Susan Templeman
Macquarie · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“The three key focuses of the government's action are, firstly, to disrupt and dismantle border threats to stem the flow of illicit tobacco and vapes to Australia before they make it to our shores; secondly, to enhance detection, disruption and destruction of illicit tobacco and vapes at the border and within the community; and, thirdly, t…”
“AUSTRAC is working with the banks and service providers to shut down the money flows that keep illicit tobacco profitable. Hundreds of accounts have already been closed and payment systems stopped.”
“We need to keep fighting it and not blame each other. Those opposite need to recognise that, just as we supported the steps they made, we need their full support in taking these actions.”
“That's not good enough for participants, it's not good enough for employers and it's not good enough for the economy. That's why these reforms are so important. This is the most significant change to employment services in 30 years. At the heart of these reforms is the end of the one-size-fits-all model.”
“The Commonwealth, states and territories are working together to reverse the equation for organised crime at every step and in every way to make the illicit tobacco trade more risky and less profitable, disrupting the illicit supply chain and shutting down illegal shops. This bill is another step in that process.”
“Mr Robert, at that time, spoke of the actions they were taking and the changes they were making on duty liabilities being paid when tobacco is imported into Australia.”
The complete record
Every one of 617 lines we hold for Susan Templeman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“Research conducted by the Department of Education highlighted issues with the additional childcare subsidy child wellbeing language, particularly for people from First Nations backgrounds and domestic violence victims. The language in the act literally says you have to say that your child is at serious risk of abuse or neglect. Changing that to the phrase 'a child in need of wellbeing support 'is far less stigmatising language. If something like that can provide better access to families, especially to those children, to get into early childhood education and have the benefits of quality early childhood education—it might sound small to many people, but that is one of the really significant things in this very large bill.”
“Hopefully, I've got time to finish with one other example, which relates to an area that every MP knows is highly sensitive: childcare subsidisation and child wellbeing. This is about changing language in our legislation. It's an amendment to one of the family assistance tax system acts. It relates to a child at serious risk of abuse or neglect, but it changes that phrase to 'a child in need of wellbeing support'. Let me explain what this is. We want to encourage families who may have been deterred by the stigmatising language in the act to apply for the additional childcare subsidy, which would support their child to get greater access to early childhood education and care. It's designed for vulnerable children.”
“They need to replicate that. When they're processing transfers, staff must conduct checks relating to many elements of the claim. This is—as it was the first time the customer did it—a very time-consuming process both for the person involved and for the staff. It can, and I know it does, cause frustration for my constituents who've had to do this, to provide information they've already given—people literally say to us, 'But they already have that; they already know that information about me'—even if it's the same agency but they're seeking a different payment. By improving the legal arrangements for transferring customers between payments, we can alleviate these frustrations for both my constituents and also the people who work so hard at Services Australia. These are just some of the examples in this omnibus bill.”
“Instead of needing to contact Centrelink, child support and others separately, she can update her details once and consent to them being updated for other programs also. This is the practical result of just some of the changes contained in this bill. I want to give one example of this tell-us-once approach which is an amendment to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. This will allow the implementation of initial changes to reduce the need for people to provide the same information to Services Australia multiple times, and it may also improve the speed at which their claims are assessed. Currently, in some cases, when a Services Australia customer wants to transfer from one social security payment to another, more appropriate one, they're required to submit a new claim and provide information that has previously been provided.”
“A tiny part of our system where one bit doesn't talk to the other means that we cannot give this streamlined approach through Services Australia. I've asked, 'Give me tangible examples of how this will actually affect everyday Australians,' and here's another example of this change. Let's take Jane, who's left her family home to escape family and domestic violence. She is afraid that her ex-partner might find her and her child. She changes both her and her child's surnames, moves to a new house and creates her own new bank account. She needs to tell all the government agencies about her updated name, address, bank account and relationship status. Implementing the changes in this bill will support streamlining that information sharing.”
“He receives a family tax benefit for his seven-year-old child and has a current bank account recorded with Centrelink. He hasn't updated his bank account details with Medicare. Now, he is one of approximately 980,000 Australians who are owed unpaid Medicare benefits totalling more than $270 million. Legislative changes can allow Medicare to access the payment destination information of the current mutual Centrelink customers for the purposes of delivering that unpaid Medicare benefit to people who may not even know that they are eligible for these funds. With these changes, Medicare staff will confirm with Michael that the bank account is the same as the one he has recorded for Centrelink, and he then receives a refund for previous medical costs and appointments.”
