Phillip Thompson
Herbert · Liberal National Party · Australia
“The schedule ensures that a former partner is not excluded from support services simply because their relationship with the serving member has ended. Facilitating access to assistance for safe separation and improving the safety of victims-survivors are objectives the coalition strongly supports.”
“The general public around the country expects members of our ADF to be at the highest standard, and so do I, because when the time comes—and history shows it will—we will ask our brave men and women to travel to a foreign land, to stand side-by-side with our allies with the Australian flag on their shoulder and their will to win.”
“There is a word that used to mean something in this country—trust. Trust was the commitment a government made to the Australian people. This Labor prime minister said from this dispatch box whilst in opposition: … you can only lie to people once. Well, it's clear that this prime minister doesn't take his own advice.”
“Effective oversight will be the key to ensuring that lessons of the royal commission are translated into lasting and systematic improvements. The coalition supports the objectives of this bill. We are mindful of the history of reform in this area. For too many, the system has been the source of frustration rather than support.”
“We approach this debate in a spirit of constructive engagement, acknowledging the valuable work of ex-service organisations, advocates and families who have fought for these changes. However, our support is cautious.”
“These are the metrics by which the parliament and further governments will be judged. The coalition supports the referral of this legislation to a committee inquiry in the Senate. This process is not about delay; it's about diligence.”
The complete record
Every one of 308 lines we hold for Phillip Thompson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 7.
“I fear that if someone were to sit down, 20 years post the Afghanistan war, go through the heroism and gallant actions of the brave people and want an assessment done, that that assessment simply couldn't be done. I think it's silly that the CDF, a senior officer or the minister, who takes guidance from the CDF, would agree to that. This is a bad bill.”
“When I was wounded overseas—I sent the video to my medic—I was flown back and was laying on my back after being blown up by a bomb in the ground. My medic, Tom Howell, jumped through the dust and the flames with no regard to his own safety. He put his life at risk and did that without thinking about himself. He did it for his mate. I still haven't sat down and gone through this with him. We haven't had the discussion, because when you think of what happens in war you don't automatically go, 'Someone should get a medal here.' I can tell you there was no senior officer on that mission. They weren't there; they spent less time outside the wire than anyone else. There were a bunch of enlisted soldiers there.”
“His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the Australian Defence Force aspire. That act of bravery and gallantry is something that you read about or watch in movies. Under this bill, sadly, Teddy Sheean would not have been recognised with his VC. My question to the minister, halfway through this, is: under this bill, would Teddy Sheean be posthumously awarded the VC? As I read and understand it—I know I'm just a simple soldier—this bill would not allow that because it is outside the 20-year parameters and it's outside of what the bill clearly states. I do not think it is appropriate that brave war heroes like Teddy Sheean be forgotten. This bill will do that. I reflected today in my speech.”
“As the enemy continued to fire upon the ship and his shipmates, who were already in the water, Ordinary Seaman Sheean decided to forgo his opportunity for survival by not abandoning the ship and by returning to his action station to man the gun, where he was the loader, not the gunner. Despite being wounded, he strapped himself into the gun and commenced firing at the enemy, damaging at least two enemy aircraft. Ordinary Seaman Sheean's actions disrupted and distracting the enemy from strafing and killing his defenceless shipmates in the water. He sacrificed his life to save his shipmates and, despite his wounds, continued firing the gun until the ship sank and took him to his death. His pre-eminent act of valour and his most conspicuous gallantry saved Australian lives.”
“'For the most conspicuous gallantry and a pre-eminent act of valour in the presence of the enemy during a Japanese aerial attack on HMAS Armidale in the Timor Sea on 1 December 1942.' On 1 December 1942, during operations in the Timor Sea, HMAS Armidale came under aerial bombardment and torpedo attack from Japanese aircraft. Shortly after the commencement of the attack, Armidale was hit by a torpedo and began listing to port. One minute later, the ship was hit by a second torpedo which broke the vessel's back, causing the captain to order, 'Abandon ship!' Ordinary Seaman Sheean, one of the youngest and most junior ranked members of Armidale 's ship's company, made his way to the stowage position of the motorboat and assisted in its launch.”
