Helen Haines
Indi · Independent · Australia
“on indulgence I just want to acknowledge the Leader of the House and thank you for considering this in the way of a conversation with us. I think the crossbench has become a large crossbench because of the way that we engage with legislation in a very detailed way and seek to collaborate and seek to improve legislation.”
“I move amendment (4) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name: (4) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2), substitute: (2A) Treatment may not be appropriate treatment for a person's impairment or impairments if the person's individual circumstances restrict the person from acce…”
“(5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute: (6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that: (a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the N…”
“My amendment would give them greater clarity about why decisions have been made and how the evidence they've provided has been used. Again, I hear consistently from people in my electorate that they want to understand the 'why'; they truly do.”
“by leave—I move: (6) Schedule 3, page 101 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 4 — Whistleblower protections National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 18 After subsection 73ZA(2) Insert: (2A) The disclosure of the information by the discloser qualifies for protection under this Division if it is made for the purpose…”
“Now, the government's recently made improvements to NDIS whistleblower protections, and I really welcome those. But I think many Australians, in fact all Australians, would be very surprised to learn that, under this legislation more broadly across the NDIA and NDIS, whistleblowers may not legally be allowed to talk about their own situat…”
The complete record
Every one of 574 lines we hold for Helen Haines, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“I just want to point out to the opposition that grouping the crossbench into nomenclature which makes no sense, frankly, doesn't assist in having a really good parliamentary process, which is something we're all very, very committed to.”
“on indulgence I just want to acknowledge the Leader of the House and thank you for considering this in the way of a conversation with us. I think the crossbench has become a large crossbench because of the way that we engage with legislation in a very detailed way and seek to collaborate and seek to improve legislation. We do that in good faith. I acknowledge that the workings of the House have to continue in a way that makes sense and progresses things through the parliament without losing the parliamentary tools that we all have at our disposal. The crossbench uses those parliamentary tools, I think, in good faith, and I welcome the opportunity for us to discuss with you how we do that in a way that doesn't diminish that but enables the House to get on with its work.”
“More than 90 per cent of Indi constituents who responded to my survey regarding the NDIS changes said transparency of ministerial pricing decisions is really important. My amendment would strengthen transparency by requiring the minister to table NDIA advice, or a summary of that advice, within five sitting days of making that determination. The summary must be provided by the NDIA itself at the same time as the advice. I really thank the government for working with me on this particular amendment and for working with me, more broadly, on trying to find ways to improve this legislation.”
“I move the amendment on sheet 2, as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (after line 2), after subsection 45C(16), insert: (16A) If the Agency provides advice to the Minister under subsection (14), the Agency must at the same time provide a summary of the advice to the Minister. (16B) The Minister must cause a copy of advice provided to the Minister under subsection (14), or the summary of the advice provided under subsection (16A), to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days after the Minister makes the determination to which the advice relates. Constituents in Indi have made it clear to me that it matters whether the minister follows NDIA advice.”
“Now, the government's recently made improvements to NDIS whistleblower protections, and I really welcome those. But I think many Australians, in fact all Australians, would be very surprised to learn that, under this legislation more broadly across the NDIA and NDIS, whistleblowers may not legally be allowed to talk about their own situations to their own doctor or lawyer. I've been on the record very strongly in this place calling for whistleblower reforms to be strengthen. Under this particular situation, we need to make sure that every protection is afforded to people who are whistleblowers through the NDIS system. So I put this to the minister, and I hope the government can support me on this really important amendment.”
“by leave—I move: (6) Schedule 3, page 101 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 4 — Whistleblower protections National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 18 After subsection 73ZA(2) Insert: (2A) The disclosure of the information by the discloser qualifies for protection under this Division if it is made for the purpose of seeking assistance, advice, treatment or counselling in relation to the disclosure and is made to: (a) a legal practitioner; or (b) a medical practitioner or psychologist; or (c) a union or professional association. Again, I will make a brief remark. This amendment ensures whistleblowers are able to make disclosures in the context of seeking support for themselves—for example, in seeking support from a legal or a medical practitioner.”
“My amendment would give them greater clarity about why decisions have been made and how the evidence they've provided has been used. Again, I hear consistently from people in my electorate that they want to understand the 'why'; they truly do. Written reasons, I think, are fundamental to giving that confidence to people—or an explanation and that understanding. Amendments (3) and (5) make additional sensible improvements to ensure that evidence is considered on its merits. Currently, as it's drafted, the bill is looking to a hierarchical level of evidence. I want to make sure through this amendment that evidence is considered on its merits and that ministerial decisions about alternative schemes include consideration of whether those schemes are actually available and actually accessible.”
