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 7 of 12.
“Our laws and the protections they give to the environment must be free from vested political interests, now and in the future. Secretive ministerial discretion in decision-making simply doesn't foster the trust that we need. The objective of the national EPA is to deliver focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. To achieve this, the agency must be free from influence and equipped with strong regulatory powers to enforce laws. And while the government says that this body is independent, I do have some significant concerns about its governance. There's no provision for the CEO to be appointed through a transparent and merit based assessment process and no governance board to ensure that the CEO performs their functions consistent with the act.”
“But the problem here is that, alongside these discretionary powers, there's little transparency over how the minister uses this discretion or guardrails to ensure that decisions align with the intent of these laws to protect nature. We should get insight into whether the minister sought advice from the EPA CEO, for example, and whether their decision is in contradiction of that advice. Perhaps most unclear are the minister's broad national interest exemption powers, and I know many people are concerned about this, because they enable the minister to contravene national environmental standards and approve projects that the minister deems to be in the national interest. And there's no clarity about what can be defined as being in the national interest or not.”
“I have approached this legislation seeking to identify progress to protect the environment and to ensure that regional communities are meaningfully consulted on projects that impact them. There is some real progress to be found within this legislation, particularly in relation to stronger penalties for breaking environmental laws and better information sharing, enabled through Environmental Information Australia. But, despite this progress, there are sweeping issues in this legislation that I feel must be addressed. Primarily, there are extraordinary powers that give ministerial discretion through this legislation. Ministerial discretion, in a democratically elected government, is not inherently bad. I'm not one of those people who think there shouldn't be any ministerial discretion.”
“These bills propose significant changes to the EPBC Act, including introducing national environmental standards, stronger penalties for breaking environmental laws, and bioregional planning into our environmental laws, as well as improving public information on the environment, including publishing a state-of-the-environment report every two years, creating Australia's first Environmental Protection Agency and a new framework to impose general, customs, excise and regulation charges. As they currently stand, our environmental laws are fundamentally flawed. They're not protecting our environment, and they're filled with uncertainty for business. Professor Graeme Samuel's 2020 independent review of the EPBC Act laid this bare and called for reform—and I agree.”
“We experience it in hotter summers, increasing bushfire risk, larger floods that push insurance costs beyond reach, and erratic weather patterns that cause unpredictable crop yields. I have a strong belief that we can deliver better laws for the environment and laws that work for rural communities and for business. But make no mistake: the primary reason for these bills must be to protect the environment.”
“Indi's biodiversity is striking, providing essential habitat for critically endangered swift parrots, barking owls, common bent-wing bats and the vulnerable growling frog. When I was first elected as the member for Indi in 2019, I was given a strong mandate to advocate for nature. My constituents care deeply about nature. Since 2019, I've received more than 25,000 emails, letters and phone calls from my constituents about the environment, overwhelmingly calling for stronger protections. Rural communities are stewards of the land. Farming and tourism industries depend on it. Through this caretaker relationship, regional Australians intimately understand the impacts of climate change.”
“I'm pleased to stand here today in the House and speak on the seven environmental bills that are part of the government's environmental reforms: the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 and the four environment protection and biodiversity conservation charge imposition bills. These bills respond to the government's 2022 election commitment to reform Australia's environmental laws. I welcome the introduction of these considerable reforms for debate and the intention to better protect our natural environment. My electorate of Indi boasts spectacular natural places that locals and visitors alike enjoy visiting.”
“My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. Regional Australia is key to the success of the energy transition, and we know that 70 per cent of regional Australians are in broad support. However, poor community consultation is eroding social licence. The EPBC bills do not include a community consultation standard that would build trust. Will the minister commit to best practice community engagement standards under the new EPBC Act?”
“They've taken a few too many wrong turns, but there's still time to right the ship, so I encourage every member of the government to steer in a better direction on integrity and transparency.”
“I continue to implore the government to act on protecting whistleblowers. Little has changed in the past year to further the Prime Minister's commitment to expand whistleblower protections and the public interest test. On electoral reform, this government has little credibility. Under the guise of transparency, the government passed significant reforms that, frankly, entrench the major parties' financial advantage. Instead of recognising that more Australians than ever are voting outside of the major parties—or maybe because of this—the government negotiated a stitch-up with the opposition to make it harder for new players to get elected. So there is much more work to be done if this government wants to leave a positive legacy on integrity.”
