Henry Pike
Bowman · Liberal National Party · Australia
“One of the things I hear most often from people across my Redlands community is that the aged-care system simply isn't working the way it should—not in theory and not on paper but in the real day-to-day lives of the people who rely on it.”
“She arranged an assessment, secured a package and followed the process, but, when her mother needed simple aids, like a safe kettle or easy-grip kitchen tools, she was told to wait months for approval pending assessments.”
“I heard from an 82-year-old man who is living alone after suffering a stroke. He has a level 2 home-care package, but it is completely inadequate for his needs. He cannot stand without a walker and he fears falling when he showers, when he shaves and even when he gets into bed.”
“I also heard from a 76-year-old woman who hasn't even tried to access support, and this is becoming a common story in my electorate. She told me it feels that there is nowhere to go for advice, and she's not alone. The sense is that it's all too complicated. These aren't isolated cases.”
“We know the Prime Minister has a challenging relationship with the truth. When he comes to this dispatch box, he tries his best to persuade Australians that what they're experiencing isn't really happening. The problem is that the Australian people aren't buying it.”
“But I think all members here, if they were honest with themselves, would appreciate that probably this is the first generation—certainly in my view—where we can't actually make that promise to our children. The aspiration of homeownership is beyond the reach of too many Australians.”
The complete record
Every one of 292 lines we hold for Henry Pike, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“It was a well-oiled machine, and Mike does a wonderful job there. I want to thank our local Redlands SES units, which were, of course, busy clearing away all those fallen trees, allowing our Energex workers to restore power. I thank them as well for the wonderful job that they did. So many countless outages occurred over the course of that Friday and Saturday, and they were working around the clock to restore those. Of course, there were the added challenges in my electorate of dealing with those issues on our bay islands and the challenge of getting out there. Those bay islands were cut off for many days over the course of the cyclone.”
“This is a fantastic opportunity to put on the record my thanks to so many in my community who were able to respond to Tropical Cyclone Alfred. Of all the things that I anticipated I would have to deal with as the federal MP for my area, a tropical cyclone in South-East Queensland certainly wasn't one of them. We saw flooding, we saw strong winds, we saw trees coming down, we saw massive blackouts, and mobile blackouts as well, across our community, and we saw multiple homes damaged and lots of business disruption. I want to start by thanking those who went above and beyond during this crisis. I want to thank Redland City Council's disaster management team—particularly Mike Tate, who leads that team in ensuring a well-coordinated response. I had the opportunity to visit their disaster management centre during the course of the disaster.”
“We've seen 12 rate increases over the course of this government, and it's become increasingly difficult for Australian families—”
“I think it makes sense for there to be an activity test. I think it makes sense economically, because we want to encourage people to work and we desperately need more people working in our economy. Also, I think it makes sense from a basic government fairness perspective. Why are we offering such generous subsidies to those who may have greater capacity to look after their children at home against those who don't? We know—we've all had this experience within our electorates—of so many Australian families who are having to take on extra shifts and extra jobs. Young mums who may have wanted to take longer maternity leave are going back earlier because they simply can't afford the impact of the current cost-of-living crisis.”
“So supply is a major issue, and we're concerned that this bill does not do enough in that area. Now, it would appear that it's only going to increase access for a small number of families, but it will have wide-ranging effects on all families. Families who need early childhood education so they can work will be competing against families who have extra subsidised access but who may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. That's a challenge for us economically. If we've got a parent or a pair of parents who are working hard and are desperate to get their kids into a centre, they're now going to have to compete, on an equal playing field, against parents who are not working or who may not be working or who may be working less. I think it just comes down to a question of basic fairness.”
“I know that's been the experience, when I'm going door to door in my electorate, that has been felt by many parents. Some are lucky enough to snag a position, but often it's a long way away from the homes of these families. Deputy Speaker Vasta knows well the difficulties for those who work in the inner city of Brisbane and have to commute from Brisbane's bayside—that it can be a great challenge, particularly for those early drop-offs. But thankfully a lot of these early childhood centres are open quite early to allow bayside parents to drop off and head into work. Of course, two-thirds of my electorate head out of my electorate for work each day, and it is a challenge, but it is wonderful to know that you are leaving your children in the care of such dedicated and wonderful professionals.”
“We're by no means a childcare or early education desert, as some communities are, and I've heard a lot of my colleagues talk about the issues they've been facing with a lack of supply within their electorates, not just in relation to this bill but throughout this term. It's concerning that this bill will do nothing to assist those communities. It's hard enough to find a spot within outer-suburban communities. I remember the time when my wife and I were trying to find a spot for our children. Many centres don't even bother responding to your requests, emails, or investigations because they've got that big a waiting list. They've got that much demand and so little capacity to actually supply that demand that it's not even worth their while responding to you.”
