Sophie Scamps
Mackellar · Independent · Australia
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Every year, more than 400 Australians die by suicide linked to gambling. That's more than 1,000 lives lost since the Murphy report was handed down.”
“I rise to speak about absolute legend Charlie Verco, the courageous 24-year-old Mackellar local and Newport surf club member who paddled towards the jaws of a shark to save Leah Stewart, who was being attacked at Coogee Beach on 13 June.”
“Charlie's actions reflect the very best of our community and the values that define Australia's surf lifesaving culture. On behalf of the northern beaches community and everyone across Australia, I'd like to thank Charlie for his courage, selflessness and unwavering commitment to serving others.”
“Music, film publishing and broadcasting already operate on licensed use of content at scale. The Copyright Act provides a clear and workable framework. Copyright is not the enemy of innovation; it is what allows creators to earn a living from their talent and their work.”
“This proposal is also reportedly linked to discussions with major AI tech firms about data centre investment in Australia. Investment must never come at the cost of Australian rights. The Albanese government must not sell out Australians to big tech.”
“Right now, we are at a critical crossroad for Australia's creative arts industry, one that may deeply harm this invaluable sector. At the recent AI summit in Sydney, the chair of the Tech Council of Australia, Scott Farquhar, called for copyright reform to encourage AI investment.”
The complete record
Every one of 506 lines we hold for Sophie Scamps, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Every year, more than 400 Australians die by suicide linked to gambling. That's more than 1,000 lives lost since the Murphy report was handed down. The government has ignored key recommendations from the Murphy gambling inquiry, including establishing a national regulator and ending gambling inducements and advertising. Prime Minister, why has the government chosen to protect the profits of gambling, media and sporting companies instead of implementing all the inquiry's recommendations in order to save the lives of Australians?”
“Charlie's actions reflect the very best of our community and the values that define Australia's surf lifesaving culture. On behalf of the northern beaches community and everyone across Australia, I'd like to thank Charlie for his courage, selflessness and unwavering commitment to serving others. You are a remarkable role model for young Australians and someone we are all so proud of. As we hear the welcome news that Leah is out of critical condition and has been reunited with her family, we send her our love and support as she begins her road to recovery and rehabilitation.”
“I rise to speak about absolute legend Charlie Verco, the courageous 24-year-old Mackellar local and Newport surf club member who paddled towards the jaws of a shark to save Leah Stewart, who was being attacked at Coogee Beach on 13 June. In a moment of crisis, Charlie showed extraordinary bravery and selflessness, putting the safety of another ahead of his own. As one northern beaches local put it, 'Charlie is the epitome of a hero: a brave young man who risked his own life to save that of a complete stranger.' He is also the epitome of all volunteers who make up Surf Life Saving Australia. Surf lifesavers all around the country give up their time and undertake training to keep our community safe not just for a moment but for years and sometimes decades at a time. They, too, are absolute legends.”
“So I call on the government to guarantee three principles: first, consent—creators must have the right to decide if their work is used; second, credit—their contribution must be acknowledged; and, third, compensation—if AI companies profit, creators must be paid. We also need transparency, enforceable safeguards and strong protections for First Nations cultural and intellectual property. Australian creators are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness. AI must be built on respect for the people whose creativity makes it possible.”
“It would extinguish the worth of Australian content, including our media, our broadcast rights and First Nations cultural expression, with the stroke of a pen. This is not a fair compromise. It is a concept designed by big tech to make the mass use of content legal without consent. The stakes are extremely high. Australia's creative industries contribute more than $60 billion to our economy and employ hundreds of thousands of people. But, even more vitally, the creative industries generate a genuine expression of our culture and what it means to be Australian. At the same time, our AI sector is growing strongly under existing copyright settings. We do not need to choose between innovation and integrity; we can have both.”
