Anne Webster
Mallee · National Party · Australia
“The government's first duty is to protect its citizens and, arguably, its most vulnerable citizens—in this case, children. Today that duty extends into a digital world, where the playground has actually moved online and where too often it is unpoliced and unsafe.”
“We know that, despite the ban, large numbers of children are still accessing these platforms because enforcement has been weak and the regulator has not been given the tools it needs.”
“They worry about exposure to violent content; harmful algorithms; cyberbullying; scams; predatory, paedophilic behaviour; and the relentless pressure that social media can place on young people's mental health. These concerns are real, and they deserve to be taken seriously.”
“For many young Australians, social media is where they access news, educational content and creative learning. It's where they stay connected with friends and family. It is where they participate in their communities and engage in public debate.”
“My constituent asks that there be some sort of agency or protocol where these accounts can be collated, investigated and closed where applicable.”
“Labor rejected it and then, in the 2024 budget, accepted it. We pledged in June 2024 that we would deliver the under-16s social media ban, which Labor, thankfully, copied.”
The complete record
Every one of 760 lines we hold for Anne Webster, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 16.
“As it develops the digital duty of care, I urge the government to continue consulting widely with parents, educators, mental health experts, technical specialists, young people themselves and the broader community. If we get this right, Australia has the opportunity to lead the world not just in restricting access but in creating digital spaces that are genuinely safer, healthier and better designed for everyone.”
“It also means expecting companies developing AI powered services, chatbots and digital platforms to consider how their products might affect children and vulnerable users before those products are released into the world. That is what safe by design should mean, because, ultimately, we cannot regulate our way out of this challenge simply by telling children to stay away. We must also expect the companies making billions of dollars from Australia to build products that are safe for users. This bill is a worthwhile step towards stronger enforcement, and I'm pleased to support it, but I also encourage the government to be equally ambitious in what comes next.”
“It would require platforms to think much more carefully about the products they build, the algorithm recommendation systems they deploy and the incentives they create. It means moving beyond simply removing harmful content after it has spread. It means asking whether algorithms should be amplifying that content in the first place. It also means giving people the power to create their algorithms and to opt out of harmful algorithms—to opt out of content like eating disorder content, self-harm or misogynistic content. This is something that Chanel Contos and Teach Us Consent are calling for—that power for individuals to curate their own algorithms and make sure that they're not getting content that they just do not want to see.”
“This bill does not fix the underlying problem that too many digital platforms remain fundamentally unsafe by design. That's why I believe one of the most important pieces of unfinished work before this parliament is the government's proposed digital duty of care. Done properly, this has the potential to be genuinely transformative. A digital duty of care represents a public health approach to online safety. Rather than responding only to harm after it occurs, it requires companies to identify foreseeable risks and take reasonable steps to prevent them from before they occur. It shifts the responsibility upstream. Instead of asking families to navigate increasingly sophisticated technologies alone, it places obligations on the companies designing those technologies.”
“For many young Australians, social media is where they access news, educational content and creative learning. It's where they stay connected with friends and family. It is where they participate in their communities and engage in public debate. This is particularly true for the LGBTQIA+ young people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, young people living in regional and remote Australia and young Australians living with disability. For many of these young people, online communities can provide support, understanding and connection that may not be available in their immediate surroundings. The challenge before us has never been simply about removing children from online spaces. It's about making these online spaces safer for all users in the first place.”
“Strengthening the commissioner's investigative powers and increasing the consequences for noncompliance will better equip the regulator to hold companies to account. For those reasons, I support the bill, but supporting this bill does not mean pretending it solves every problem. There remain important questions about the broader impacts of minimum age laws themselves. Throughout the original debate, many mental health organisations cautioned against assuming that simply removing young people from social media would automatically improve their well-being. Their concern was not that online harms do not exist. They clearly do. Their concern was that many young people also rely on online spaces for connection, support and belonging. That remains true today.”