“But perhaps the greatest disappointment of the Albanese government's second term so far on this half-anniversary is its unjustified attack on the freedom-of-information system. The right to access government information is a key check and balance on the executive and Public Service. Admittedly, some areas of the FOI system do need reform, but the government is once again using it as a cover for more secrecy. Expanding cabinet exemptions, for example, directly contravenes the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission and will further obscure public knowledge of how important decisions are affecting our country and how they are made. This bill has no friends. In fact, it is desperate and dateless. It has no friends outside the walls of government. The government should drop it and go back to the drawing board.”
“This government talked a big game on ending a culture of jobs for mates, but we're yet to see any meaningful action. If we are to ensure Australians can keep more of what they earn and deliver more to ease cost-of-living pressures, effective spending of public money is more important than ever, yet pork-barrelling persists. The government recently released guidelines for a new $550 million program to deliver its election commitments. Though branded as merit based, the government's Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program is an invitation-only program retrofitted to deliver the government's hand-picked election commitments. In the last term of parliament, two programs disproportionally targeted marginal and target electorates.”
“On five of six measures, this government is failing or stalling its commitment to fairer, more transparent government. I share the centre's view: With genuine reform and leadership, the Government can still deliver the transparent and accountable democracy Australians were promised. I urge them to do so. There have been wins. The establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission is commendable. It will ensure all of us—each and every one of us—are accountable for our conduct. But there are many areas in which this government is lagging on integrity and transparency. Just last week we saw this government's recalcitrance in its refusal to release the Briggs review, more than two years after we were told it would be made public.”
“Building this future also means safeguarding our democracy and the pillars of accountability and transparency—pillars that foster trust in our institutions and our elected representatives. In opposition, this government promised a new era of transparency, and I applauded the government, in its early days, in delivering the National Anti-Corruption Commission, a long-overdue reform and a cornerstone, now, of our integrity framework. But this achievement alone does not absolve the government from action on other integrity measures. One year ago, I delivered a speech evaluating the government's performance on integrity and transparency. Just last week, the Centre for Public Integrity published its integrity scorecard, and, frankly, the results really do make for very sober reading.”
“I thank the member for Banks for reminding us that today marks six months since the federal election, and it's a timeline moment to assess how this government is responding to the mandate given to it by the Australian people. Building Australia's future includes investing in infrastructure, services and economic settings that shape the quality of life across the nation, and I will continue to push this government to deliver more for rural, regional and remote Australia so that we can build the hospitals and homes we need, secure the workforce required for essential services and ensure that the energy transition delivers lasting benefits while protecting nature and ensuring comprehensive community consultation.”
“Open it to local governments to co-fund the infrastructure that makes developments viable at scale. Second, ensure that 30 per cent of housing funding flows to the regions, because that's where 30 per cent of the people live. Third, we should require Housing Australia and its investment mandate to explicitly recognise enabling infrastructure as an eligible activity. The housing crisis does not stop at the limits of Sydney or Melbourne. In Indi, the housing crisis makes it harder for health services to recruit, for farmers to find workers and for families to find somewhere to call home. We can change that if we stop treating the regions as an afterthought. We need to centre regional housing and investment in the critical infrastructure that's holding back new homes right now across rural and regional Australia.”
“For most Australians, it is unclear how this $10 billion policy has delivered and what it will deliver. It's not clear how communities in my electorate have benefitted or will benefit. If the government wants ongoing support for its HAFF, it's going to need to do a whole lot more to communicate how and where it's making a difference. If the HAFF doesn't start making serious progress, we have little chance of meeting the government's target of 1.2 million homes by 2030. Ambition is well and good, but it's getting investment into the regions, where funding is desperately needed, that will make a difference. The path is not to abandon or undermine the target, as the opposition seeks to do, but to do everything we can to meet it. So what needs to change for regional Australia? First, establish a regional housing infrastructure fund.”
“It was a good start, but it didn't land where it needed to, in specifically targeting regional Australia. The coalition committed $5 billion to enabling infrastructure during the recent election, and I hope that as the member for Fadden and his colleagues continue to work through their policy review they hang on to this one. We're also now a couple of years past the creation of the government's flagship housing policy, the Housing Australia Future Fund . I worked constructively on that legislation and secured amendments to put regional voices on the record. I also sought to guarantee a fair share of funding for regional Australia. While the government would not back those improvements, I'm going to keep pushing them for stronger, targeted regional funding. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on the HAFF.”