“This proposal is also reportedly linked to discussions with major AI tech firms about data centre investment in Australia. Investment must never come at the cost of Australian rights. The Albanese government must not sell out Australians to big tech. In October 2025, the government ruled out a text and data mining exception, and it must stick to its word. Backtracking now would amount to legalising the wholesale scraping of creative content—not just Australian content but global content. Many would rightly call that theft. We're also hearing about a proposed creator fund. It's absolutely clear the Australian creative sector will not support a fund in exchange for their rights. Such a fund would strip creators of the ability to decide how their work is used and remove their capacity to negotiate its value.”
“Music, film publishing and broadcasting already operate on licensed use of content at scale. The Copyright Act provides a clear and workable framework. Copyright is not the enemy of innovation; it is what allows creators to earn a living from their talent and their work. Yet we now hear reports that the federal government is considering a cabinet proposal to introduce a text and data mining exception into Australian copyright law. Such an exception would allow AI companies to train on copyrighted works without asking permission from the artist, writer, musician, filmmaker, journalist, performer, broadcaster, publisher or rights holder. The Australian creative and media industries do not support any weakening of copyright law. Weakening copyright would risk cutting Australian creators out of the global AI market altogether.”
“Right now, we are at a critical crossroad for Australia's creative arts industry, one that may deeply harm this invaluable sector. At the recent AI summit in Sydney, the chair of the Tech Council of Australia, Scott Farquhar, called for copyright reform to encourage AI investment. He claimed it is impossible to train an AI model in Australia while doing deals with rights holders. However, in response, the Australian Recording Industry Association rightly described that claim as nonsense. Around the world, AI companies are already striking licensing agreements with record labels, publishers and creators. The message from Australia's creative sector is absolutely clear: tech companies do not need a special carve-out from the Copyright Act. They need a licence.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Today, all of Australia's councils undertook the extraordinary step of writing to every federal parliamentarian to warn of the funding crisis affecting local governments across the country. Due to the lack of untied federal funding, councils are struggling to deliver essential services and infrastructure and are resorting to large rate rises, including in my electorate of Mackellar. Councils are asking that the financial assistance grants be restored to one per cent of federal taxation. Will the government consider this?”
“That means supporting GPs to spend the time their patients need with them, investing in preventive care and ensuring Medicare rebates reflect the complexity of Australia's changing healthcare needs.”
“In 2024, Deloitte Access Economics found that a 40 per cent increase to patient rebates for level C and D consultations would lift the bulk-billing rate to 85 per cent, halve out-of-pocket costs for patients who are not bulk-billed and deliver around $339 million in annual health savings to the system. Out-of-pocket costs disproportionately affect people with chronic and complex health conditions, particularly those on low incomes; carers; and people unable to work because of their poor health. If patients cannot afford high-quality general practice care, they delay treatment, become sicker and are more likely to end up in hospital. If we are serious about improving Australia's health, easing cost-of-living pressures and reducing pressure on hospitals, we must strengthen general practice.”
“They enable meaningful conversations, support informed decision-making, and ensure patients feel comfortable raising sensitive issues. Adequate time leads to earlier intervention and better health outcomes. Professor Tanya Buchanan, CEO of Dementia Australia, says: It is vital that the estimated 446,500 Australians living with dementia have access to affordable long GP consultations to ensure they receive timely, comprehensive and coordinated health care tailored to their needs. What is key is that, when GPs have more time with patients, care is earlier, safer and more effective.”
“In alcohol and other drug care, as in so many other areas of health, GPs need time to have those sensitive conversations, identify risks early, coordinate care and support recovery for complex conditions. Many leading patient and health organisations agree. To quote just a few, Chris Forbes, Chief Executive Officer of Kidney Health Australia, says: Kidney Health Australia supports GPs to take the time needed to identify those at risk of kidney disease, enable early diagnosis, and ensure the latest evidence-based medications and support programs are appropriately utilised—drastically improving outcomes and slowing disease progression. Daile Kelleher, CEO of Sexual and Reproductive Health Australia, says: Longer GP consultations are essential in sexual and reproductive healthcare.”