“Now, Afghanistan isn't 20 years past the end of its campaign. But it will be one day. It does take time for people to talk about and remember those significant battles for which these awards would be awarded. My question to the minister is this: what veterans specifically have you spoken to before you brought this bill to this place?”
“Did they send out the letter or the transcript or any sort of communication that they may have received from this Labor government?' All said, 'I've never heard of this; this is news to me.' One person, Justin Huggett MG, who got a medal of gallantry for fighting in Afghanistan with the Brits on Long Look, laughed when I said it. He said: 'That's not real. That's not a thing. You're jigging me up.' He used more colourful language. He was a good platoon sergeant. If you've ever put a bill through this place that he hasn't agreed with, you would definitely know about it. He gives me free advice. But this one bill, this bit of legislation—he couldn't comprehend that this would actually be a thing, because it hasn't been circulated widely throughout the veterans community. And these are people that have the honours.”
“I often travel around not just the largest Defence Force electorate in the country, that being Townsville, but the country. I speak to many veterans. I've been fortunate enough to have had a coffee with many veterans who have medals of gallantry, such as Victoria Crosses. I've spoken to families of loved ones who have been posthumously awarded these honours. Today, I thought: 'I'm not just going to get up and speak about this bill, when we are debating it; I'm going to call some of these people. I'm going to call those that have been given a great honour—a great honour for their actions on the battlefield.' A great honour is what they are to this nation. I asked them: 'Have you heard about it? Did your RSL send it to you? Did the ex-service organisation you're a part of circulate it?”
“I don't think it's good enough to push legislation or a bill through this place without going to the veterans and the people that we represent. Politicians are very quick, on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and any other commemorative day, to run to the closest person with medals on their chest to get a photo to put on social media, but then, when it comes to standing up for them in this parliament, they're nowhere to be seen. This bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, should have Labor Defence Force veterans standing up and speaking on it, but today we didn't see that. We didn't see the courage from this government from those who have served, because they know this is a bad bill. They know that there hasn't been consultation. They know that this shouldn't be going through.”
“To all those that continue to serve, our veterans and your families: the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifice that you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget,' and we reaffirm our commitment to never forget those who've been killed in battle, died in training or succumbed to their war within back here home soil. On Remembrance Day, we say, 'The guns fell silent,' but the guns haven't fallen silent since. In world wars—World War II, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan—our brave men and women have been there. In peace-keeping missions around the world—East Timor, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Fiji—our brave men and women have been there. In natural disasters—cyclones, fires, floods, COVID Assist—our brave men and women have been there.”
“It took me several years to even talk about defence again. It took me several years to pull myself out of a dark hole, and we're saying now that we've got a timeframe to rush people to quickly get everyone around a table and go, 'These are the brave actions that happened; please award these people.' It takes time. I don't want to see people left behind by a bad bill that hasn't been widely consulted on. I will be opposing this.”
“They would be reading this bill going, 'Well, this is all just going to be put in the bin.' Lobby groups who have been out lobbying to get Delta Company the recognition they deserve wouldn't have happened with this bill. You're putting a lid on the bravery that is still before the tribunal or still to be raised, and I think it's not appropriate. In four years time Iraq will have a lid on it as well, and no-one will be able to put forward any brave actions that have occurred. I think about what will happen when people start wanting to talk about the bravery they saw in Afghanistan, because it takes time. People think that once you've seen heroic things, been wounded, been in a gunfight or anything like that, you close your eyes, click your heels together, and everyone just rocks up with medals. We go through a process.”
“I honestly believe this has been a complete misstep and a rushed bill. Having no consultation demonstrates that. The minister should be in here listening and answering questions that I'm sure he'll read with great joy, with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs asking away about us not having had any briefing on this. I haven't had any briefing on this. I do think that this should be widely consulted, not rushed through. I just would like to finish up by saying that, as a veteran—as someone who has been on operations, been wounded in combat, seen bravery, seen people who have done the most remarkable things that a human can do—those who have come before us through the world wars and Vietnam and Somalia would still be lobbying today for honours and awards.”