“So, the change ensures that legal arrangements for sharing protected information are brought into a more contemporary operational structure. It also ensures that the arrangements for recording, disclosing and using protected information for other Centrelink programs and Medicare programs are aligned with the arrangements already in place for a whole lot of other programs. I'm going to give you an example of this one, because this one involves amending one of the 1999 tax acts, the Paid Parental Leave Act, the Student Assistance Act 1973, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 as well as the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, which I think I've mentioned twice there. Let's bring it alive with an example. Let's take Michael. He is a mutual customer of both Medicare and Centrelink.”
“But to achieve the outcome we have to fix two acts because of stuff that's in them, one that was made in 1999 and one that was made in 2007. That's an example of just one of the 60 changes this bill deals with. Another example—and I've been through them all; there are a number that relate to healthcare identifiers. They're quite technical, so I’m choosing the ones that are reasonably straightforward. This is one I really like, called 'Simplifying information sharing for connected service delivery'. This one involves changes that address a limitation that means that certain officers in Services Australia can't share protected information for the purposes of a Centrelink program or a Medicare program, and that means it limits their ability to deliver programs that meet the end-to-end needs of their customers.”
“One example of the measures in this bill is about removing barriers to digital evidence of Australian citizenship. In order to do that, we need to amend the Australian Citizenship Act and the Electronic Transactions Act to remove barriers to digital evidence to show that you're an Australian. This paves the way for Home Affairs to develop a technical solution which is going to allow for the issue of digital evidence of your Australian citizenship, making it easier and a more reliable proof of citizenship, obviously reducing the costs, and giving further security for citizens. So the development of a digital solution will be required before digital citizen certificates can be issued to Australian citizens, and of course privacy impacts will be considered during this process.”
“In fact, the state is not allowed to ask citizens for the same information twice. In other words, if you give your address or a family member's name to the census bureau, the health insurance provider won't ask you for it again later. And no department of any government agency can make citizens repeat information that is already stored in its database or that of some other agency. Of course, we're not in a position to go quite as far as Estonia has. We have three tiers of government. We have a very different population. But that principle of 'tell us once' is underpinning some of the changes we are supporting here in this bill today. I want to give some specific examples—and I promise, I'm not going to go through the 28 different acts that are amended and the 60 measures, but I am going to give some tangible examples of what's involved.”
“It supports this idea of just telling us once within Services Australia, reducing the number of times that Australians will be asked to provide the same information across the agency's programs. I became a big fan of the 'tell us once' principle a few years ago after a visit to Estonia. Estonia has led the world in ensuring that its citizens have a very smooth interaction with government agencies. Now, it isn't appropriate to replicate everything they do, but one of the key things they did was adopt a principle that you have to give a piece of information to government only once. In fact, they go even further, saying that the piece of information has to be useful to at least two government agencies. They have an extraordinary digital system, based on this idea that they call the once-only principle.”
“This bill takes a whole-of-government approach to amending regulation to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in this the 21st century. The government understands that regulation that is not fit for purpose or that duplicates processes frustrates Australians and also drives up the cost of doing business. So the aim of these changes is to improve productivity and support economic resilience, without reducing necessary protections. The bill contains 60 measures that amend 28 acts, repeal two acts and affect the operation of 13 Commonwealth agencies. It reflects our commitment to connecting government services so that Australians can get the help they need faster. But one of the most important things this bill does is provide a first step towards the implementation of a 'tell us once' approach to government services.”
“If there's one thing that businesses and individuals have complained about regularly over the 15 years I've been involved in politics, and the 20 years before that that I was in small business—and it's something that we all pretty much agree on—it's the need to reduce red tape. It seems like such an obvious thing to do, but many governments have tried and failed to reduce duplication and inefficiency. Not only does this bill achieve what many have failed to do but it does it in a context of improving productivity. In fact, it does so much more than that. The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 is the latest example of tangible reform to come out of the Economic Reform Roundtable, which identified that fit-for-purpose regulation is a key enabler for Australia's economic potential.”