“More than two-thirds of GPs nominate the increasing complexity of patient presentations as the greatest challenge facing the profession. Last year's H ealth of the n ation report showed that 84 per cent of GPs want to provide more preventive care, but only one in three have time to provide it. The average GP appointment is now 20 minutes long, and three in five Australians live with at least one chronic health condition, yet Medicare rebates still fail to reflect the time, complexity and continuity required in modern general practice. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has again called for GPs to be properly remunerated for longer consultations, including most recently at the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability inquiry into the health impacts of alcohol and other drugs in Australia.”
“Every year, more than 22 million Australians see a specialist general practitioner for essential health care, making GPs the most accessed health professionals in the country. We know high-quality general practice reduces emergency department presentations and hospital admissions and improves long-term health outcomes. The latest quarterly bulk-billing data is encouraging, particularly the rise in bulk-billing for non-concessional patients to 72.5 per cent—up 8.5 percentage points over the year. But more than one in four non-concessional GP visits are still not bulk-billed, meaning too many Australians still face out-of-pocket costs. The government should treat these figures as a foundation for further reform. As a priority, we must ensure that people who need more time with their GP can access this care.”
“I want to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to share their lived experience, expertise and insights at this roundtable. Your voices are critical in shaping a system that truly works for the people it was designed to support, and I will continue to advocate for reforms that get this right and build on the principles of choice, control and dignity.”
“Last week I hosted an NDIS reform roundtable with participants, parents and local providers from across my electorate. What I heard was thoughtful, informed and constructive. Participants and providers recognise that the NDIS must be sustainable into the future, but they have deep concerns about the proposed changes. They're worried about the rigid five-year plans and rules that limit reassessment and review of decisions. They warned that registration costs could push small, trusted providers out of the market, leaving participants with fewer choices and options for care. I also heard grave concerns about the cuts to social and community participation—funding that helps get people to work, to medical appointments, to day-care programs and into the community.”
“So I asked the minister: if prevention saves lives, reduces hospitalisation and delivers strong returns, when will the government adopt these revenue-generating and budget-saving measures, and will the government commit to a dedicated national prevention and early intervention framework?”
“These funds could be directed into public health campaigns, community support services, mental health care and addiction treatment. Reforming the wine equalisation tax into a volumetric tax model is sound tax policy that could reduce alcohol related harm. The Productivity Commission has called for a national prevention and early intervention framework. Its chair called for this budget to commit $1.5 billion in evidence-backed preventive interventions, alongside a national partnership agreement to support intergovernmental collaboration. Too often, prevention misses out because budget and political cycles favour short-term pay-offs over long-term gains, but the stark reality is this: we cannot fund our way out of the growing demand without preventing illness in the first place.”
“This could be invested into preventative health or other government services like education or disability supports. The UK introduced their so-called industry levy on sugar-sweetened beverages in 2018, and, importantly, the revenue raised from that levy goes to fund school sports programs. Australia is lagging behind on these policies. More than 130 countries around the world have adopted levies on sugar sweetened beverages, and over 40 countries already regulate junk food advertising. As a result, these countries are seeing improved public health, including reduced obesity rates and decreased hospital visits. A well-designed gambling profits levy would also generate billions from the large profits of the gambling industry. Remember, the Murphy report recommended that we view the harms coming from gambling as a public health issue.”
“Around 6.4 million hospitalisations each year, or 55 per cent of total, are due to chronic diseases—costing about $82 billion annually. Half of these are preventable. It is estimated that lost labour force participation from chronic disease will cost the economy more than $67 billion by 2030. Commonwealth health spending is projected to rise from 4.2 per cent of GDP in 2022-23 to 6.2 per cent in 2062-63, so why are we not seriously investing in chronic disease prevention measures? Modelling from 2018 suggests that banning junk food advertising on TV between 6 am and 9.30 pm could generate $778 million in healthcare savings over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population. The Australian Medical Association's modelling suggests a 20 per cent reformulation levy on sugar-sweetened beverages could raise $4 billion over four years.”