“The Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 gives the eSafety Commissioner stronger powers to investigate whether digital platforms are genuinely meeting their legal obligations. It expands the commissioner's ability to compel documents and information from social media companies and other relevant organisations, allowing closer scrutiny of the systems they have put in place to enforce minimum age requirements. It also substantially increases the penalties for companies that fail to comply. These are really sensible reforms, and I welcome them. We already know that the eSafety Commissioner is examining whether several major platforms are meeting their obligations under the law.”
“This should concern us all because, when a child lies about their age to gain access, they're not entering a version of these platforms designed for children. They're entering platforms that are designed for adults that are simply not safe for them. Implementing a ban has removed the obligation for platforms to make their content safe, and the additional safeguards that might otherwise apply disappear. The algorithms treat them as adults, the content they are recommended changes and the protections that we intended to provide can be lost entirely. Added to this is the reality that legislation is only as effective as its enforcement, which brings me to the bill before the House today.”
“Unfortunately, much of that has proven to be true. Shortly after the laws came into effect, the eSafety Commissioner reported that around 4.7 million age restricted accounts had been removed from social media platforms. That sounds significant, but, only a few months later, the commissioner's own reporting showed that around 70 per cent of children who had accounts before the ban were still accessing restricted platforms. I've heard the exact same story from families in my electorate. Parents tell me that their children know exactly how to get around restrictions. Young people have shown me themselves just how straightforward it can be to bypass the age checks using false birth dates and VPNs and even by drawing beards with pen on their chins or with other workarounds.”
“They worry about exposure to violent content; harmful algorithms; cyberbullying; scams; predatory, paedophilic behaviour; and the relentless pressure that social media can place on young people's mental health. These concerns are real, and they deserve to be taken seriously. When Australia's world-first social media minimum age laws came into force in December last year, there was broad agreement that something needed to change, but there were also significant warnings from technical experts, mental health organisations and online safety specialists that we were legislating before many of the practical questions had been answered. There were concerns that—without meaningful and longer consultation, without robust evidence and without a credible implementation strategy—children would simply find ways around the restrictions.”
“We need real accountability for platforms, real tools for families and a government that understands this problem deeply enough to get ahead of it because, right now, too many families feel like they are shouting into the void while the system that is meant to protect their children simply does not respond. Social media has become woven into almost every aspect of daily life. It's how young people communicate, learn, socialise and understand the world around them. The opportunities are extraordinary, but so too are the risks. Across my community, I've heard from countless parents who are deeply concerned about what their children are seeing online, often in the privacy of their bedrooms. They tell me they're struggling to keep up with technologies that seem to evolve faster than families can adapt.”
“Individuals and businesses alike find platforms inflexible and unaccountable despite their reliance on them for connection and, in business cases, income, and I expect the government to do much better for Australians in this space. They may feel they've got global attention on the social media ban, but the world will really sit up and take notice if digital platforms are held more accountable for harming Australians and Australian businesses. This bill strengthens enforcement, and that is necessary, but enforcement alone will not fix a system where harm can simply shift from one platform to another.”
“Australian businesses—startups and small businesses—rely increasingly on social media to promote their businesses, meaning that when their account is shut down, blocked, hacked or attacked, a lack of access or action costs money, sometimes lots of money. Social media platforms need to do more in this space, as does the government. As I said to one of my local newspapers recently, I have been very active in advocating for scam victims among my constituents, scams that often arise on digital platforms. While I note the government has been handwringing for years on this topic, there is a broader dispute resolution policy needed, in addition to scams, for Australians or businesses harmed by digital platforms.”
“The TIO released a report in June revealing four out of five Australians have experienced problems with digital services in the past reporting year, with one in three being an online retailer or marketplace, and, more specifically for this bill, 29 per cent being social media platforms. Australians are losing an estimated $497 million annually due to problems with digital services, the TIO says. Now, this might not seem about esafety, but it speaks very clearly to the accountability vacuum big tech thinks it has in Australia. This bill today sends them a message. They are accountable. We will hold them accountable.”
“That's why Australia imposed the world's first social media ban as a bipartisan measure, fully aware that it was never going to be easy or perfect. But principle matters, and this is a very important principle for Australian mothers, Australian fathers, Australian children, safety and, indeed, Australian sovereignty. This is ultimately a public health issue, one that requires careful evidence-based policy, and protecting young people, particularly the most vulnerable, must be our No. 1 priority. As shadow minister for regional communications, I commented recently on the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's, or TIO, calls for greater powers to advocate for Australians who cannot get a fair go from big tech.”