“This is a really significant piece of legislation. Some people might go, 'Oh, it's just a committee,' but in fact the way our committees work in parliament is that we work across the parliament, often in an absolutely bipartisan or multipartisan way, as we're exploring issues and trying to understand what is really happening. You don't see in these committees what you see on the floor of the parliament in question time. These are not performance spaces; these are spaces where we diligently work through—”
“The bill includes strict criminal offences for unauthorised disclosure of protected information, including operationally sensitive material and information that could prejudice national security or Defence operations. These provisions apply to committee members, their staff and any other individuals involved in the committee's work. Disclosure of such information—even for it be disclosed to the PJCD—will require ministerial authorisation, and the minister may issue binding certificates to prevent its release during committee proceedings. To uphold confidentiality and integrity, the bill introduces criminal offences for unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information. That applies to committee members, staff and attending members of parliament. These provisions will be modelled on the Intelligence Services Act 2001.”
“Along with the opportunity to access information obviously come huge responsibilities for the members of that committee. Similar to the PJCIS, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint 13 members to the committee. That will be seven government members and six non-government numbers from both the House and the Senate. This gives the government the flexibility to appoint crossbenchers should it wish to do so. That was certainly a sticking point for the opposition in the last parliament, when this legislation last came to the parliament. I hope that they have moved on from their opposition to that, because that's what we would like to see in this bill. As I mentioned, there will be strong protections on the information that parliamentarians receive, as it should be.”
“It will be able to consider publicly released documents dealing with Australian Defence tragedies, and planning and contingencies such as the biennial national defence strategy. It will be able to scrutinise Australia's defence capability—that includes acquisitions and sustainment—on things like the Integrated Investment Program. It will be able to examine and be apprised of war or warlike operations and ongoing conflicts in the event of a decision by the executive to enter into armed conflict. It will also be able to monitor the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations both at home and abroad. Obviously receiving access to classified information is crucial to carrying out these new functions and these oversight functions.”
“In terms of the functions of the committee, it includes the oversight of administration and expenditure; strategy; planning; capability development and personnel; war, warlike or major non-conflict operations; responses to royal commissions relating to Defence; and the performance of key statutory roles including the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. The committee will not have oversight on certain things. It will not have oversight of intelligence agencies in the Defence portfolio, which already full under the functions of the PJCIS. It's also important to think about what the committee will be able to do. What does all that mean? What will the committee be able to do?”
“This new committee we're putting forward, which I really hope will have the support of the parliament in this term of government—unlike the last time we put forward the proposal—creates a committee which will oversee the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and key Defence portfolio agencies including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial.”
“I should say that during our inquiry we absolutely recognised, respected and accepted that there are certain Defence operational, intelligence and security matters that should be classified and should have very reduced public disclosure. There is embedded into the way this committee has been designed an absolute recognition of that, for a whole lot of reasons, there are things that cannot be publicly aired.”
“The subcommittee report put forward took this as a proposal and noted the importance of Defence oversight by parliamentary committees. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that, when the community is confident that there is deep scrutiny and transparency, it actually provides much greater support for the work that that agency or organisation is doing—so we see this as a really positive thing for the important work that our Defence Force does. There are things already that I learn in committee—which I obviously can't share with people—that give me confidence, and there are things that I want to ask more about, but there is only a certain layer that we can go to. All round, from the more transparency and the greater accountability we have comes greater confidence from not only parliamentarians but the constituents who we represent.”
“That's the level of detail it has, and you'll see that it provides a model for how the government is moving forward with this this new Defence committee. During the inquiry, a range of advantages and benefits which would flow from having something similar for the defence space were highlighted to us in the evidence that we took: improving parliamentary oversight of Defence related matters, which was a key benefit; providing a venue for Defence to provide and give classified briefings to the parliament, where it was required and appropriate; and an increasingly informed accountability and scrutiny by the parliament over Defence related matters, particularly by committee members, through the ability to interrogate issues which are otherwise difficult due to classification issues.”
“We looked at the model that the PJCIS provides, which really is: how to ensure a balance of providing oversight and accountability while maintaining appropriate controls on sensitive material. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has a particular composition and functions that are laid out in legislation, just as this committee's will be, and it establishes limits to the committee's roles and powers. For instance, unlike most parliamentary committees, the PJCIS's enabling legislation does permit the release of classified information to its members in order to fulfil its legislated mandate, but it does place restrictions on members and secretariat staff regarding disclosure or publication of that information. Breaches of those restrictions are liable to attract a penalty of up to two years of imprisonment.”
“We looked at the existing committees that were there: the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; plus the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security. They all have different functions, but none of those committees were specifically empowered to examine matters relating to major armed conflicts or war, or warlike operations, and neither of the two defence-portfolio-related committees were empowered or equipped to receive classified information. Instead, those committees are currently confined to examinations of the Defence portfolio via inquiries or consideration of the department's annual report, and, of course, via Senate estimates. So that was where we found ourselves.”