“The RSL doesn't know about it. No ex-service organisations know about it. ESORT has no idea about it. I don't think this is a good bill, and that is evidenced by Labor having only one speaker on this and having none of their veterans in the parliament for this debate. I do think of the hypocrisy from this Prime Minister. When in opposition, he stood at this despatch box saying why there is a need for this—why we need to have the tribunal and why Teddy Sheean should be awarded the VC. Now he turns around and implements a bill that would have seen him not be awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery. It just shows that, when in opposition, the Prime Minister will say anything. When in government he'll change his mind. He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and we've seen that through his time as Prime Minister as well.”
“It screams of there having been no thought for those that have served on operations and what this would mean to them. I spoke to a friend of mine who's got a Medal for Gallantry—there aren't that many people that have a Medal for Gallantry; I'm sure the minister or any member of the government could have picked up the phone and called him—and I told him about this. He laughed down the phone and said 'nice joke'. I said: 'I'm not joking. It's a serious bill before the parliament.' He couldn't understand why this would be occurring—why the Department of Defence would be out to lead the charge in making such changes without going to the community that it represents, without going out to the people that have been awarded these medals, without going to the families and without speaking to those that live this every day.”
“Two hundred and forty-five Vietcong were killed in the rubber plantation, and 18 Australians were killed, with more wounded. But, for half a century, many of the men received no official recognition of their courage, despite sustained campaigning for recognition. Company commander Harry Smith long fought for recognition for Long Tan's frontline soldiers. He said a 30-year secrecy period and bureaucratic red tape stood in the way of the awards. It wasn't until the tribunal reviewed the cases on behalf of Mr Smith that 13 Australian men were awarded for their bravery. Under this legislation, they never would have received the medals they were rightly due. I can't understand why this government is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.”
“These changes are an effort by the government to remove independence from a statutory body which was established in 2011 to consider all defence honours and awards matters, and it was set up by a Labor government. The coalition supports openness and transparency and believes these proposed changes should be tested with a wider audience, not just inside the Department of Defence. This has not gone out to the veteran community. No-one I have spoken to has heard about, been told about or been briefed on this bill by any member of the government, let alone the minister in charge. If you look at the actions of D Company in the Vietnam War, they would not have been reviewable under this bill's proposed changes. On 18 August 1966, members of Delta Company were outnumbered 20 to one and fought against the odds to defeat the Vietcong.”
“Defence has always been hostile to the tribunal and the retrospective nature of examining past actions, and it openly opposed Teddy Sheean receiving the Victoria Cross. So, on this bill, why on earth would we be taking their advice and not listening to veterans and their families? Defence claims its opposition stems from the view that military acts are best assessed at the time by relevant officers, and—this is ridiculous, this bill—there's also likely to be an element of senior officers resenting the prospect of having their judgement reviewed by the tribunal at a later date. Everything's always about the officer class when it comes to Defence, and that has been evident from the former CDF's tenure all the way through to now.”
“I do think that military officers are not the beacon of truth for everything. And this Labor government is seeking to interfere with the independence of the current system. A solution looking for a problem—that's what this bill is. You've not been asked to do it. It's not been requested by veterans or their families. You haven't been lobbied, apart from the Department of Defence, who just think this is too much work. You've not consulted the veteran community, yet you want to find a problem through creating some sort of solution. There is no evidence—no evidence at all—that the veteran community will accept or would like these proposed changes. And who knows better than the people that we're talking about—the veterans?”
“Without thinking of his own safety, without thinking of what could happen to him, Tom Howell, the medic on my patrol, ran through and jumped through the blast site, through the dust plume and flames, to come and treat me, to look after me. There were no senior officers on patrol; there was a bunch of enlisted soldiers out there fighting side by side with the Afghan national army. He had no regard for his safety and no regard for injuries that could have been inflicted upon him. I think Tom Howell should have been recommended for and awarded an honour—I really do. I'd hate it if, when these things get reviewed, when it's past the 20-year timeframe, he couldn't be considered like Teddy Sheean and others that have done fantastic, heroic, brave things in service of this nation.”