“Of course supply is a major issue, and I find that that's the major issue relating to early education that comes up when I talk to parents and prospective parents across my electorate. We've had some new investment in some new centres, but it's very difficult at times to actually find a spot for kids. It's alright for those who are already in the system or who have the ability to get younger siblings in through some sort of preference system for those centres that have that sort of process, but it's often very difficult to lock in a spot for your kid, even in my electorate, which is outer-suburban.”
“Unfortunately, when I look at this bill, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, while I see a lot of good intentions, when I dive into the detail I don't think it is really what is required to fix the issues the sector is facing or get the parents the support they need in order to get what they need out of early education. The coalition will be opposing this legislation, and we are doing so for a number of reasons. There are several issues with this bill, including the removal of priority access for working families—and I'll talk a bit more about that later. It also de-incentivises aspiration, it increases access without addressing supply issues, it does nothing to increase the access or flexibility for families and it does not address the current cost-of-living pressures.”
“They come home with many different perspectives and new skills, and that demonstrates the strength of the Australian early childhood industry. Since I was elected to this place in 2022 I've also had great opportunities to visit and be a guest of so many centres across the Redlands, not just the centres that my kids attended. The opportunity to read a book to children or engage with some of the educators across my city is a wonderful treat, and it's a great privilege that I get to have as the member for Bowman. So any time there is any legislation in this area of early childhood education I'm always interested to see what the implications are going to be for my local parents and my local sector.”
“The topic tonight is early childhood education. It's an area in which I've had quite a bit of experience recently. I've spent the last eight years with kids within early childhood education. This is the first year, with my young son moving off to prep, that I'm not having to go to an early childhood education centre on particular mornings of the week or doing the pick-up. During that time, that eight years or near decade in which I was engaging with the system quite regularly, I really gained an appreciation for the sector that I hadn't had before—the amount of care and dedication of the early childhood educators, the passion that those who work in the sector have for it and the enjoyment that kids get out of it. What they learn is far more than what can I teach them at home.”
“I want to thank the committee secretariat, who have undertaken a lot of extracurricular work this term—beyond their usual, enormous work rate in dealing with the committee's scrutiny functions. I'd particularly like to thank the committee chair, the member for Macnamara, for the approach he's taken during this inquiry. I trust we have done some good together. All eyes are on our universities as a new semester begins. If university leaders continue to fail in their duties to protect students and staff, this parliament must act.”
“While we are pleased to see the majority of committee members agree that a judicial inquiry should be given consideration, coalition members contend that the time for consideration has well and truly elapsed. After extended inaction, despite escalating instances of antisemitic violence across our cities, Jewish Australians deserve immediate and concrete measures from this federal government rather than continued delays that allow antisemitism to continue to fester within our universities. Coalition members continue our call for the government to immediately establish an independent judicial inquiry into the antisemitism on Australian campuses. Nothing else can get to the heart of the problem.”
“Coalition members maintain our position that a properly constituted, full-time judicial inquiry, led by a respected and eminent jurist, is the only way to ensure the necessary powers, confidentiality and expertise required to forensically examine and address the crisis. Coalition members support the call of Jillian Segal and representatives of every major Jewish organisation across the nation, who strongly support the establishment of an independent judicial inquiry. Coalition members disagree with the position of the majority of committee members that the government should wait even further to see if Australian universities take appropriate action before establishing a judicial inquiry.”
“Coalition members underscore the committee's finding that the rise in antisemitism on campus has been clearly exacerbated by the reluctance of many university administrators to enforce meaningful consequences for misconduct. The committee inquiry has shone a light on the issue and highlighted some key failures. However, the committee's inquiry has demonstrated the limits of a parliamentary inquiry into such an important topic. Despite the best efforts of members to get to the truth and secure answers to our questions, our hearings were a masterclass in obfuscation by university leaders.”
“We are deeply concerned, based on the balance of evidence presented to the committee inquiry, that Australian universities have become incubators of antisemitic thought in our country. Coalition members concur with the government's antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, that there is systemic, embedded antisemitism within our university campuses. We've been particularly alarmed by the numerous examples of university academics who have espoused antisemitic tropes, the inability of university leaders to appropriately deal with the spread of such rhetoric, the impact of this antisemitism on Jewish students and the broader failure to uphold a safe and respectful learning environment.”