“It's been really worthwhile, being part of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Defence Subcommittee, which did an inquiry, in our last term of government, into a range of matters relating to accountability and transparency, which were triggered by a desire to really look at war powers and what war powers—what the processes were; how they could work differently. In the course of that, one of the things that became clear was that there were some gaps that could be dealt with. I really want to pay tribute to the member for Bruce, who was the chair of that inquiry and thought very carefully about the recommendations that our committee put together as a result of the evidence that we took. Things we learned led us to recommend that this sort of committee be established.”
“We know that Australia faces an increasingly complex and constantly evolving strategic set of circumstances, and they're challenges. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will allow an enhanced transparency, an enhanced accountability, and a better oversight of defence decisions, capability, development and strategic planning. It really fills a gap in the current committee structure and oversight framework that we have, by allowing scrutiny of classified matters in a really secure setting. This is something that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security already does for those matters. I want to go into some of the journey I've had for the government to get to this point.”
“I'm very pleased to speak on this bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which is coming before the parliament. It's very similar to a bill that we put forward in the last parliament, and I'm pleased that it's coming to the parliament again. This bill is about establishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, the PJCD. People who come in halfway through this will have little idea what we're talking about, I suspect, in these debates. But it's modelled on a committee we already have, which is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This one will provide a mechanism for classified parliamentary oversight of defence, and I want to talk about why it's needed before I get to exactly what it is.”
“Theo is a powerful example of what is possible when you bring together technology like cochlear implants with multidisciplinary support including speech therapy and family support. I'm sure his teachers have also played a role, and thanks to Chris Rehn, CEO of NextSense, another mountains local, who was there to support young Theo”
“I commend them all on their thoughtful and worthwhile contributions to this debate. There was another young person's speech delivered in parliament this week. This one was by 11-year-old Theo Carson-Drevers from the Blue Mountains, who spoke with confidence to a room full of politicians. It's part of an annual event where children with hearing loss from across Australia and New Zealand come to parliament. This year's theme, 'the power of my team' highlights the life-changing role of early access and team based care in helping deaf children build confidence, communicate and thrive. I introduced Theo, who was the New South Wales representative, to the health minister just before the event, and Theo assured the minister that he was not at all nervous. Indeed, his speech was delivered with humour and a maturity well beyond his young years.”
“However, all of this will come to naught if future generations inherit a destroyed world or, may it never be, that they fail to lead. The government must provide Australia's youth the education and opportunities needed to develop through enhanced critical thinking in the face of AI and misinformation, an understanding of basic principles of economics, history and culture, and a reduced voting age to empower those most at stake to defend themselves without their interests at heart. If we fail to act we leave our youth an unjust, unsafe and unprepared world. Those are Rohan's words. I also acknowledge the efforts of Harper, Mieke and Bronte, who wrote about the importance of access to school sport, quality education and policies focused on the younger generation.”
“Every year Raise Our Voice invites young Australians to tackle the big questions shaping our future. This year's Macquarie winner is Rohan, and I'm delighted to read part of his speech, which focused on the challenges ahead of us domestically and internationally in trade, human rights and the environment. He says: The future of young Australians depends on what we do today. It's our responsibility, as a global leader of non-major nations to rally against these challenges. We cannot compromise on human rights, even when it is the most difficult option. We must defend the freedom of the press and the rule of law, which are so often threatened in the name of national security, to allow our youth to grow up in a safe, democratic and dynamic nation where rights and freedoms are protected.”
“I'll continue to encourage the technology sector and the creative industries to work together to build and modernise licensing systems that foster innovation while upholding creators' rights. Licensing systems can facilitate the legitimate, consensual use of content by AI and unlock new revenue streams for artists. But this decision is about more than dollars; it's about who controls culture, who tells our stories and who benefits from it. We must ensure Australia's creative voices are empowered, not absorbed into data sets without recognition or reward.”
“The capabilities of AI to ingest, analyse, synthesise and reproduce creative content are expanding rapidly. That brings extraordinary opportunity but also real risks. That's why we must keep communication channels open and ensure the arts community has a seat at the table in this policy discussion. I'm pleased that the Attorney-General has reconvened the Copyright and AI Reference Group to examine the next steps and ensure that our copyright regime is fit for purpose in the digital age. Now that legalised scraping of creative content has been ruled out, the question is: what comes next? There are trusted, time tested mechanisms for licensing creative content and frameworks that ensure permission, recognition and payment is given.”