“In Tawonga, new developments are paused because there simply isn't enough water capacity in town. In Benalla, millions of dollars worth of drainage works are required before further homes can be built. Of course, we need to be mindful of how we build and where we build, but without greater investment in critical infrastructure there will be little new housing. We have to have critical investment in infrastructure. Regional councils can't afford this infrastructure alone. This is where the Commonwealth needs to step in more if we're to make real progress on the housing crisis in regional communities. So I welcomed the government's announcement of the $500 million Housing Support Program in August 2023. It's exactly what I was calling for.”
“However, while the motion before the House points to failure, I'm determined to, as I said, focus on solutions—and solutions that work for the people I represent in rural and regional Australia. I'm not here just to describe a problem. That is why, since 2022, I've called for a $2 billion regional housing infrastructure fund to help local councils build the pipes, the pavements and the poles that unlock new housing. It's not glamorous, but it works. When you fund sewerage, water and roads, you turn zoned but vacant land into build-ready land. That's how you add supply in regional Australia, because regional Australia needs solutions that focus on specific regional needs. You don't have to look far in my electorate of Indi to see the reality of infrastructure constraints.”
“I thank the member for Bennelong, and I agree with him: we shouldn't be whingeing; we should be working. But not whingeing does not mean not having a decent critique, either. In my electorate of Indi, housing pressures continue to be one of the most pressing and commonly brought issues that come to my office. Homeowners continue to feel the pressure of interest rates and the high cost of living. Renters struggle to imagine homeownership at all, with vacancy rates critically low and rents continuing to rise. When it comes to social housing, thousands of people remain on wait lists in towns like Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla. Homelessness is at rates we have never seen before in rural and regional Australia. There is no doubt that there is so much more to be done to make housing affordable and accessible in Australia.”
“It's an international brand the whole world shares. When the European Union sought to restrict its use under a geographic indicator in 2023, I worked with local grapegrowers and winemakers and this federal government collaboratively to successfully defend our right to use the name. As EU trade negotiations resume, there's a lot on the table and a lot at stake. Losing the name 'prosecco' would be devastating for Australian grapegrowers and winemakers. I urge the government to stand firm for Australian winemakers and their right to use the name 'prosecco'.”
“Prosecco is an Australian favourite. You'd be hard-pressed to find an Australian restaurant without it on the wine list, a bottle shop without it on the shelf or a Friday fizz without a glass in hand. It's local prosecco that Australians love most. It's now the eighth-most produced grape variety in Australia, grown across 20 wine regions. Sixty per cent of Australian prosecco is produced in the King Valley, in my beautiful electorate of Indi—so renowned that it's known as Prosecco Road. The industry has been carefully nurtured by local families, from Otto Dal Zotto's first vines decades ago to the thriving market it enjoys today. Prosecco doesn't just taste great; it is great for our economy, is worth more than $200 million in sales alone, drives regional tourism and supports hospitality. Prosecco has strong name recognition.”
“The government has accepted it in principle, and I understand that you're working towards this, so I really encourage you to continue to do so. I thank you for the courage in what you've done so far, and I ask you to continue that courage and adopt this recommendation as quickly as you possibly can. Reinstating the time limit will encourage Services Australia to act promptly to keep proper records and to fix errors early rather than pursuing people years later. Ultimately, that will reduce harm, and that's what we're all seeking to do. I thank the member for Clark for raising in a debate, and I urge the minister to continue to act with haste to sort out this last problem.”
“It's why I ultimately welcome so many parts of this bill that will provide some justice and recourse for victims of income apportionment, including the small debt waiver and the resolution scheme. It was really useful again to hear the minister talk about what that will ultimately do. Even the mere existence of limitless debt recovery powers is ultimately, though, a failure of fairness in our social security system. It's not how a trustworthy system should work, and it hasn't been rectified in the almost 10 years since the coalition government enacted this. The robodebt royal commission recommended restoring the six-year limit by repealing section 1234B of the Social Security Act. I back that recommendation in full.”
“The decision by the coalition government in 2016 opened the door to chasing very, very old debts—years after the fact. These were debts that the member for Clark has said people would not even know that they had. Worse still, these debts were often the result of government errors, not their own. This is serious. The bill before the House today recognises that governments make mistakes. This bill—and the intention with which the minister puts it—demonstrates as clearly as you could possibly demonstrate that thousands of people never even knew that they were being overpaid due to income apportionment. We know that chasing people down for these unknown and often minor debts years down the track is not only unfair but actually unconscionable.”