“But in this budget there is also a missed opportunity to invest in common sense, evidence based prevention policies that would improve the health and wellbeing of Australians, save lives, reduce pressure on hospitals and generate billions in savings. Australia is still fundamentally a treatment focused system. Most health funding is spent after people get sick. Hospitals and Medicare dominate spending, while prevention remains only a fraction of total health expenditure. Yet every dollar invested in prevention yields $14.30 in healthcare savings and broader economic benefits. Despite this, Australia only invests around two per cent of its health budget in prevention, significantly less than comparable countries like the UK and Canada. And we know the consequences.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity speak in consideration in detail stage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, specifically regarding the health, disability and ageing portfolio. Today I would like to focus particularly on health expenditure. The aim of this funding, as Budget Paper No. 4 states, is to: Better equip Australia to meet current and future health needs … through … evidence-based health policies; improved access to … health care; … protecting the health and safety of the … community I welcome the much needed investments in the budget for public hospitals, for cheaper medicines, for urgent care clinics and for health and medical research.”
“They called for sustainability activities to be more collaborative and visible in youth spaces so that young people have the opportunity to participate in environmental initiatives both in school life and in the community, making them accessible, socially ingrained and part of everyday life. Sadly, in this short speech I cannot talk about all the speeches that were made, but I want to thank all those who participated so thoughtfully in Have Your Say Day. I learnt a lot, and this initiative illustrates that, as Isaac from the Northern Beaches Secondary College's Cromer campus said, this is how we can 'build a future where young people are consistently included in decision-making, equipped with the skills to participate and given genuine opportunities to have their voices heard'.”
“They argued that the problem is not so much a lack of services but a lack of awareness, education and open conversations. Too many young people suffer in silence because they do not know where to turn or fear being judged. They called for stronger education in the PDHPE classes, community information nights, workshops and social media campaigns to reduce stigma and help families access support. Then Flynn and Mira, students from Narrabeen Sports High School, highlighted the levels of microplastics in our local dunes and waterways. Dee Why Lagoon is one of the 10 most polluted waterways on the New South Wales coast.”
“In a survey, one 23-year-old said that her daily commute takes at least 1½ hours each way because of congestion, bus delays or cancellations, leaving little time for family, health or other aspects of life, and many arrive late for school for similar reasons. The students proposed solutions such as expanding bus routes and increasing their frequency, integrating student IDs into the Opal app and creating a subsidised pathway for people to obtain a bus driver's licence through TAFE to address the driver shortage. These are practical ideas that deserve consideration. Cooper and Grace from Davidson High School spoke about youth addiction, including to vaping, illicit drugs and alcohol. They said addiction often develops gradually, shaping how young people cope, think and live.”
“I recently attended Have Your Say Day. This is a fabulous youth-led initiative that gives young people across the northern beaches a platform whereby they can engage directly with their elected leaders and community members on the issues that are affecting them. This year, students from nine high schools presented key concerns raised in a survey of more than 2,300 students aged between 17 and 24. Their top three issues were transport, mental health and the environment. Students Ava, Georgia, Lily and Maya from Stella Maris said young people on the northern beaches are stressed about basic travel.”
“In the absence of a government led inquiry, civil society has stepped in. An independent public inquiry supported by non-profit organisations and unions and chaired by former environment minister Peter Garrett will hold hearings and deliver a report later this year. This is good, but it should not be left to civil society to perform the scrutiny role of government. There are also serious questions about the feasibility of the plan to arm Australia with nuclear powered submarines, particularly under the ambitious timelines outlined. The United States is—”
“The lack of transparency means the public may never get a clear answer. Other countries have subjected AUKUS to scrutiny. The UK House of Commons defence committee has released its report on the AUKUS defence pact after a year-long review into the partnership. The Pentagon has also reviewed whether AUKUS aligns with the US president's America-first agenda. Australia has had no equivalent process. Instead, the government has established a new committee to monitor AUKUS's work, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, but much of its activity will be conducted in secret. Its membership is restricted to Labor and coalition MPs only, and it will only have limited ability to report publicly. This approach risks creating a small group of insiders with access to curated information who avoid public debate and scrutiny.”