“As to the 20-year mark at which an honour could no longer be recommended, we've heard a bit about the world wars and the Vietnam War, but, in four years time, the Iraq War, a modern-day conflict, will also be outside of the timeframe for a review into someone's service; a recommendation for an honour will be outside that timeframe. Now, there'll be some time, if this bill were to get up, for the Afghanistan War to reach that 20-year timeframe. On 19 October 2009, I was blown up by an improvised explosive device. A bomb threw me back. I was lying on my back, dust and flames in the air. Most people know that, if there's one IED, there'll probably be a second one.”
“I've served in East Timor and in Afghanistan. I've never seen a senior officer on the two-way range. I've never seen them running and gunning before, yet, if this bill were to go through, we would look to them as the people of truth and the only arbiters of what happens with awards. Senior officers do not like to be told they're wrong. They get all upset. But, more often than not, they have been wrong in the past when it comes to recommendations for honours that have been reviewed and deemed fit for award by the appeals tribunal.”
“They know that this is wrong. There's been no consultation and no reach-out to veterans. The ESORT said that they don't recall or have any recollection of a conversation with the minister. No-one with medals of gallantry that I've spoken to has heard from the minister. This is not supported, this is a bad bill, and the coalition will oppose it. I listened with great interest to the contributions of both the member for Sturt and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. One of the things that I want to highlight is that senior officers in the ADF don't always get it right. Well, quite often they get it wrong. Former chief of defence force Angus Campbell rejected and campaigned against Teddy Sheean's getting the Victoria Cross. He was wrong. He was out of step. He was incorrect. The awards appeals tribunal also agreed that he was wrong.”
“This is a speech to parliament from 18 June 2020 by Anthony Albanese, who is now the Prime Minister: The point of having an independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal is to ensure that the only considerations are the evidence and merit. The tribunal unanimously supported Tasmanian hero Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But the Prime Minister tells us that we need a review of a review … On the merits, Teddy Sheean is worthy of a Victoria Cross. The Prime Minister supports, when in opposition, the appeals tribunal and supports Teddy Sheean getting a VC. But, under the proposal of the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, it wouldn't have occurred. I also think it's quite noticeable that none of the veterans from the Labor Party who sit in parliament are in the chamber or speaking on this today.”
“As a result of Julie's dedication and advocacy, Qantas agreed to change its booking system to accommodate people with a disability. Now, when people book, they can click a special link that takes them to a page that will allow the airline to show the availability of an aircraft that can take a wheelchair. I've also pledged to work with Julie. Julie is an engineer and can help with refits for specialised wheelchairs. We've also met with Virgin Australia, They will work with Julie on her recommendations and action her requests. This victory is for all Australians with a disability. It was driven by Julie Brice and our regional Queensland community. We have secured fairer travel for people with disability—but more needs to be done. A disability shouldn't mean you can't travel. A disability shouldn't mean you should be restricted.”
“This forced her to either travel without her wheelchair or, like I said, someone drive the 28 hours to Adelaide. The Labor government's Aviation white paper: towards 2050 fails to require airlines to accommodate people with disabilities. The current legislation has a loophole which allows airlines to opt out of assisting passengers with needs like Julie's. It's not good enough to turn a blind eye to people with disabilities. Everyone has the right to travel. So, together, Julie and I wrote to the transport minister. We requested an urgent government review into the legislation loophole which allows airlines to ignore people with disabilities. This was not met with an answer. Julie and I had to go the media, raise the alarm and start the fight.”
“Every Australian should have fair access to air travel, yet so many Australians with disabilities face severe barriers to travel, often left with no options. Julie Brice is a structural engineer, in Townsville, with a spinal cord injury. She relies on a specialised 195-kilogram wheelchair to get by. She has faced significant barriers when trying to fly, due to airline restrictions. Julie has been told not to fly and to 'just drive'. In a worse case, she pays someone to drive her wheelchair to the destination. Julie suffers from severe medical issues while flying without her wheelchair. Those risks include blood pressure drops and fainting. Air travel without her wheelchair is impossible. At the outset, airlines rejected Julie's requests to travel, due to the weight limits.”