“Amendment (1) would protect funding for activities of daily living from blanket funding reductions under a new ministerial power. While the government has said the new power won't be used for that purpose, there's nothing in the bill to guarantee that. In terms of amendment (2), people with a disability of course deserve certainty about funding for basic essential supports, and this amendment would provide that. It's really critical that we get this right and build that certainty for them. Amendment (2) would require a statement of written reasons where requested supports are not funded. One of the biggest concerns I hear from NDIS participants is that they're not told why recommended supports haven't been approved.”
“(5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute: (6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that: (a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and (b) the alternative support is reasonably available and accessible. I will make some brief remarks to support these amendments. They respond to key concerns raised by my constituents, the very people who will be impacted by the changes proposed under this bill. These things include the need for greater transparency and trust in decision-making and the importance of protecting approved funding for participants' basic needs.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (5) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert: (1A) The specified group of supports must not relate to activities of daily living. (2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 26 (before line 9), before subsection 34(1A), insert: (1AA) If the CEO is not satisfied of a matter in subsection (1) in relation to a statement of participant supports, the CEO must notify the relevant participant, in writing, of the reasons for not being so satisfied. (3) Schedule 1, item 73, page 27 (lines 6 to 35), omit subsections 34(1E) and (1F).”
“It completely ignores the reality of service provision outside of major cities. It could put the NDIS out of reach of rural and regional Australians, who simply don't have the local options and can't realistically access what is considered appropriate treatment. My community are really worried about this. They're worried about the impacts of the bill. When I look at things like this, I think they have every right to be worried. My amendment would reverse this provision to clarify that a treatment may not be appropriate for a person who can't access it. It's all I've got to say about it, really, because to me this seems so obvious that I can't believe that I actually have to say it.”
“I move amendment (4) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name: (4) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2), substitute: (2A) Treatment may not be appropriate treatment for a person's impairment or impairments if the person's individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment. This bill would prevent people from accessing the NDIS until they've undertaken what the government says is 'all appropriate treatment'. The details will be dealt with in regulation, so we don't know exactly what that will mean in practice. However, the bill explicitly states that a treatment may still be considered appropriate even if a person's financial circumstances or geographical location prevent them from accessing it. Now, this is unacceptable.”
“My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Murray Primary Health Network, which services most of Indi, recently had its after-hours funding cut, apparently because demand is now serviced by Medicare urgent care clinics. The government says four in five Australians live within 20 minutes of a Medicare urgent care clinic, but in Indi, if you live outside Wodonga, it's zero. Minister, can you guarantee that rural communities without a Medicare urgent care clinic will not lose access to after-hours care?”
“This is contrary to good lawmaking principles, and it makes it harder for parliamentarians such as myself or for the broader public to know what the new framework will mean for prices and, importantly, for availability of flights. I'm hopeful that the consumer protections charter will improve protection for consumers and make the big airlines accountable to their customers. Too often, they've taken us for a ride before we can even get off the ground, and that needs to change. However, there are credible questions surrounding this bill and whether it will achieve its aim. I hope the government will work in good faith across the parliament to ensure that the benefits from these bills will flow to all consumers, including those flying in and out of regional airports. Thank you. (Quorum formed)”
“But when things are tough for airlines it's almost always the regional routes that are the first to be cancelled. This exacerbates the frustrations of regional people, including me—that we're treated differently to those in the cities. It's why I'm concerned that the aviation consumer protections framework, including the consumer protections charter, will include a carve out for regional airports and carriers. And while there are genuine reasons to treat our smaller council-owned airports differently to major international hubs, such as Tullamarine and Kingsford Smith, it's not clear whether regional aviation passengers will be left with a lower level of consumer protection just because they're using a smaller airport. I'm also concerned that the bill proposes significant reforms to the aviation sector without a clear impact analysis.”
“While exemptions for small council-owned airports are truly welcome, I'm concerned about whether this could have unintended, negative impacts for regional consumers. There's a reason regional Australians have a sceptical view. In regional Australia we're too often the last to receive and the first to lose. Not too long ago Qantas announced the discontinuation of its Albury-Melbourne route. This announcement came as a shock to the community and has real implications for medical specialists who travel to and from Albury-Wodonga to provide crucial healthcare services that are otherwise completely unavailable in our regional community. I understand that profits may not be high for some regional routes, and the recent fuel crisis has undoubtedly had an impact.”