“The Australian Society of Authors described it as: … a watershed moment—upholding copyright protections is a strong step towards setting a world-leading ethical and sustainable standard for AI development. The National Association for the Visual Arts acknowledged: This is an important win for Australian artists and the integrity of their work. A copyright exemption would have handed global tech companies free rein to scrape and profit from artists' work without consent, attribution or payment. We thank the government for listening to the arts community and standing firm in protecting artists' rights. Our creative sector could not be clearer. Artists do not reject technology; they reject exploitation. While this decision is an important step, it's not the end of the story.”
“As the Attorney-General noted, while AI brings significant opportunities for Australia and our economy, it is equally important that Australian creatives benefit from these opportunities too. Her decisions honours that balance, embracing innovation without abandoning the workers whose creativity drives Australian culture forward. The arts community has welcomed this as a vital reaffirmation of the value of their labour. In ARIA's view, the decision: … reinforces Australia's commitment to its artists and creative industries, ensuring that consent, control and compensation remain at the heart of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence. APRA AMCOS called it: … a significant moment for Australian creators and our cultural sovereignty.”
“Artists are not luddites; they are innovators. They understand the potential of AI to support their research, experimentation and productivity, but we cannot expect them to welcome the AI revolution while their intellectual property is being stolen and their livelihoods are being undermined. By ruling out this proposed exemption, the government has sent a clear message: we stand by our creatives. We will not allow their rights to be diluted or traded away. We will uphold their right to earn a fair income and to decide if and how their work is used by others. The Minister for the Arts was right to say that the unauthorised use of creative works for commercial gains is theft and that artists deserve protection from theft, as every Australian deserves protection from theft.”
“This has been a significant week for Australia's creative industries, with the announcement by the Attorney-General that the government will not create a copyright exemption to allow broad-scale mining of creative content by AI platforms. The proposal had been put forward by the Productivity Commission, who look at things from their angle, but any proposal to allow AI platforms to mine creative content without consent understandably creates anxiety amongst creatives. The Attorney-General's decision has real consequences for Australia's artists, musicians and writers for the protection of their intellectual property and for how Australia positions itself to harness the benefits of the AI revolution ahead. As Special Envoy for the Arts, I'm so fortunate to meet regularly with artists and arts workers, and discuss AI and copyright at length.”
“I think, as science provides more hope for people, along the way there can be many disappointments, and we grieve all of those.”
“After informing her employer that her child had passed away, Priya's mum was faced with negotiating with her employer a return to work she hadn't planned for, at the same time as grieving the loss of her child. The new bill ensures that, unless employers and employees have expressly agreed otherwise, employer funded paid parental leave must not be cancelled because a child is stillborn. This brings it into line with our government paid parental leave, and I hope that will bring certainty to grieving parents. I want to take just a moment to acknowledge loss experienced by some people going through the IVF journey. It's a newer experience, but I've seen sadness when another round of eggs has failed to fertilise, or when embryos haven't successfully transferred.”
“His work aims to validate the first placental health test across Australia. The research team believes that a simple blood test could help health professionals better work out which pregnancies are at risk of stillbirth. These pregnancies could then be closely watched, and births scheduled to prevent stillbirth or other health problems. By better understanding the risk factors and causes, researchers believe more stillbirths could be prevented. The third practical measure I want to speak of is a new law working its way through the parliament. The bill is named after baby Priya, who heartbreakingly died when she was just 42 days old.”
“Healing Through Community resources support stillbirth and miscarriage bereavement care services for First Nations families, refugee and migrant communities, women and families living in rural and remote areas, and women under 20 years of age. While any pregnancy can result in stillbirth or miscarriage, rates remain high for women in these communities. It was co-designed because we really need to listen to the women involved, and to the healthcare professionals, to get this right. Another initiative is research into a simple blood test that could save the lives of hundreds of babies each year. It's the focus of new medical research funding, with $25 million for research into infertility, pregnancy loss and stillbirth. The TIM TAMs study, led by Professor Stephen Tong from the University of Melbourne, received $2 million.”
“There are many actions within that funding envelope, from a national audit of early pregnancy assessment service clinics across Australia so that women and families can access appropriate services in their local area for treatment and follow-up care, through to a miscarriage data scoping study to establish existing and potential data sources and options for the national collection of miscarriage data, which we need. I want to focus on a couple of our most recent announcements. We've provided $3.2 million over four years to Red Nose Australia to deliver the Healing Through Community projects, supporting families through stillbirth and miscarriage.”