“In light of what the minister said and in addition to it, I still think that, ultimately, recovering social security debts with a time limit is a fair approach and that there should be some limitation on the length of time. It's practical that this be brought in line with ordinary law because ordinary law has such a thing. I think that there is actually no reason why social security debts should be treated differently to any other kind of debt. In 2016 the former coalition government removed the previous six-year limit. It allowed debts to be pursued at any time, and we've seen the consequences of that—devastating consequences. I would argue that there's probably not a member of this House of Representatives who cannot cite devastating stories from their own electorate of the impact of this. I know I have countless stories.”
“As parliamentarians and as legislators, we cannot allow this ever to be repeated. We simply can't allow the most vulnerable in our community to come up again against the might of an automated and dispassionate government system set up deliberately—let's not forget—to target them. The amendments would place a six-year time limit on debt recovery actions. It is, effectively, a statute of limitations, and I thank the minister for explaining that, because it's useful. I think this is what we seek. The public, more broadly, seeks nuanced understanding of the rationale for government to act or not act, to act immediately or to delay and consider. So it's really useful to have that explanation.”
“I rise to support the amendments moved by my colleague the member for Clark. I acknowledge what the minister has just said to us and thank her for her careful consideration of the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission into robodebt and acknowledge that it was established by the Albanese Labor government. I am heartened that these amendments and the argument put by the member for Clark are under consideration, more broadly, by the minister and her department. It is tremendously important that, at all times, we act with fairness and humanity, as the minister just pointed out and as the member for Clark so eloquently described. It's critical that the recommendations of the royal commission, which the government have agreed to, are enacted because we can never forget and we must not forget.”
“They promised $120 million for a Rouse Hill hospital on the border of the electorates of Greenway and Mitchell. And $150 million was promised to Flinders medical centre, which is on top of Labor's 2022 election commitment of $200 million at the same hospital in the seat of Hindmarsh. Labor promised $80 million to Fairfield hospital bordering the electorates of Fairfield and McMahon. I have no doubt these health services need this money to meet their community needs, but the real problem here is a lack of transparency. There is no open, fair process to assess need; there is no opportunity for other hospitals facing equally urgent pressures to apply for funding. I call on this government to close the stark gap in regional health funding and adopt my proposal for a $2 billion 'building regional and rural hospitals' fund.”
“In Indi, this would also mean places like Bright district hospital, Mansfield hospital and health precincts right across rural and regional Australia would have a pathway to seek legitimate, fair and transparent funding from the Commonwealth. This policy puts transparency back into health funding and addresses the dire underfunding in rural Australian hospitals. The federal government has a clear role in funding health infrastructure because—you know what—they already do it. The problem is that it's often not transparent, competitive or needs based spending of taxpayer dollars. In the last election, both major parties were guilty of pork-barrelling promises for health and hospital infrastructure. Both major parties promised $200 million for a hospital in the seat of Hasluck.”
“Health facilities need to be built to meet our region's growing health needs now and into the future—not with corners cut, not scaled back to retrofit a budget. I've done the work to address this and give rural hospitals a pathway to seek additional funding from the Commonwealth to deliver the care their communities so desperately need and deserve. My proposed $2 billion Building Regional and Rural Hospitals Fund offers a vital funding lifeline for regional and rural health hospitals right across Australia. Through this fund, regional health services like Albury Wodonga Health will have the opportunity to apply for open, competitive and needs based funding to deliver health infrastructure in partnership with the states that meets the community's needs.”
“The New South Wales and Victorian state governments are investing more than half a billion dollars in redevelopment of the Albury hospital; however, the upgrade is not fit for purpose. NSW Health expects the scope of the project to include new surgical and operating theatres. I'm pleased to hear that, but it came to light—and the ABC's 7.30 recently showed—that they will be constructed not as operating theatres but as empty shells without the internal fit-out and equipment required to make them operational. Can you believe it? When the two state health ministers wrote to the federal health minister seeking additional funding for Albury Wodonga Health, they were told there was not a Commonwealth grant available for this purpose.”