“It is about getting the balance right because what we have now is not working. As I have said to constituents who wrote to me concerned about overreach, we are not doing our job as parliamentarians elected to represent our 120,000 or so constituents, more in Mallee's case, and their children if we do not address risks to real harm, risks that can lead to serious harm or even death in our communities. It is not acceptable to throw up our hands and say, 'Well, that's online and that's unregulated.' What is the point of this place, our parliament, if we do not try and protect our citizens? We might as well pack up, go home and let the multibillionaires, if not trillionaires, govern Australia from their condos.”
“A Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube were negligent, designed addictive products, failed to warn users and ultimately caused harm, with Meta ordered to pay US$4.2 million and YouTube US$1.8 million. Apparently, TikTok and Snapchat settled with the same female plaintiff before trial. There are reportedly thousands of similar cases in the US alone. Yet this government, our government, is slowly, slowly developing a digital duty of care. I share that recent American legal example from just months ago to illustrate that there is a duty of care and there is legal liability and that, as lawmakers, we have a duty to the Australian public. At the same time, Australians are rightly cautious about overreach. This is not about heavy-handed control or undermining freedoms.”
“I want to draw the House's attention to a judgement on 25 March in Los Angeles, where a young woman, now aged 20, initialled KGM, sued Meta and YouTube, having started using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine. She argued that Meta intentionally engineered their platforms to be addictive, that their design caused compulsive use and that this led to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts. She alleged the addictive design features included infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, algorithmic recommendation feeds, push notifications and reward-style engagement. Experts in the case likened the design features to cigarettes and poker machines.”
“User engagement is driven by algorithms designed to maximise attention and influence behaviour. People of all ages are at risk of being influenced into negative behaviour patterns by these algorithms, but younger people are particularly vulnerable as they have not developed the critical thinking or awareness of the dangers that lurk in the dark corners of the internet. If we're not careful, we risk raising a generation conditioned for constant stimulation where deeper thinking is crowded out and attention is shaped by algorithmic incentives rather than independent judgement—or, as I like to call it, the flea brain.”
“We know that, despite the ban, large numbers of children are still accessing these platforms because enforcement has been weak and the regulator has not been given the tools it needs. The Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 attempts to correct what, arguably, was Labor's very poor first attempt at legislating in this area. While constituents have concerns about the reach of the eSafety Commissioner's current powers, the coalition supports regulators having more teeth, so long as those teeth are to be used on big tech. We will be vigilant and critical if these powers are misdirected at the Australian people. We must be honest about what we're dealing with here. These are not neutral platforms. They are global businesses whose model depends on keeping users engaged at all costs.”
“The eSafety Commissioner's March 2026 compliance update found 70 per cent of children were still on social media. As constituents are telling us and as evidence shows, current platform safeguards and reporting mechanisms are not working as intended. Even after intervention attempts by schools, child protection and police, nothing changes. The behaviour simply moves platforms. That is not protection; that's circumvention. The parliament agreed on the goal of protecting children online, but the current framework has not delivered. As other countries considered social media bans, Labor rushed their initiative out the door so they could claim international credit for being the first.”
“Labor rejected it and then, in the 2024 budget, accepted it. We pledged in June 2024 that we would deliver the under-16s social media ban, which Labor, thankfully, copied. What we know is that around five million social media accounts of children under 16 have been removed, deactivated or restricted since our world-first social media ban began. Apparently, five platforms are being investigated by the eSafety Commissioner for potential noncompliance with the ban. A University of Newcastle study, published in the British Medical Journal , found the initial age restrictions have had limited impact, finding that, among the 408 12- to 17-year-olds that were questioned three months after the ban, over 80 per cent continued to use restricted platforms and around two-thirds had encountered age-verification measures.”