“A generation earlier, over 109,000 Australians served proudly under Sir John Monash, the Jewish Australian considered by many, including myself, to be our greatest Australian. It is a disgrace that antisemitism has now found a home in the very university he attended 130 years ago and where he served as vice-chancellor a century ago. It's a damning reflection on Australian universities that, despite all their rhetoric on diversity and inclusion, these institutions were more enlightened and more welcoming to Jewish students over 100 years ago than they are today. While many vice-chancellors presented to the committee that their institutions were merely subject to broader societal pressures and are a microcosm of broader Australian society, coalition members have come to a different conclusion.”
“by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities . Coalition members of the committee support the report's findings but believe that stronger action is needed in key areas to drive real change on campus. Our addendum to the report outlines where we want to see further action. The evidence the committee received demonstrated that there has been an alarming and abhorrent rise in antisemitism among students and staff at Australian universities. Ancient hatreds like antisemitism should have no place in Australia. Antisemitism is inherently un-Australian. In the last century, nearly 40,000 Australians sacrificed their lives to bring an end to the evils of Nazism.”
“What a sad indictment when it was her government that was the one that tried to kill this LNP project Mental health is a battle many Redlanders contend with daily. The Redlands Medicare Mental Health Centre is a vital step towards addressing this crisis. It offers free, immediate and accessible mental health support to those in need. No Medicare card, GP or referral or appointment are required. Whether someone is seeking help for the first time or continuing a complex mental health journey, they'll find a welcoming team of highly qualified professionals and people with lived experience who will take the time to understand their needs and connect them to support. Thank you for everyone who has been involved in that project. It will serve our community well for years to come.”
“The former Liberal and Nationals government committed $3.4 million over four years to establish and operate a new adult mental health service in my community. Reaffirming the previous government's commitment should have been a simple process for the health minister; instead, this Labor government equivocated for nine months only to arrive at the same decision. After many letters from me and plenty of community advocacy, the project finally got under way but only after a significant delay. I'm pleased to report the Redlands Medicare Mental Health Centre has opened its doors at 40 Middle St, Cleveland, just up the road from my electorate office. I was pleased to receive an invitation to speak at the opening from the provider and Brisbane South PHN. I had to laugh when the assistant minister insisted my invitation be withdrawn.”
“Thankfully, it's now been scrapped. But these are the sorts of impacts that don't make the news, unfortunately—or, if they do, it's very rare. These are the sorts of impacts that need to be considered. It's not just the economic impact. It's not just the impact on the reliability of the energy system in Australia; of course, that's an issue that's going to come more and more to the fore as we approach the end of this decade. It's the impact that it has on the community and the opportunities for those communities who are being affected to have a proper say over the regulations and the legislation that govern the development of these sorts of projects. I'll leave it at that, but we are deeply concerned about where this is heading.”
“If you look back at the government's record on energy prices and their reckless pursuit of a renewables-only profile for our energy production, you can see the real impact that it's having on Australians. And it's not just the cost of energy. It's not just that we know that the underlying cost of energy has gone up 30 per cent in the course of this term; it's the impact that it's having on these communities. It's not just offshore projects that are impacting them. We've seen the impact of renewable energy projects, particularly in my home state of Queensland, when we look at some of the environmental damage that has been done in areas like Rockhampton from wind projects. When you look at the former Queensland government's pumped hydro project, think about the forest that would've been destroyed in the process of developing that project.”
“That's concerning because it means that it hasn't been properly thought through by industry, that the standing committee hasn't had the opportunity to properly review the regulations and that, unfortunately, we're here late to try to push it through. I think the answer as to why we're doing that is that it gives the Labor government more opportunity and more room to make feasibility licence announcements during the course of the federal election campaign, which is impending. This is of concern to us when we look at the impact that those licence agreements have already had on the communities that have had these sorts of developments proposed. This is of deep concern to us. It's not the way that legislation should be handled.”
“Are we going to get another 12 sitting days? I'm not quite sure. I don't think we will somehow. I think that'll take us well and truly away. The government has brought forward these legislative changes to retrospectively apply those regulatory changes they made in December. Unfortunately, as the consequence of that—and part of this is due to the timing and the nature of this presumably being the last sitting week—the government has had little or no consultation with industry, including the investors who will be impacted by this decision. I had a search this morning when I decided to speak on this bill. I desperately, frantically searched for any comments from any of those investors and stakeholders. No-one has had an opportunity to put their thoughts together. Researching hard, I couldn't find a thing.”