“Elise, whose father lives on the border, recently wrote to me concerned about a four-day delay in her father's surgery at Albury Wodonga Health. The delay led to serious complications, including a gangrenous gall bladder, sepsis and her father being placed in an intensive care unit on a ventilator. Thankfully he survived. This was not caused by a lack of will or expertise on behalf of the incredible staff at Albury Wodonga Health. The family were told the delay in treatment was due to there being only seven operating theatres between Albury and Wodonga hospitals—an absolutely appalling situation when we know that we need 13 new additional operating theatres. This region has a population of over 100,000 residents, and it's one of Australia's largest and busiest regional health centres.”
“Regional and rural Australia is in desperate need for more investment in our health, including in our health infrastructure. The stats don't lie. The National Rural Health Alliance estimates that rural Australians received $8.3 billion less in healthcare funding compared to urban Australians in the 2023-24 financial year. This funding gap has grown by almost $2 billion since 2021-22, and this has consequences. Rural and regional Australians die younger and have longer term, worse chronic disease than their metropolitan counterparts. This data matches stories from my local electorate of Indi. I hear time and time again about health infrastructure failing to meet the needs of communities right across Indi. When it fails, rural Australians endure unnecessary suffering and trauma.”
“I move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) 28 per cent of the Australian population live outside major cities; (b) people living in rural and remote areas have higher rates of hospitalisations, deaths and injury and also have poorer access to, and use of, primary health care services, than people living in major cities, yet investment in regional and rural health is falling behind, leaving regional communities with outdated facilities, insufficient training places and healthcare students struggling to train locally; and (c) the lack of open, competitive and needs-based hospital infrastructure funds means regional and rural hospitals have no transparent, competitive Commonwealth funding pathways to build critical infrastructure to deliver health services for the growing border population into the future; (2) notes that premiers are calling for increased funding from the Commonwealth Government for hospitals, including specifically for infrastructure; and (3) calls on the Government to establish a $2 billion Building Regional and Rural Hospitals Fund to provide competitive and needs-based investment for new buildings, equipment and planning, so health services in regional, rural and remote areas classified as MM2 and higher can apply for hospital infrastructure funding to meet the needs of their communities now and into the future.”
“I call on the minister and the government more broadly to consider these amendments seriously with the intent to which they are put and safeguard the precious CDC that we're legislating for.”
“I also support the amendments of my colleagues the member for Kooyong, around scope and remit, and the member for Mackellar, to enhance the governance of the CDC—and together these suite of amendments come forward with good faith and with, I must say, decades and decades of commitment to health in this country. The CDC will support public health prevention and response for pandemics, disease outbreaks, preventive health and the health effects of climate change. This is a major responsibility. We must be assured the agency operates as intended and delivers the highest quality of health advice. Australians deserve a CDC that is independent, transparent and trusted. Safeguarding the independence of the review process gives us confidence and gives the people confidence. We must get it right from the very start.”
“Politics has absolutely no place in best practice health advice, and my amendment ensures we keep it at arm's length. I've already given you the example of what's happening in the United States. This is not a theoretical concept. This amendment will improve the timeliness and transparency of the review. The report must be completed within 12 months of the panel's appointment, tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days, and the minister's response must be tabled within three months. This is a sensible, non-controversial amendment, and it does not burden the government, the CDC or the review process.”
“Legislate right and legislate now to make sure that we protect against any risk. My amendment would require the five-year statutory review of the CDC act to be independent and undertaken by an expert panel. Members would have relevant and related experience to comprehensively understand the CDC's operations and importance. To ensure impartiality, they must not be on the CDC advisory council. They must not be current employees of the Commonwealth public service, current or former member of the Commonwealth parliament, or current or former employees or executives of a registered political party. The reasons for that should be obvious to any thinking member of parliament. They are obvious to the public. We must protect the CDC from vested political interests, now and into the future.”
“Impartiality, transparency and rigorous review are all things that we fundamentally expect in our healthcare advice, and we should expect no less from the CDC. We're seeing right now in the United States what happens when health advice becomes politicised. This is a clear warning to Australia—in fact, it's a warning of biblical proportions—not to let the same thing happen here. As I said to the minister earlier, we don't legislate for the here and now alone. We don't legislate for the good faith minister that we have with us here and now. I say that genuinely. We have to legislate to prevent what's happening in the United States from ever happening here. By rejecting amendments that safeguard the CDC's independence, the government truly risks undermining trust in this vital institution from the very start.”