“My constituent asks that there be some sort of agency or protocol where these accounts can be collated, investigated and closed where applicable. My constituent goes on: Concerns for the welfare of the children have been raised with the mother, a primary school, child protection, and, after a particularly concerning series of Zoomerang videos, a welfare check was requested of the police. There has been no visible or positive response from any of the places we expect to protect our children, with the younger girl telling police she is fine. This is when she stopped posting on Zoomerang and opened a TikTok account with her mother's knowledge. This is what this government's policy failure looks like in real time. The coalition led the way in November 2023 with our private member's bill to impose age verification online.”
“The government's first duty is to protect its citizens and, arguably, its most vulnerable citizens—in this case, children. Today that duty extends into a digital world, where the playground has actually moved online and where too often it is unpoliced and unsafe. I recently received a deeply concerning account from a constituent in my electorate. They wrote about 15- and 11-year-old siblings from their community that have a Zoomerang account—I didn't even know there was one—and have been 'known to post or repost up to 30 videos a day'. She wrote: After the (social media) ban was implemented, when she was 11 years old, she opened a TikTok account. Both girls discuss issues of declining mental health, including suicidal ideation, self-harm (cutting), body dysmorphia, bullying, and, in the 15-year old's case, allegations of sexual assault.”
“Quamby's nearest Australia Post outlet is in Kerang, which happens to be an 85-kilometre round-trip away. That means local residents have to drive with significant inconvenience and expense on dangerous roads just to pick up their mail. That is not a solution. They have been let down by the current system, and Chelle is doing that round-trip at present off her own back without remuneration, just to keep the mail coming to her general store. I respect that Australia Post has processes to follow, and I've reached out to them for a very swift resolution of the— (Time expired)”
“Because licensed Post Offices in small towns like Quambatook matter. Chelle Espagne, who is a community minded person like they all are there, was the previous LPO manager, and she said today that when she was running the LPO two people's lives were saved. You see, Quamby doesn't have letterboxes and roadside delivery; only the post office boxes at her Quamby general store. Residents tell the LPO when they'll be out of town, and so Chelle knew when two people hadn't come to collect their post that maybe something was wrong. Owing to Chelle's care, she went around to check in on them and that is the reason they are alive today. It's not a small thing. As Chelle says, LPOs are more than just a banking and mail service—they can be kind of a safety net, and we need safety nets in regional Australia.”
“Quambatook is a small, you might say teeny-tiny, town in Mallee. Two hundred people live there. It's known as 'Quamby' to the locals and deserves special treatment after the horrific and tragic death of Merril Kelly, a pillar of that community last January 2025. I was disturbed recently to learn that the Quamby local post office has temporarily closed as the recent and current licensee is unable to continue. You might say, why is that even connected? Well, it is connected. For those who were paying attention in Senate estimates, Australia Post gave responses to Senator Henderson regarding the future of licensed post offices, and they have since discovered a secret document—a leaked document—that says that the future might not be exactly what the CEO said in the Senate estimates. Why is this important?”
“Promise fairness, then make older Australians pay. Older Australians are not the problem. They are the backbone of this country. They built the roads, staffed the hospitals, ran farms, opened businesses, built homes, cared for children, paid taxes and held communities together through drought, flood, fire and hardship. Older Australians are not savings measures—better than a health policy that forces a choice between insurance and food, better than an aged-care system that makes people wait until their health collapses. Labor's attacks on older Australians must stop. This parliament should stand with older Australians. They kept their end of the bargain. It's time this government kept theirs too.”
“They allow an older person to stay in their own home in their own town close to the people they love. Yet, under Labor, older Australians are told to wait, pay more and accept less. They are pushed through phone assessments and computer systems when what they need is a person who will listen. I hear from older people who are proud and independent. They do not ask for much. They want to pay their bills, see a doctor, stay safe at home, keep the private cover they worked hard to maintain. They want respect, not lectures. Labor has no credible plan for the future of the Commonwealth Home Support Program beyond 1 July 2027. That matters. These basic services keep people out of hospital and out of residential care for longer. This is the Labor pattern. Promise compassion, then bill Australians for it promised reform, then deliver delay.”