“Around six babies are stillborn each day in Australia, and an estimated one-in-four pregnancies results in miscarriage. Each year in Australia, more than 110,000 families experience stillbirth or miscarriage. That is a lot of heartbreak and grief for many people. So what are we doing to support these people? We've invested more than $62 million over five years in measures to support healthy pregnancies, reduce stillbirth and preterm birth, improve national data collection and support families impacted by perinatal loss.”
“In October, we mark Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, and we do so to acknowledge the shared loss experienced by parents, friends, healthcare workers and community when babies are lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death. I have spoken on this in previous years not because of lived experience but because, in my early years in this place, there hadn't been a lot of discussion about these matters, and I commend the efforts of the member for Werriwa to share her story and highlight the issue. And I commend those who have shared such personal stories tonight, like the member of Melbourne. I'm really heartened that, when we speak about this now, we do it not only to acknowledge the grief and the loss; we can share some of the many practical supports the Albanese government has put in place, because that's a start.”
“Two new heavy bush firefighting tankers and the first firefighting boat for the Hawkesbury RFS were handed over by the New South Wales government, which we always love to see. Brigades are ready. The national aerial firefighting fleet based at the Richmond RAAF base is also there to back them up. It was great to visit last week with the emergency management minister. I want to finish with a special shout-out to cadets who graduated at Hawkesbury, Windsor, Colo, Armidale and Richmond high schools. I was honoured to attended many of those ceremonies. Thanks to Deputy Group Officer Phil Hurst who conducts that program.”
“Recent warm and windy weather was a reminder for all of us that bushfire season is here. Hawkesbury RFS members showed they are ready when they displayed their skills at the weekend district championships held on the sixth anniversary of the start of the 2019-20 Gospers Mountain fire. Crews were challenged in things like pumps and pumping, tank inspections, problem-solving and fireground fundamentals. The Yarramundi crew took out first place in the station-readiness category, with their improved station looking beautiful. The overall championship winner was Oakville RFS, followed by Wilberforce and Blaxlands Ridge. There was a proud mum moment when Councillor Danielle Wheeler, herself a brigade member, presented the outstanding crew leader award to her son Patrick.”
“Finally, the bill is also going to allow the minister to apply on-the-papers processes together for certain temporary visa decisions prescribed in the regulations. It gives the government flexibility to identify additional cohorts to be brought into the on-the-papers review procedure in future as appropriate. Importantly, this power would not apply to protection visa matters, in clear recognition that these applicants generally involve complex issues and are a much more vulnerable cohort of applicants. I'm very pleased with the way the ART was established, which allowed there to be ongoing improvement, and I would expect we will see more ongoing improvement as different issues arise and emerge—and the Albanese Labor government will respond to those as they occur. I commend this bill to the House.”
“The tribunal will also be required to make its decision on the basis of the written materials provided without holding a hearing. Ensuring the tribunal can consider student visa matters quickly will absolutely disincentivise the abuse of merits review by non-genuine applicants who are seeking to prolong their stay here. We appreciate that some stakeholders may argue that the changes aren't fair, because they effectively deny the applicant their day in court. However, this is a different process. It's a merit review, and nothing in this proposal stops an applicant from putting their best case forward. A genuine applicant would seek the ability to do so, whether the pathway was orally or in writing. That's the advice and the thinking that has gone into making this decision.”
“Reviews of decisions to refuse a student visa are well suited to be reviewed on the papers; you take into account the nature of the issues under review, the temporary and short-term nature of a student visa and the low volume and complexity of written materials relevant to those proceedings. However, there will be other things that the tribunal would be required to do. They would need to invite applicants to give the tribunal written submissions and evidence on certain matters relating to it. They'll also be required to continue to give applicants certain adverse information and to invite them to comment on it. They will have that opportunity. They will also be required to continue to request or obtain additional materials by other means, including making requests or orders for the applicant to provide certain documents.”
“It identified that decisions of certain temporary visas, including student visas, are suitable to be reviewed on the papers because it's appropriate for reviews of short-term temporary visas to be proportionate, quick and efficient, and expeditious review procedures reduce delays in decision-making and backlogs and support the overall integrity of Australia's migration system, which is something we worked very hard on in our first term of government, and continue to work hard on in this term. The review procedure included in the bill would enable the tribunal to achieve efficiency in addressing its significant case load while ensuring applicants are still given an opportunity to present their case in writing.”