“It makes feeble stipulations about who is able to undertake the review, limited to a requirement that they cannot be employed by the CDC. Well, obviously, that seems like a pretty basic requirement! Neither does it guarantee the independence, impartiality or relevant expertise of the reviewer. I have moved an amendment to fix this so that the government and all Australians can be confident that the CDC is operating effectively, as it's intended and as I know the minister intends it to be. I am heartened that the minister has indicated that he will look seriously at recommendations coming through the Senate inquiry. I hope this is one of the recommendations that he will see and take seriously, because it is a good faith amendment.”
“Minister to table copy of report of review and response to review (7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. (8) The Minister must cause the government's response to the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within three months of the report being tabled. I moved this amendment circulated in my name because it's important. This amendment would establish best practice for the statutory review of the CDC act, improving the independence and integrity of the review process. It would strengthen public trust in the CDC and its operation. As it currently stands, the statutory review requirement in this legislation is not strong enough. In fact, I'd say it's weak.”
“(4) A member of the expert panel must not be any of the following: (a) a current employee of the Commonwealth public service; (b) a current member of the Advisory Council; (c) a current or former member of the Commonwealth Parliament; (d) a current or former employee or executive of a registered political party. Timing of review and Minister to be given report (5) The expert panel must be appointed by the Minister within 6 months after the end of the 5 year period to which the report relates. (6) The review must be completed and the report submitted to the Minister by the expert panel within 12 months of the panel's appointment.”
“I move amendment (1) circulated in my name. (1) Clause 78, page 63 (line 22) to page 64 (line 12), omit the clause, substitute: 78 Review of operation of Act (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of: (a) the operation of this Act during the 5 year period beginning at the commencement of the Act; and (b) the operation of this Act during each subsequent 5 year period. (2) The review must be conducted by an expert panel comprised of 3 members appointed by the Minister. (3) Each member of the expert panel must have experience in at least one of the following: (a) public health; (b) clinical practice; (c) economics; (d) human rights; (e) health data and statistics; (f) emergency management; (g) communications.”
“My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, after robodebt, the government said never again to the culture of secrecy that allowed it to happen in the first place. The royal commission into robodebt recommended repealing section 34 of the FOI Act, yet the freedom of information bill before the House would conceal even more information from the public. Attorney, why is the government expanding cabinet secrecy when the royal commission recommended the exact opposite?”
“In 2024 alone, they took home a platinum score, which is reserved for the very best of the best products, along with two golds, two silvers and the title of Best Australian Table Olive at major competitions including the Australian International Olive Awards and the Golden Olive Awards. On behalf of Indi, I congratulate Gooramadda Olives on these remarkable achievements. They are not just an olive farm; they are a cornerstone of Rutherglen's local produce scene. Next time you are in the area, I encourage you to stop by and sample their delicious products. I wish Melanie and Rob every success at the upcoming Australian Table Olive Awards in Adelaide later this month, and I wish our work experience student Malakye Pinn from Rutherglen High School all the very best with his studies this year.”
“I stand to congratulate Gooramadda Olives and to thank work experience student Malakye Pinn from Rutherglen High School for helping to draft this speech. Gooramadda Olives is an award-winning agritourism business run by Melanie and Rob Whyte. It was a pleasure to visit their farm recently and see their passion firsthand. Since establishing their business in 2013, Melanie and Rob have earned more than 80 national and international awards for their exceptional olives and amazing extra virgin olive oils. Their hard work and innovation have made Gooramadda Olives a standout in the industry.”
“We must have confidence in the CDC's independence and the review process to ensure this happens. We need to bake this in right now. The establishment of an Australian CDC is an important step forward in our public health architecture, and I truly welcome the establishment of the CDC, but I do so knowing that good-faith amendments are here on the table for the minister to improve the integrity of the statutory review process, because they are very much needed. A robust and transparent CDC will support public health prevention and response well into the future. It's critical that we get this right from the very beginning.”
“To ensure the review's impartiality, they must not be on the CDC advisory council and they must not be current employees of the Commonwealth Public Service or current or former members of the Commonwealth parliament. My amendments would also improve the timeliness and transparency of the review process, requiring the government's response to the review be tabled in the parliament for all to see. These amendments will ensure a robust review process, and I urge the government to back them. I value engagement with the minister on these good-faith amendments. It's important that Australia has an independent CDC that provides independent, trustworthy advice to the government, key health bodies and the Australian people about our most precious of resources: our health.”