“People wait longer. They travel further. They sit on lists. Families take time off work to drive mum or dad hundreds of kilometres for care. When Labor makes private health more expensive, it does not just hurt household budgets; it piles pressure onto already stretched hospitals across the nation. Aged care is no better. Older Australians were promised dignity and better care. Instead, too many are waiting a year or more for the support they need to stay safe at home. They deteriorate while they wait, as the member for Gippsland aptly described—many of the constituents in my electorate. Families are left exhausted. Some end up in hospital beds because help did not arrive on time. Home support is not a luxury. Help with showering is not a luxury. Meals, transport, cleaning, nursing and personal care are not extras.”
“It has targeted them. Labor wants Australians over 65 to pay more for private health cover. More than three million older Australians will be hit. Many will pay hundreds more a year. Some couples could be forced to find well over $1,000 extra. For pensioners and self-funded retirees on fixed incomes, that is not loose change. It is the groceries. It's the fuel. It's the medicine. It's the power bill. This is not fairness; it is a blatant Labor tax grab on older Australians. There is nothing fair about punishing people for ageing, nothing fair about telling someone in their 70s after decades of premiums that they're now the budget problem, and nothing fair about pushing people out of private health and pretending public hospitals can absorb the pressure. In regional Australia, we know what happens when the system is stretched.”
“If confidence delivered outcomes, I'm sure that the Labor Party would do a fabulous job, but the fact of the matter is it doesn't. Nobody held back, nobody left behind—that was the promise of this prime minister. Older Australians remember it. They were told this prime minister understood aged care, the cost of living and dignity. Now they actually see the truth. Labor has broken faith with the people who built this country—those who worked hard, paid taxes, raised families, volunteered, served their towns and did the right thing all their lives. Many went without so they could keep private health insurance not for luxury but for security. They wanted to know that—if they needed a hip replacement, a knee replacement, surgery or specialist care—they would not be left waiting in pain in that incredibly long queue. What has Labor done?”
“Now people are saying we're in a more uncertain time because aspirations are being killed by these regulations.' Wes goes on: 'This is the dumbest economic policy we have and the dumbest government I've seen, both state and federal, in terms of housing policy. It's wrong. It's criminal. And hopefully they'll both get the boot at the next election.'”
“Labor's tax attack is killing confidence in Australian real estate, and Mallee is feeling it. While the Minister for Housing was bragging in the House yesterday, people on the ground in Mallee were seeing the damage firsthand. Wes Davidson is a prominent real estate agent in Horsham, in Mallee, and he says: 'We are now seeing the biggest lack of confidence in real estate that I have ever seen in over four decades in the industry. I am seeing clearance rates at record low levels across the country. They are lower than in the first couple of weeks of COVID, and that was a pretty uncertain time.”
“The bill would allow the Albanese government to preference employers with enterprise agreements in procurement, in grants, in other contracts, preferring businesses that have—get this!—union arrangements. What a surprise! What a surprise to everyone on the coalition benches! 'Nothing to see here.' Let's be honest: this provision has nothing to do with productivity or efficiency; it is a kickback to Labor's union backers. Labor proposes using taxpayer funded procurement to advance the union franchise. In Albanese's socialist dystopia, this is a fundamental—”
“The PM misled Australia again by promising not to wedge the coalition in bringing legislation to the House with tricky double purposes, but here we are. First, and less controversially, this bill introduces practical reforms to help the Fair Work Commission manage a growing and increasingly complex caseload—fair enough. The coalition does not have a problem with this aspect. The evidence is clear: the Fair Work Commission's workload is projected to increase by over 70 per cent within three years, with 40 to 50 per cent of applications involving AI assisted claims. In that environment, measures to streamline processes, dismiss unmeritorious claims earlier and improve administrative efficiency are sensible reforms. As I say, we in the coalition support them. But the second part of the bill is entirely different.”
