responsibilities and powers. Government amendments would make minor changes to address certain recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its advisory report on the bill. The committee made 12 recommendations, seven of which relate to amendments to the bill. The government amendments would address five of those seven recommendations.”
“(9) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 27), after item 82, insert: 82A Subclause 20(3) of Schedule 1 Omit all the words from and including "At a review" to and including "may be present.", substitute "The Committee may give directions as to the persons who may be present at a meeting conducted in private.". (10) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 4), after item 83, insert: 83A Subclause 22(2) of Schedule 1 Repeal the subclause, substitute: (2) The Committee must ensure that any document with a national security classification provided to the Committee is returned or destroyed as soon as possible after the members have examined it in accordance with an arrangement acceptable to the agency that produced the document. (11) Schedule 1, item 213, page 46 (lines 18 to 22), omit the item.”
“(5) Schedule 1, item 55, page 18 (line 29) to page 19 (line 1), omit paragraph 29(1)(bae). (6) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 6), after item 57, insert: 57A Subsection 29(2) After "paragraph (1)(b)", insert "or (bad)". (7) Schedule 1, item 59, page 19 (after line 30), after subsection 29(2B), insert: (2C) If the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security decides not to inquire into the matter, the Inspector-General must notify the Committee of its decision. (8) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 9), after item 75, insert: 75A Subclause 2(7) of Schedule 1 Repeal the subclause.”
“(6) The regulations may prescribe additional consultation or notification requirements in relation to changes to the intelligence functions of the Department of Home Affairs. (7) If the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (4) or (6): (a) the Minister must inform the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security of the regulations; and (b) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request a briefing on the regulations from one or more of the following: (i) the Department of Home Affairs; (ii) the Inspector-General. (2) Schedule 1, item 54, page 18 (line 8), omit "and inquire into". (3) Schedule 1, item 54, page 18 (line 16), omit "and inquire into". (4) Schedule 1, item 55, page 18 (line 22), omit "to monitor and".”
“I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) through (11) as circulated together. Leave granted. I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 17 to 25), omit subsections 3A(5) and (6), substitute: (5) Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (4), the Minister must: (a) consult the Inspector-General; and (b) be satisfied that the Inspector-General has had the opportunity to be briefed by the Department of Home Affairs in relation to the proposed regulations; and (c) obtain the agreement of the responsible Minister for the Department of Home Affairs to the making of the regulations.”
“In recent years, Australia's intelligence and security agencies have grown and become more interconnected as they are called upon to detect and confront threats of an increasingly complex and varied nature. While our intelligence enterprise has evolved, its oversight framework has not kept pace and is in need of reform. The bill will address this by expanding the jurisdictions of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, to ensure uniform and holistic oversight across the national intelligence community. It will also strengthen the relationship between the IGIS, the PJCIS and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and enhance existing oversight arrangements. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to.”
“I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. Our primary responsibility as a government and a parliament is to keep Australians safe. Against the backdrop of an increasingly challenging security environment, we have vested our intelligence agencies with significant powers to protect our national security interests. At the same time, the national intelligence community must continue to be subject to strong and holistic oversight. This will ensure the public continues to have confidence that intelligence agencies are acting lawfully, with propriety and in a way that is consistent with human rights.”
“It is suburbs in north-west Sydney such as Rouse Hill, Box Hill, Gables, Kellyville Ridge, Riverstone and Grantham Farm—not Bondi or Bellevue Hill—that are leading the state when it comes to battery uptake. These batteries reduce power bills and cut emissions, and I'm so proud that our community of Greenway is leading the way.”
“This new play area, made possible by $600,000 in funding from the Albanese government, will be utilised by students for this program—allowing them to learn, play and engage with police in the best environment possible. In Rouse Hill families are leading the way in embracing clean energy solutions. I recently met Kenny, a local resident, who, since installing a home battery under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, has seen his monthly power bill drop from $240 to just $10. This is part of a broader story across Greenway, where about 1,000 households have taken up the program—saving up to $2,300 a year on their power bills. This isn't a story of the inner city; it's a story of the outer suburbs and the regions leading the way on cheaper, cleaner energy.”
“Every Australian child, no matter where they live or their circumstances, deserves the best school experience possible. I recently had the privilege of joining representatives from the PCYC and New South Wales Police to officially open the new sensory garden and playground at Casuarina School in Riverstone, a specialist school that provides intensive educational and behavioural support for students who need it most. Each week the PCYC supports students to take part in sports and social activities with local police officers, helping to build trust, confidence and positive relationships between young people and law enforcement. They are exactly the kinds of initiatives that make a real difference, helping to set young people on a path towards opportunity and success.”
“I rise to commend the outstanding work of Carevan Blacktown, a volunteer organisation serving our community in Lalor Park. Each week, Carevan provides a free communal meal and support services to people experiencing hardship, whether due to homelessness, financial stress or social isolation. The volunteers offer more than just food; they offer dignity, compassion and connection. Carevan generously provides hygiene items, clothing and takeaway meals, helping to meet the immediate needs of the community while fostering a sense of belonging. As we approach Christmas their work becomes even more vital. I thank Carvan Blacktown and its dedicated volunteers for their unwavering commitment to uplifting lives and strengthening the social fabric of our electorate.”
“I refer to my comments made in relation to government amendments. Secondly, I refer the honourable member to the answers and comments I have provided to every proposed amendment moved by other honourable members, each of which covers the subject matter he has raised and for which I have already given responses in this chamber.”
“The government opposes the amendments. The government has a delivery focused agenda and, while reviews have their place, delivery is important for Australians. More than six reviews have considered or reported on the FOI system in the past 13 years and the bill is the first significant amendment made to the FOI Act in response to the reviews. Recommendations, analysis and stakeholder submissions made to previous reviews and inquiries into the FOI system were considered in the development of the bill. They included the 2013 Hawke review and the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs' inquiry into the operations of the FOI Act. Question unresolved.”
“The changes reflect that there may be situations where an applicant may wish or need to obtain non-personal information anonymously through another applicant—for example, a community group being able to put in a request on behalf of their constituent, an investigative journalist or whistleblowers. Retaining the requirement for the applicant to provide a name supports a number of policy purposes, including to ensure vexatious applicant declarations are effective and unable to be circumvented through use of a pseudonym.”
“Applicants would only be required to declare when they are making a request on behalf of another person and provide that other person's full name where the request is for that person's personal, business, commercial or financial information. This is a sensible adjustment based on feedback by stakeholders through the committee process. The amendments also provide that proof of identity is not required for another person whom the applicant is acting on behalf of where the freedom of information request does not concern that person's personal, business, commercial or financial information.”
“(2) Schedule 2, item 56, page 21 (lines 8 to 20), omit subsection 19(1), substitute: (1) This section applies if, when dealing with a request for access to a document (including a request that does not comply with the requirements of subsection 15(2)), an agency or Minister is not satisfied of: (a) the identity of the applicant; or (b) in the case of a document that contains personal information about a person on whose behalf the request was made, or information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of a person on whose behalf the request was made—the identity of a person on whose behalf the request was made. The amendments to part 5 of schedule 2 moderate the circumstances under which identifying information must be provided by an applicant when making a request.”