“A new regulator, the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, will enforce standards and take action against systemic or repeated failures, with civil penalties for serious breaches. These penalties could total several millions of dollars. A separate body, the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson, will run a dispute resolution scheme that passengers can use to resolve individual complaints, and every regulated airline and airport must join it. The initiatives included in the bills will be paid for by industry, not by taxpayers, through a levy on regulated entities set out in the levy bill and the collection bill. I welcome stronger consumer protections in the aviation sector. They're overdue. They're sorely needed. However, I am concerned about a lack of detail on exactly how the proposed framework will operate.”
“I rise today to speak on the four aviation bills being discussed in this cognate debate, and I'll be offering some brief remarks. These bills create a new aviation consumer protection framework, delivering on commitments the government made in its 2024 aviation white paper. The main bill, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, will establish a framework, although implementation detail will sit in regulations and instruments to be made later. This will include a new aviation consumer protections charter, which will set out minimum standards that airlines and airports must meet for things like cancellations, delays, baggage, refunds, complaints handling, and assistance for passengers who have a disability.”
“My concern about the change to disclosure requirements would make it difficult, ultimately, for me to support the bill in its current form. So I'm very pleased to note that the government has listened to my concerns and had a look at the amendments I proposed, and will now move its own amendment to remove part 3 of schedule 2. I thank the government for their constructive engagement with me when I raised this and proposed a remedy to it. I particularly want to thank Minister Farrell, Minister Gallagher and their offices. I look forward to supporting the government's amendment when I see it and, provided that's there, I will ultimately be supporting this bill.”
“It's also not clear that this change would deliver a meaningful reduction in administrative burden, because departments will still need to collect, verify and transmit data to Finance. I acknowledge there would be some saving in not having to report under two different frameworks, multiplied by every single department. But, truly, I'm not convinced it outweighs the reduction in transparency. My second concern is that the disclosure requirements would no longer be in primary legislation and would rely entirely on the PGPA rule, reducing the level of parliamentary oversight if they are modified or in fact removed in the future. While there is much to welcome in this omnibus bill—there are many things in bills such as this, by their very nature—my concerns remain because they're significant.”
“By contrast, the PGPA rule requires only a high-level statement confirming whether any advertising campaigns were conducted. If the answer is yes, there's a reference to whole-of-government reporting published by the Department of Finance. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with that whole-of-government report. It's valuable, it's comprehensive—but it's not the same. Anyone reading a department's annual report will no longer get insight into what's been spent on advertising, on polling and on research. They'll have to go to a second source. They'll also have to wait a couple of months because the Finance report typically isn't published until December. That delay matters. Transparency delayed is transparency diminished.”
“I have just a few remarks on this bill. I rise to speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. Specifically, I want to focus on part 3 of schedule 2 of the bill. Part 3 of schedule 2 would repeal provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that require government departments to report advertising related expenditure in their annual reports. Now, the rationale for this is that these provisions overlap with other requirements under the PGPA rule and are duplicative. While I'm in favour of streamlining and consolidation, I'm not convinced that what's being removed here is truly redundant. My concerns about this change are twofold. Firstly, the electoral act requires departments to provide detailed disclosure of amounts paid to advertising agencies, market research firms, polling organisations, direct-mail providers and media outlets.”
“In my electorate of Indi, fire affected communities want to know what this will mean for the next time disaster strikes. Will councils have to pay more? What emergency support can residents rely on? Will the rules around eligibility be easier to navigate? And, crucially for these communities, can they build back better, or will we continue repeating the mistakes of the past? I'll be meeting with the Minister for Emergency Management in coming weeks to discuss these proposed changes, and I will continue to stand up for my communities to ensure we are better prepared, better supported and better able to recover from the next fire or flood. It's what our communities deserve and what we must deliver.”
“I've heard from councils time and time again that the DRFA is hard to navigate, with bureaucratic complexity placing significant additional strain and stress on already stretched local councils. So when the government proposed changes to the disaster recovery funding arrangements—which they say will be simpler, fairer and faster—that was welcome news. But it's clear that we need more detail about what these changes mean in practice for communities, councils and state governments. We're already hearing concern from other parts of the country. In Queensland, communities are highly agitated about these changes, worried that they may in fact be worse off. Their concerns must be taken seriously, particularly as disasters are more frequent and severe.”