“What that means in everyday terms is that, even as the economy struggles to grow, population growth is running too fast—migration, anyone? Living standards are also slipping consequently. Despite lagging productivity and falling living standards, Labor's plan is to abandon the fight against the inflation dragon, step aside from governing and let unions like the CFMEU take charge. That is what the Albanese government is wanting to do—bring the CFMEU to Canberra, because that has worked so well in Victoria! This bill does two very different things. It is yet another cunning Labor piece of 'wedge-islation', a term that the current prime minister used when he was Leader of the Opposition. And he stated repeatedly that he would not be doing this very thing—wedging a less controversial aspect of the IR law with a highly controversial one.”
“At a time when Australia faces clear productivity challenges, this parliament should be asking a simple question of every piece of legislation—will it lift productivity or will it lower it? Productivity is not an abstract economic concept. It is the foundation of higher wages, lower costs, which Australians need during Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis, and stronger living standards for Australian families. The procurement provisions in this bill fail the productivity test. Australia's 20-year average labour productivity growth has fallen from 1.8 to 0.8 per cent, more than half. The Reserve Bank of Australia has revised medium-term productivity growth down to 0.7 per cent per year. Under Labor, five of the last seven quarters have seen negative GDP, gross domestic product, per capita.”
“Well, they've ripped the heart out of every one of Vince's friends who is in the same boat. They have been squirrelling away. Some share funding to buy into shares so they could get a deposit, be independent and actually look after themselves, not rely on the government. I would have thought that this government would have been very proud of these young men, but instead they're being slapped around the head just like self-funded retirees Peter from Horsham and Peter from Swan Hill. This is an absolutely shameful budget, and it is dragging another $77 billion out of taxpayers' pockets.”
“I met up with Vince last week. He wrote me an email, and the reason I wanted to meet him face to face was because I couldn't believe how much sense he had. He has come from a foster home. He got his first job at 14 years old. He is now putting himself through university, which again the Minister for Education would be very pleased to know, doing law and commerce. He's working in a timber yard to get himself through. This is a young man with incredible aspiration. He's a young man who is determined to make his way. He has been putting some money away in shares, hoping that in 10 to 15 years time he might be able to have a deposit for his own home, which is something that I believe would be incredibly important to Vince. What has this government done?”
“He asks: if he earns a modest income through work and accesses the tax-free threshold up to $18,200, but Labor says that if he earns less than the threshold through modest share investments he will pay a minimum 30 per cent on what he earns, even if it's just $100, how is that fair? That is what Peter asks. These are two self-funded retirees who are wondering what is going on. In my mind, as I've heard the Labor government, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and other ministers rave about how fabulous the budget is and how much better off people are, particularly young people, the reality is that the Labor government itself has become an aspiration drainpipe. It is incredibly damaging to people. I just briefly want to mention Vince. I spoke about Vince yesterday. Vince is 19 years old. He lives in Stawell in my electorate.”
“Why are self-funded retirees being slugged, slapped around the face, when they are not any sort of burden on the taxpayer? We self-funded retirees do not get any assistance from the Commonwealth government or any other agencies in return for actually assisting the government of the day through our sacrifice of saving money for the country. The Labor government has more than doubled down on self-funded retirees by attacking us on trusts and CGT. Self-funded retirees, mind you, are not getting any younger and would greatly appreciate, for example, assistance on PBS scripts, lessening the CGT, trust funds being untouched and doctor's consultations.' And so Peter from Swan Hill goes on. Then I have Peter from Horsham. These are both towns in my electorate. He is also a self-funded retiree.”
“The MPI today is the economic harm caused by the government's plan for higher taxes. While we hear members opposite saying, 'No, we're lowering taxes,' how can you increase the tax pool by $77 billion and actually lower taxes? That does not compute. I'm not really a mathematician, but that honestly does not work. I want to give you a tale of two Peters in my electorate, one from Swan Hill and one from Horsham. I note the Minister for Education is sitting here, and I know he likes stories about people. Peter from Swan Hill is a self-funded retiree. He wrote to me. He said: 'Thank you for the opportunity to express the extreme frustration self-funded retirees face with this overwhelming and abject failure of a budget. We have paid taxes all our lives, and now there is no reward or incentive to fund our own retirement.”