“Of course, this is all due to the fact that, in 2024, there was a Federal Court decision, Seadragon Offshore Wind Pty Ltd v Minister for Climate Change and Energy, that found that the minister was wrong to deny an application for a licence when he could have lawfully awarded a licence for a non-overlapping area. This is the crux of the issue that's been created here. In response to that decision, the minister's regulatory changes, which occurred back on 12 December—a convenient time to introduce regulatory change, when everyone is knocking off for the year—are a disallowable instrument, despite the disallowable instrument currently being under review by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation for another 12 sitting days. So they've got another 12 sitting days to consider this.”
“It's a novel suggestion, I know, but I think we owe it to them to take great care before we start proceeding with any changes when it comes to the legislation and the regulations that govern the development of offshore energy in this country. Unfortunately, that's not the way that the federal government is pursuing this at the moment. The bill will apply new rules to feasibility licence applications. An act of parliament in this regard is only required because the government expects that retrospectivity may adversely affect rights or impose liabilities. Otherwise, regulation would have sufficed.”
“When you think about Western Australia and when you think about the proposals that have happened in the Illawarra and—we had the member for Newcastle speaking earlier—when you see the outcry within the Newcastle and Hunter communities at the offshore proposals that have been made there, you think, 'There are a lot of communities up and down the coastline of this country who are concerned about what the prospect of offshore energy developments means for them, means for their amenity and means for the cost of their energy.' I think we owe it to them to take great care in developing legislation and regulation in this area. I think we deserve the opportunity to hear from them and to hear from the proponents.”
“I think this bill can wait until the next parliament. I think it can be considered properly by a committee. Certainly, that's what we're keen to do and what we're proposing as the coalition. Unfortunately, we've only got this bill before us today because Labor was so rushed to get more offshore wind projects that they forgot to finish writing their regulations. This is essentially fixing a mistake that was made earlier in the term. We feel that Labor is attempting to push this bill through the parliament without the appropriate scrutiny before the election so that the minister is free, during the course of the election campaign, to make more announcements in relation to offshore developments. One major theme of this whole term has been the concern that communities have had across, up and down.”
“I think this is very much rushed, and it is not the way that legislation should be done. There are instances, of course, when we need to have retrospective legislation. We all appreciate that, and we all appreciate the fact that there need to be times when we do rush through bills. We've had a few opportunities like that in just this term of parliament, when we've rushed things through both houses of parliament in a single morning. We've had times where we've had to come back to the place when we weren't expecting to and vote for bills under guillotine rules, but I don't think this bill falls into that sort of category. I don't think this is the sort of bill where it's something that's totally uncontested and something that needs to be desperately done for a particular reason in terms of timing.”
“Unfortunately, we are concerned that Labor have completely ignored industry stakeholders on this bill, and they've been rushing through this legislation, which, of course, directly affects major investment decisions, without proper consultation. Those who are engaged in the process of developing proposals for offshore projects know that these are not inexpensive activities. These are not proposals that are made lightly. Certainly, it seems to me that we owe those who are making that sort of investment in this country the opportunity to have their say, to at least have their concerns aired and to have those in this building who have to speak and vote on legislation actually review their feedback. We should consider that feedback and then incorporate it into our discussions and deliberations.”
“Yes, we are reaching a point where an election is going to be called, and there is all sorts of speculation around this building about when that might be. We may not be here again, and that committee may dissolve and have to be reformed and have to look at this bill again when it's reintroducing in a new parliament. But I think that's entirely appropriate. I don't think the government has made the case for why this needs to be pushed through in the final few hours of this parliament and why we're sitting late tonight. Not that I'm complaining. I've got nothing better to do than to debate this bill.”
“We know that those regulations are currently being reviewed by a senate standing committee, and it seems unusual that we would press ahead with this bill, which, in effect, will apply those regulations retrospectively, at the same time that somewhere else in this building a senate standing committee is reviewing those regulations and determining whether they are a good outcome for the industry and whether they are something that should be tweaked. Given the minister's first attempts to fast track this bill through the parliament without scrutiny, especially given its retrospective nature, we think it's appropriate that we actually refer this legislation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to investigate. I don't think that's a tall order; I think that's entirely appropriate.”
“We're also concerned about the procedural irregularity of this process. Normally, when we have a bill that has such a major impact upon an industry, we would expect to have an opportunity for the department and then the parliament to actually have proper industry consultation in relation to what it means. We would expect to have a call for submissions on this bill, to have a committee investigate what this means and provide a report to the parliament, and to consider that—and to consider that in the contributions we're making in the debate around this bill. Particularly, that should be doubly so when it has retrospective application.”