“In recent months, I've spent time in the affected communities, working with local government in the aftermath, and I've made a submission to the Victorian government's inquiry into bushfires. I've taken what I've heard directly from fire affected communities to the federal government and developed a practical plan to improve how we prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. I'm also part of an inquiry into the financial sustainability of local governments, which is hearing consistently that the impact of disasters is one of the greatest pressures local governments face. Councils in my electorate navigate complex and, at times, infuriating disaster recovery funding arrangements.”
“Six months ago, communities in my electorate were absolutely devastated by two fires that destroyed more than 300 homes and burnt hundreds of thousands of hectares. The impacts on the municipalities of Strathbogie, Murrindindi and Towong were severe. It was described in the media as an 'apocalyptic inferno' with scenes of 'utter devastation', and entire communities were left unrecognisable. But, because the smoke didn't linger, the national attention moved on quickly. For those communities, however, cleaning up, rebuilding and recovering is a long, painful and difficult road. I've spoken too much about disaster in this place because for my communities it's not a blip; it's a severe threat most bushfire seasons.”
“This is ripe for misuse. It raises significant integrity and corruption concerns, especially in light of what we've seen with the CFMEU in Queensland and Victoria. In relation to grants, I'm especially worried that this would undermine the principles of open, merit-based competitive funding rounds. Organisations who seek funding in good faith deserve to have their applications assessed on their merits alone. Public spending should be based on need, merit, effectiveness and value for money, not on other irrelevant factors. So I join the member for Curtin in calling on the government to remove these measures from this bill.”
“(): I second the member for Curtin's amendment, and I have some brief remarks. Like the member for Curtin, I support many aspects of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, including changes to allow the Fair Work Commission to operate more efficiently and establishing a new high-income threshold for road transport contractors. However, this bill also amends existing antidiscrimination provisions so that the government can give preference to employers whose employees are covered by an enterprise agreement in contracts, procurements and grants of financial assistance. I'm not opposed to enterprise agreements, but this bill would effectively enable the government to force employers to make agreements with unions if they want to have any chance of getting a tender or contract.”
“Back whistleblowers, end pork barrelling, and restore trust in our institutions and in our processes. Integrity is a choice, and it's a choice for the government to make.”
“Grievance never feels particularly great to me as a standalone, because problems have solutions, even if they're hard to identify and harder to implement. I'm committed to doing the work of finding those solutions and putting them forward. That's why I developed a gold-standard design for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's why I put forward reforms to end pork barrelling and protect whistleblowers. It's why I stood up against FOI amendments that would have protected government secrecy and punished those seeking answers. I'll keep doing that work, and I'll work together with anyone in this place who wants to join me. I may have given the government a failing grade, but the term isn't over. There's still time to turn things around.”
“Our integrity mechanisms should strengthen people's trust in political institutions, and at the moment I'm worried that they're doing the opposite. Last year's McKinnon i ndex revealed that, while Australians still have faith in democracy, they're increasingly dissatisfied with how they see it working in practice. Regional Australians in particular had lower trust in government, were less satisfied with public services and were less likely to think that the political system allows them to have a say. Australians will not put blind faith in our political institutions, and trust is an end-to-end proposition. I don't believe people have given up on democracy, but they're certainly making a loud demand for it to work better.”
“The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NACC is currently undertaking an inquiry that I hope will deliver constructive, evidence based recommendations to facilitate a reset and to strengthen the NACC's performance of its functions; watch this space on that one. So what's the conclusion on my report card? Well, to be honest, it's probably not a passing grade. There have been a few bright spots but, really, many letdowns. It's particularly disappointing at a time of declining trust in politics, because trust and integrity go hand in hand. The public have a sharp nose for what they think is shifty, whether it's inaction on gambling advertising, failure to protect whistleblowers, electoral stitch-ups or pork barrelling.”
“Like many Australians, I had high hopes and great expectations of our federal integrity body, and I've spoken at length about my disappointment where I've seen it falling short. With the resignation of the commissioner and a deputy commissioner, the NACC is at a critical juncture. I see this as an opportunity for a reset, and I'm pleased that the Attorney-General agrees. Yesterday's announcement about the process to fill the vacancies was a welcome step in the right direction. There's more to be done, but I'm encouraged by the Attorney-General's approach and her engagement with me so far.”
“The ANAO has operated in a continuous deficit for eight years, with both the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit and the Auditor-General herself warning that its financial situation is unsustainable. The government failed to provide adequate resourcing in the most recent budget, but, to be honest, a funding boost from year to year is only a temporary solution to the underlying structural problem. Our central integrity body should not have to go cap in hand to the very executive it seeks to scrutinise. Finally, I need to touch on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, but this time with some cautious optimism. The establishment of the NACC was a watershed development.”