“My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. This morning, Dr Brendon Radford, Director of Policy and Research of National Seniors Australia, told ABC Radio: … there were people who have died. We had another person who was waiting for a package, ended up in hospital, got released, had no support—three days later, they died. When will the minister apologise to the families of the vulnerable elderly people who have died waiting for you to do your job?”
“We should stand up for it, stand behind it and protect it. We shouldn't have to debate this and be against each other. I'm calling on all the parliamentarians speaking today to protect the Australian national flag.”
“So this week, ahead of Flag Day, I call on the Albanese Labor government to support my motion and make it a criminal offence to burn or otherwise desecrate the Australian national flag. I also call on the government to criminalise flying the flags of listed terrorist organisations in our freedom loving country. Every Australian deserves to see our flag treated with dignity and respect, not trampled on and set on fire. If this Albanese Labor government refuses to protect our flag, I call on this parliament to condemn them for their failure to act. We must not fail our veterans, our families and every Australian who loves their country. We must honour those who fought and died under our flag, and we must protect the flag that unites us all as Australians. This flag is not controversial.”
“The Flags Act 1953 fails to criminalise burning the Australian flag, with charges only applied when it involves stealing or destroying someone else's property. This is unacceptable. Our flag must be protected in its own right. Burning our flag is not a legitimate use of freedom of expression; it's an assault on our society and the sacrifices of our bravest. Protesters, regardless of their cause, can make their point without desecrating our flag. It's unbelievable that this Labor government has failed to protect the Australian flag while allowing flags of listed terrorist organisations to be paraded in our streets. Australians are rightly fed up with it and are demanding this government do something.”
“It's deeply personal and an insult to every Australian every time one of these thugs on the streets puts a torch to our national flag without consequence. Thousands upon thousands of Australians have written to me expressing this. Megan from Ipswich said: My family fought and died for our country under the Australian Flag. Burning it is abhorrent to me. Anthony, a veteran from Gunnedah, said: Many Australians have sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears for our country. Just as their legacy should be respected and protected, so should our National Flag. Gavin from Albury said: Our Flag represents everyone who wants to be a part of our great country. It is highly disrespectful and hurtful to see people burn it and get away with it. It breaks my heart to see the desecration of the flag that unites us as Australians.”
“With such enormous public backing for our flag, you'd think this Labor government would be listening. Respecting the Australian flag is not a controversial idea. Indeed, 77 per cent of Australians say they are proud of our flag and 71 per cent say it unites us. And they are absolutely right. Our flag's symbols, the Federation Star, the Union Jack and southern cross, represent the coming together of our states and people, the rule of law and our unique place in the world. To me it's much more than just a symbol. As a former soldier, I wore the Australian flag on my shoulder and fought on the battlefield under its colours. My mates who were killed in combat, died in training or succumbed to their war within had the Australian flag draped over their coffins.”
“The Australian national flag represents the heart and soul of our nation. It is more than just a piece of fabric. It unites us all as Australians, and it's proudly worn on the shoulders of the Australian Defence Force. Yet we've witnessed shocking scenes of protesters on our streets desecrating and burning the Australian national flag. Most Australians are rightly appalled by what they've seen, because, unlike the fringe radicals, most Australians cherish our flag. They have now spoken out in overwhelming numbers to say enough is enough. My petition to criminalise burning the Australian flag has gained more than 20,000 signatures in under two weeks. This landslide support reflects the views of a majority of Australians. Recent polling shows that 77 per cent of Australians believe that burning the Australian flag should be against the law.”
“I move: That this House: (1) notes the: (a) abhorrent behaviour of protestors burning the Australian national flag at rallies throughout our country which is deplorable, disrespectful and goes against our values as a nation; (b) Australian flag is the flag members of our Australian Defence Forces wear on their shoulders and the flag that sits on the coffin of our fallen men and women; and (c) Flags Act 1953 fails to criminalise the destruction of the Australian national flag; (2) condemns the: (a) Government's failure to enact legislative power to punish those who burn the Australian national flag; and (b) Government for allowing protestors to carry and display declared terrorist flags throughout our community; and (3) calls on the Government to: (a) criminalise the desecration and/or burning of the Australian national flag; and (b) punish those supporting declared terrorists' groups.”