“This bill amends the act to specify that the regulations made by the minister on 12 December last year—it's interesting, actually, that those regulations came in after parliament had risen for the year. I don't think that's a coincidence; I think there was a deliberate attempt there to try and avoid any parliamentary scrutiny around the regulations. The government are now trying to apply those regulations retrospectively to feasibility licence applications submitted before the regulations were made in December last year. We, as the coalition, have some serious concerns about what the implications are there. We have serious concerns with the retrospectivity of the bill. As I mentioned, this isn't normal process. It is an unusual thing to occur in legislation in this place—for a bill to be brought in to have retrospective application.”
“But I think it's worth taking the time this evening to talk about our concerns and to talk about the process that's been less than ideal in the development of this bill and about the opportunity—or lack of opportunity—that we've had to give this the proper assessment that I think all legislation that comes before this house should be able to enjoy. This bill amends the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021, under which offshore wind projects are managed across this country. And we've seen a lot made of offshore wind projects that have failed to get off the ground or perhaps are still in development across this country; they have created controversy within the communities where they have been proposed.”
“Of course, we're all realists and understand that we don't live in a perfect world. But a situation where we've got to come here in the final dying hours of this parliament and try to retrospectively fix something without any consultation, without the proper input and the proper processes that we expect to occur in this place and without the opportunity to go out to those who are experts in the industry to get their perspectives on what these changes mean and what the impacts will be on their industry—in this instance, those who are involved in the development of offshore electricity—leaves us in a very difficult position. How are we supposed to deal with a bill like this without the information that we need in order to properly assess this? Of course this bill will pass through the lower house.”
“The coalition's concern about this bill is that it hasn't been thought through, that there hasn't been consultation with industry, that it's been rushed through in what will presumably be the final sitting fortnight of the term and that it's all to resolve an issue that the minister created earlier in the term through the sloppy development of legislation. Of course, he's trying to fix it with some regulation, but that regulation will only apply moving forward. What this bill seeks to do is apply those same changes to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 retrospectively. When you end up in a situation where you are creating legislation to fix problems retrospectively it is not ideal. That's not the way that things should be done in this parliament. It's the way that we occasionally have to do things.”
“I know the member for New England spoke before me, and I think he left about 10 seconds on the clock. I was intrigued as to what he was going to contribute in the final 10 seconds, but that's alright. I'll pick up where he left off. We are, of course, at an interesting hour of the evening to be sitting in the Fed Chamber. We usually would finish up for the night after the grievance debate. But, of course, this being probably the last sitting week before the end of this parliamentary term—who knows, potentially—I think that we're getting a little bit messy with the order of the House, where things are going and which legislation is going to be debated in which chamber. I suppose that's understandable. That is our primary concern around the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which we're dealing with this evening.”
“This is before we even get to the hundreds of thousands of World War II graves, which should also be appropriately commemorated. This simply isn't good enough. No matter whether they fell in service or not, every Australian who fought to defend our nation deserves to be honoured. I call on the government not just to reinstate the previous amount of funding that was available but to supercharge it, to ensure that the volunteer conservators and researchers of the Australian Remembrance Army can continue to do their vital work, not just getting through the World War I veterans but also getting on to those of World War II.”
“Labor promised to match the coalition's $3.7 million funding ahead of the election, but their first budget cut the funding by more than half, to $1.5 million across four years, and it was revealed in Senate estimates late last year that Labor has now cut the funding to $437,000 over four years. The Department of Veterans' Affairs statement in Senate estimates last November revealed that funding of over $18,000 was spent in 2023-24, to deliver only 42 graves. Given that some 271,800 service personnel returned to Australia from the First World War and the experts inform me that an estimated 12,000 are buried in unmarked graves, at the current rate it will take the federal government 283 years to complete this process.”
“In Cleveland Cemetery, within my electorate, the Remembrance Army has been busy within the past month identifying unmarked graves of veterans. Through their research, they have confirmed 19 graves, all belonging to veterans of the world wars, that are unmarked, taking the total tally of Australian war veterans in the cemetery to 421. Under the previous coalition government, federal assistance was available to organisations like the Remembrance Army as they undertook this valuable mission to appropriately commemorate the private graves of World War I veterans. The program benefited from a $3.7 million funding commitment under the previous coalition government after a pilot program placed 1,189 markers on these resting places.”
“Since Federation, our nation's security has been maintained and our nation's identity has been forged by the brave men and women who have served Australia at home and abroad. Each and every one of these brave Australians deserves to be honoured both in life and in death. While 103,000 Australians have paid the ultimate sacrifice, thousands of others faced significant challenges when they returned home. Unfortunately, too many of these ex-service men and women are not honoured in the way they deserve, as their final resting places do not commemorate their great service to this nation. The Australian Remembrance Army is a volunteer organisation committed to restoring and correctly commemorating the graves of Australians who have served.”