“Patients present to hospital acutely unwell, when earlier care could have prevented it. Labor can shout slogans about Medicare all it likes, but slogans do not open a GP appointment in Ouyen, deliver allied health in Dimboola, keep maternity services safe or bring specialists to Horsham or Mildura. This Labor government has failed to address the lack of a regional health workforce at the scale required. It has pushed metro-centric policies and offered political bandaids when the bush needs structural reform. Regional Australia needs end-to-end rural training to grow our own workforce from local kids and to keep them. We need real incentives for clinicians to live and work in regional communities. We need funding models that recognise distance, disadvantage, thin markets and chronic disease.”
“When hospitals and aged-care providers cannot recruit permanent doctors, nurses, midwives, allied health workers and aged-care staff, they are forced into a desperate cycle of locums and agency nurses at enormous cost—let alone the increasing FIFO specialist workforce. Every dollar spent plugging roster gaps with short-term staff is a dollar not spent supporting permanent teams or improving patient care. Labor's failure to build and retain a real regional health workforce is forcing country health services to burn scarce funding just to keep the lights on, and patients pay the price. The workforce crisis is the crisis. Without health professionals in our towns there is no access, no continuity of care, no early intervention and certainly no prevention. People get sicker.”
“Your postcode shouldn't decide whether you can see a doctor, whether your child receives care or whether a loved one survives, but, in Mallee, too often that is the brutal reality. From Mildura to Swan Hill and from Ouyen to Horsham, St Arnaud, Robinvale and Dimboola, people know what Labor's regional health failure looks like. It looks like weeks waiting for a GP appointment, families driving up to six hours for specialist care and older Australians delaying treatment because fuel, accommodation, lost wages and out-of-pocket costs are simply too much. This is no longer just a staffing problem; it is a patient crisis and a financial crisis for regional health services.”
“The tobacco excise is simply too high. I'm told that cigarette price settings in 2019-20, when the coalition was in government, were still broadly within consumers' willingness to stay in the regulated market. Under Labor, the tobacco market is broken. Public health warnings are not getting through. Lawful small businesses are being punished, criminals are being rewarded and decades of work to reduce smoking are going quite literally up in smoke. This bill may give agencies stronger tools, but it is far too little and far too late. Minister Butler, the health minister, will be judged for this failure. Labor will be judged for this failure. And communities like mine will keep paying the price until Labor has the courage to fix the mess that Labor helped to create.”
“Honest regional businesses are losing lawful sales while criminals cash in. If your business is next to an illicit tobacco store, you face another problem altogether. Insurance companies are charging high premiums or refusing to insure shops at risk of collateral damage from firebombing. I cannot believe that in 2026 we are talking about brazen organised crime spreading through modern Australia in this way. It is an absolute indictment on Labor at federal and state levels. Enforcement matters, but enforcement alone cannot fix a market that Labor's own policy settings helped drive underground. If Labor wants to restore public health outcomes on tobacco and vaping it must confront the criminals. But it must also confront the excise and regulatory settings that helped create this opportunity in the first place.”
“Some venues are tempted to mix illicit liquor with legal liquor just to survive in Labor's high-cost economy. If Labor does not act properly, the organised crime business model built around illicit tobacco could spread further. That should alarm every Australian. Under Labor, health labelling has been undermined, point-of-sale controls have been undermined, legal retailers have been undercut, revenue has been lost, organised crime has thrived and Australians are paying the price. In my electorate, a constituent named Peter spelt out what this means for a lawful small business. His legal cigarette sales fell from about $10,000 a week to about $1,000 a week. One former customer told him they were saving $400 a week by buying illegal cigarettes. That is what Labor's failure looks like on the ground.”
“But the reality is even darker than that. This is not only an illicit trade; it is a violent one. How many firebombings, how much intimidation, how much violence and how much criminal behaviour must communities endure before Labor accepts responsibility and says enough is enough? I've been told confidentially by police that senior officers are effectively unable to get involved at the retail illicit tobacco level unless matters escalate into overt violence, arson or other serious criminal conduct. That should concern every member of this House because it means help comes after communities have already been put at risk. Hospitality venues are now vulnerable, too. High liquor excise and severe economic pressure may be creating incentives for illicit alcohol to follow the same path.”