“I'm disheartened by this decision.' I ask the Prime Minister: Is this funding cut worth the hit to morale it's making across our ADF? Did this Labor government consult with our soldiers before ripping away funding for the Sallyman? At a time when the government should be acting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, this prime minister cuts the Sallyman. He has no clue, no shame, and our Defence Force deserves better.”
“For over 125 years, the Salvation Army Sallyman has supported and boosted the morale of our defence personnel. Whether outfield, on operations or back home, members know they can trust the Sallyman for support, pastoral care and a listening ear. One soldier shared with me that he had been in a dark place and that, without the Sallyman, he wouldn't be here today. That's the kind of support you can't put a price on, yet this Labor government has. They've axed all $1.5 million of funding for our Sallymen. This heartless cut has sparked outrage and disbelief among service members, veterans and their families. In Townsville, Australia's largest garrison city, our defence personnel feel abandoned by this Labor government. A soldier told me, 'They seem to know the cost of everything but the value of very little.”
“This risks our participants losing the support they need, and, without early interventions and without interventions now, they will not be able to live their best lives into the future. That's why it's so important that we bring on this debate and speak about our most vulnerable.”
“There are a few alternatives, but there shouldn't need to be an alternative to where this family gets the support that they need. Her mother is worried sick that her progress is going to end. It pains me, pains me to my heart, that families feel like their children are an inconvenient dollar figure on a government's budget bottom line. We must do things differently. We must do things better. We need reform, but we have to work with the participants and with the providers, to ensure that no-one fall through the cracks. I understand why the government is making changes, but I can't understand that in regional Australia, such as in Townsville, participants are waking up in the morning to find that things have changed, and providers are being given only 10 working days to provide any sort of response.”
“Well, that hasn't been the case, because places like AEIOU, which provides support for children with autism, has seen closures, and Autism Queensland has had a reduction in hours. People who were diagnosed by a paediatrician or doctor as needing more support from the NDIS have had their packages and supports reduced. Those are significant changes. In Townsville just recently I was speaking to a woman who shared with me that her daughter, born without enough muscle strength to move and play, relies on constant physiotherapy to grow. This young girl has been receiving physio support since birth, and it's her lifeline to getting stronger. She's learning to move, walk and play, like every child should. When changes happened through the annual pricing review, they slashed funding for her local physio provider.”
“But it must be done in a way where participants aren't waking up in the morning to find that things have changed; with providers being told, 'You have 10 working days to change your whole model because there will be a change to your pricing' due to the annual pricing review; with people in the regions not knowing if their services are going to be able to continue; and with travel being cut in half. What about for places like Magnetic Island, where you have to travel by boat to get there, or Palm Island? Regional Australia is going to feel this more than anywhere else. The minister said that no-one will fall through the cracks and that there won't be any changes to people's services or their funding and support through the NDIS.”
“There is nothing more important that we can do in this place as parliamentarians than to look after our most vulnerable—to make sure that they are supported and have the services they need to live their best life. As a member of the coalition, I sit with two minds when I talk about the NDIS, one being that it definitely needs reform—absolutely. I also sit with a heavy heart and great anxiety, because my daughter Emery, five years old, is on the NDIS. She has level 3 autism, and changes that get made quickly, changes that get made without consultation or with minimal consultation, terrify me as a father—terrify me for my daughter's future. And I'm not the only person in this parliament or this country that is looking at the changes to the NDIS with lots of fear. I know that reform is needed. I get that. I understand it.”