“At the time I spoke in 2024, the government had been sitting on Lynelle Briggs's review of public sector board appointments for a year. The 'jobs for mates' report was finally released in December alongside a new appointments framework that fell well short of what was recommended. To be fair, the Briggs report made clear that handing out jobs as favours or rewards is an entrenched issue not unique to any government or side of politics. I give praise to the Albanese government; they deserve recognition for implementing a transparent, merit based selection process for appointments to the Administrative Review Tribunal. It goes to show it can be done. It needs to be done consistently. The ANAO is absolutely crucial as part of our integrity landscape. But it's getting by on a shoestring.”
“But, instead, the government sought to entrench secrecy by making it harder to access information and easier to hide it. It was a disgraceful attack on transparency that the government eventually conceded was completely and utterly friendless. With the bill having been withdrawn, it's easy to think we're out of the woods. But a recent audit of FOI administration by the Australian National Audit Office identified a range of shortcomings inconsistent with a pro-disclosure regime. Of the more than 25,000 FOI decisions reviewed by the ANAO, 79 per cent refused access to information in part or in full. Decision-making is inconsistent and departments are not meeting their obligations, and the government has signalled—or perhaps warned—that FOI legislation isn't off the table for good.”
“In fact, the government continues to rely on invitation-only noncompetitive grants to fund pre-election sweeteners in selected seats. These include the $350 million Investing in Our Communities program, the $1 billion Priority Community Infrastructure program and, most recently, the $561 million Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. These pork-barrelled handouts are unfair, and, frankly, they're bad value. They create winners and losers along arbitrary electoral boundaries, and they create a system where resources are distributed on political strategy rather than need, merit or taxpayer benefit. Perhaps the most concerning development since I last spoke is the government's ill-conceived, indefensible Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. The FOI system does need amendment, to make it simpler, faster and easier to use.”
“And, if there's any doubt about that need, just take a look at the recent revelations about KPMG. The anonymous employee who bravely spoke up about the misuse of confidential material has said that they would not have made a disclosure if they had understood the inadequacy of legal protections for whistleblowers. It took a senator using parliamentary privilege for the allegations to even come to light. What a shameful indictment on our system. In 2024, I gave the government credit for strengthening the Commonwealth grants framework but said I had continuing concerns about non-transparent election commitment funding and whether it would address pork-barrelling. I was right to be concerned. The government has not acted to end pork-barrelling.”
“The draft legislation was promising, with positive developments including the establishment of a whistleblower ombudsman and the introduction of a 'no wrong door' approach. Of course, there were a few missed opportunities. Many people and organisations did a lot of work to provide detailed, actionable feedback in an almost unworkably short three-week consultation period. And then, suddenly, just as it appeared, the draft legislation seemed to disappear in a puff of smoke. It's not clear whether it will be introduced, or when, or even whether the government has considered the feedback it urgently sought out. I know the Treasury is currently consulting on whistleblower protections under tax and corporations law, but it's not clear how that ties into the kind of comprehensive, system-wide reform that's so sorely needed.”
“Almost two years ago, I stood in this place and delivered something of an integrity scorecard—an assessment of the Albanese government's performance in its first term of government. Today, I'd like to provide an update. With a couple of years and an election in between, how would I rate the government now? In 2024, I called out the government's inaction on whistleblower reforms. At that time, it had been five years since the Prime Minister, as then opposition leader, highlighted the need for a culture of disclosure and to expand whistleblower protections. Well, it's now been seven years, and we're still waiting for comprehensive whistleblower reforms. It seemed like we were getting somewhere in the second half of last year when the government released an exposure draft of amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act.”
“I call on this House to join me and to join along with Senator David Pocock, who's also tabling this petition in the other place. I elevate the strong voices of the 43,000-plus people. Together, we call on the government to expand Commonwealth prac placement payments to include all allied health and medical students, because no student should be forced to drop out simply because they can't afford mandatory unpaid placement. No community should miss out on care because future health workers were priced out of their training. It's time to get this done.”
“But completing a medical or allied health degree should not depend on your family's money. The solution is clear: expand the Commonwealth prac payments to include medical and allied health students. This proposal has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and is backed by the more than 43,000 people who've signed this petition. It is targeted. It's non-inflationary cost-of-living relief for students who need it most. And, most of all, it's an investment in the students who will become the health professionals our communities desperately need, especially in regional and rural Australia. With the rising cost of living, high fuel prices and growing demand for allied health professionals to deliver Thriving Kids, we can't afford to wait. We must do this now.”