“I move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) providers and participants will be significantly impacted and hold grave concern regarding changes to the transport allowance arrangements that have been announced in the recent annual price review, at very short notice without consultation by the Government; and (b) the feasibility for NDIS providers and participants to make the necessary adjustments to service delivery arrangements in such a short time period is not achievable and will be at the detriment of the participant; (2) condemns the Government for failing to consult with the NDIS sector and failing to understand the needs of participants and providers; and (3) calls on the Government to: (a) defer these changes for at least three months to allow for consultation and planning around the changes to service delivery that may result from these changes; and (b) explain how it expects community-based service providers in particular to adapt to these new pricing arrangements.”
“The ARPC has responded, promising to consider my letter and acknowledging my invitation to visit, but we need accountability and action now. Townsville deserves fair, affordable insurance, and I won't stop fighting until we get it.”
“We have no option but to sell and move.' It's clear the scheme is failing to deliver on its promise. The government's legislative review into the cyclone reinsurance pool is ongoing, and it must include direct feedback from those people who are being let down. That's why I wrote to the ARPC chief executive, Christopher Wallace, and Labor's assistant treasurer, Daniel Mulino, demanding urgent action. My letter called for mandatory compliance to ensure insurers pass on cost savings, for a real-time data dashboard showing savings by insurers and for accountability to the consumer. Expecting locals to navigate a 94-page report is absolutely absurd. I also invited the ARPC board to our community to hold a forum to hear directly from the residents.”
“It's a disgrace that insurance companies are hiking up premiums, often in low flood-risk areas, while the Albanese Labor government fails to hold these insurers to account. The reinsurance pool launched in 2022 was meant to make insurance affordable in areas like Townsville. The ACCC's report last week shows that it's provided minimal relief and that insurance remains out of reach for far too many in the regions. Neville, a Garbutt homeowner, told me, 'I just want to take insurance out like most other people,' but he faces quotes of up to $14,000. Shockingly, the ACCC report shows that premiums have actually risen for those at low to no flood risk. As one constituent said, 'I've never been flooded, and I'm not in a flood zone, yet insurance companies have listed me down as a high flood risk.”
“The cost of insurance in Townsville has spiralled out of control, placing an unbearable burden on families in the electorate of Herbert. Residents are grappling with premiums that have tripled or quadrupled, pushing many into despair. One resident told me: 'Last year my insurance was $2,800; now, it's increased to over $30,000 annually. This is a ridiculous increase. How can it be allowed?' Another told me, 'Insurers are making living in this beautiful region a dreadful, unpredictable nightmare,' with their strata insurance rising almost 400 per cent in the last couple of years. No family should be forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying these outrageous insurance bills.”
“People are going to lose their jobs. I can't understand why this prime minister wouldn't be engaging to prevent this from happening. Even last night the committee that was set up to look at the long-term future of our refineries was voted down by this Labor prime minister. A future made in Australia is more of a bumper sticker now than a reality. This prime minister is happy to pick a fight with those who ask him a question but won't pick up responsibility to help those in North Queensland.”
“Thousands of people that call Townsville home are about to have their lives thrown into turmoil with the impending closure of Glencore Copper Refineries. Thousands of people could lose their jobs and find it hard to put food on the table, pay rent, pay for their mortgage, pay for schooling and pay medical bills, but all of this is preventable. The people of North Queensland have been begging the Labor Prime Minister for help, asking for him to intervene to support this refinery, but it's all fallen on deaf ears. Not everywhere has it fallen on deaf ears. In Tasmania the Prime Minister was happy to support the smelter, but that was only because there was a state election happening. The Prime Minister was happy to bail out his Labor mates down in Tassie but won't support the people of North Queensland. This is politics before people.”
“It took a long time—until only about a week ago—to have the Minister for Veterans' Affairs actually acknowledge the event and now say that there'll be some support. I don't think it's good enough to have something of such significance—one of the biggest celebrations for the end of World War II and victory in the Pacific, which will be in Townsville—not supported by the Labor federal government. I'd like to see the Prime Minister attend this event. I'd like to see the Minister for Veterans' Affairs attend this event, because Jeff Jimmieson and Johnny Bearne on the committee have done an amazing amount of work to get veterans and their families from all around the world to Townsville. Victory in the Pacific is significant for this nation but also for the largest garrison city. We will have tens of thousands of people involved.”