“Her daughters, Grace and Genevieve, are studying medicine and radiography, which is exactly what we want from rural students. We know that when rural students study the health sciences they come and work in regional Australia as health professionals. Both these young women work to make ends meet. Next year, Genevieve will undertake eight months of unpaid placement in Melbourne to complete her degree—eight months! Lou wants to support her daughters and is doing all she can to help them through uni, but Lou's farm was burnt in the Victorian bushfires earlier this year, the second time after being burnt out in the 2019 Black Summer bushfires, and, while recovering from this disaster, there is only so much financial help she can give. All parents want to help their kids succeed. Of course they do.”
“A similar survey from La Trobe University found that 65 per cent of students reported that cost-of-living pressures were impacting their studies. Transport and fuel costs were the most commonly identified pressure point, and I hear that concern time and time again. Chloe, a fourth-year occupational therapy student, told me that she travelled just short of 3,500 kilometres in her own car for placement related activities over nine weeks, costing more than $500 in petrol, just to complete her compulsory prac. For many students, $500 is a heck of a lot of money to fork out on top of their daily living expenses when they're on placement and unable to earn. These financial impacts are also felt by families. I recently heard from Lou, a farmer in Cudgewa in my electorate.”
“It's an essential part of their training, no two ways about it, but the way we expect many students to complete these placements is neither fair nor sustainable. We've heard stories of students skipping meals, sleeping in swags or cars and wondering whether they can afford to finish their degrees. This is known as placement poverty, and it's happening during a cost-of-living crisis, when rising costs of groceries, utilities and petrol are making it even harder for students to get by. In regional and rural areas, where placements can be far from home, these costs are even greater. New data shows how serious this is. A Charles Sturt University survey found that almost half of all undergraduate students said that financial pressures could force them to withdraw before completing their degree.”
“I seek leave of the House to table a petition. Leave not granted. I'm disappointed that leave is not granted, but I rise today to present a petition which I'm not able to table from Allied Health Professions Australia with more than 43,000 people calling on this government to expand Commonwealth prac payments to all allied health and medical students. Every Australian relies on doctors, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists and numerous other health professionals, but not everybody knows that these people had to do hundreds—and, in some cases, thousands—of hours of unpaid placement to get their degrees. Placement is like an apprenticeship. It's where the students learn the practical skills they use for the rest of their careers.”
“But, while this happens, many households still rely on gas for their heating, cooking and hot water. A 25 per cent tax on gas exports could return $17 billion a year to the budget. Imagine what this money could deliver for rural health care, for regional hospitals and for roads. Just one year of this revenue could install solar and home batteries on 1.3 million homes. It's time to end the cheap deal for gas giants and make sure our sovereign resources deliver for Australia.”
“(): The Australian people want the government to put its foot on the gas and deliver a fair return from our gas exports. In the past five years, Australia has shipped enough gas overseas to cover our own needs for more than 20 years. Here's the kicker: at the same time, households and businesses on the east coast have seen household gas prices triple, breaking household budgets. Did you know that the gas industry uses 13 times more gas to prepare it for export than Australia's entire manufacturing industry needs each year? That's outrageous! It's boosting the profits of big business and billionaires while short-changing Australians on a national resource that we own. We know that rooftop solar combined with a home battery is the best way to bring down home energy bills, and thousands are making the shift.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Regional communities are often the last to get and the first to lose. The B ank closures in regional Australia report was tabled in May 2024. There are 596 regional towns that once had one or more banks which now have no form of bank at all. The report recommended that access to financial services should be recognised as an essential service. Treasurer, it's been more than two years. Will you commit to tabling your response before there are any more branch closures?”
“It promotes innovation, encourages future consumption, compensates for additional risk and incentivises the investment we need for long-term growth and productivity, but there is also a strong case for equal treatment or at least something a little less lopsided. Why should a nurse pay more tax on what they earn working a shift at a hospital than an investor who earns the same amount from selling an asset? In considering this bill, I've tried to weigh all of this up. Ultimately, I think what Australians expect is a fair go on the same terms as other people. It's clear our current tax settings fall short on this principle. What remains to be seen is whether the full package being developed by the government will indeed help more people own their own home and meaningfully move us to a system that is more efficient, effective and fair.”