“While the government has described this decision as placing a premium on simplicity as opposed to being linked to production challenges in the US, this decision, like much of AUKUS, remains shrouded in secrecy. That secrecy has been a problem since the beginning. The 2021 announcement blindsided France and caused significant diplomatic fallout for Australia and the United States. That pattern has continued, leaving many more questions than answers. Defence experts and many in my community are asking: Can the submarines be delivered on time and on budget? Do we need nuclear submarines, or would conventional alternatives be more suitable to replace the Collins class fleet? How and where will nuclear waste be managed? And, perhaps most importantly, does this deal genuinely serve Australia's defence and strategic needs?”
“Thank you to the member for Wentworth for raising this matter of public importance. We all agree that nothing is more important than having the real capacity to defend our nation. The AUKUS pact is the largest defence spending commitment since the Second World War, yet it has not received the level of scrutiny or open debate in this place that it warrants. It is estimated that the defence deal will cost Australia at least $370 billion. Under the initial AUKUS agreement, Australia was set to receive two used Virginia class nuclear powered submarines from the United States plus one new model as early as 2032. Yet, as we heard on the weekend, all three nuclear powered submarines that Australia will receive will now be second-hand.”
“There's even a clear target—that five per cent of the health budget go to prevention by 2030. Right now we're at about two per cent—far below comparable countries like the UK and Canada. Tomorrow, I'll be holding a roundtable discussion with health experts to progress these two measures: the regulation of unhealthy food marketing to children, and introducing a levy on sugary drinks. There's a clear path forward for the government to make a real difference to the health of Australians for generations to come. (Time expired)”
“Sugary drinks are the largest source of added sugar in the Australian diet—about a quarter of total intake—and they are clearly linked to diabetes and other chronic conditions. A graduated levy on sugary drinks would encourage companies to reduce sugar in their products, and where that doesn't happen, the revenue can be used to support healthier choices such as making fresh food more affordable or funding prevention programs. More than 35 health organisations across Australia back a levy on sugary drinks. This is already in action in over 100 countries across the world. The UK did it in 2018, and when they did, the sugar in affected drinks fell by nearly 45 per cent over four years. Stepping back, all our national health strategies already recognise that prevention is where we should be focusing.”
“I've already put forward a bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Healthy Kids Advertising) Bill 2023, that would regulate the marketing of unhealthy foods to children on all these platforms, just as was recommended by the inquiry. It's a practical way to reduce that constant exposure and it's supported by a broad coalition of major health organisations. It's also supported by the 66 per cent of Australians who want to see an end to junk food advertising during children's hours of TV. The second area I want to talk about is sugary drinks. Again, the inquiry recommendation was clear: that the government implement a graduated levy on sugar-sweetened beverages based on sugar content.”
“A government-funded feasibility study released just this month looked at this exact issue and found very strong support for time-based restrictions of unhealthy food advertising on broadcast media from morning to night and for it to end altogether online and on digital platforms. It also found strong support for restricting things like on-pack marketing aimed at children and junk food sponsorship of sporting and community events. Importantly, it confirmed that self-regulation is simply not working. Kids are exposed to a constant stream of advertising across TV, radio, social media and gaming. It's sophisticated, it's targeted and it's backed by large companies with vested interests.”
“Instead, there is support in principle for some recommendations, and others are simply noted. The state of diabetes report was clear: if we don't invest properly in prevention, the problem will keep getting worse, and we're already seeing that play out. Obesity has now overtaken tobacco as the leading cause of preventable disease burden in Australia. Around 6.5 million people are living with obesity, and projections for children are heading in the wrong direction. Already, one in four children across Australia is above the healthy weight range, and in regional and rural areas it's even more. So I want to focus specifically on two of the recommendations in that report that are based on prevention and are evidence based. First, the inquiry recommended that the government regulate the marketing of unhealthy food to children.”
“Last week, almost two years after it was completed, the Australian government finally responded to T he state of diabetes mellitus in Australia in 2024 report. The response falls far short of what Australians need. The report was the outcome of a substantial parliamentary inquiry informed by extensive evidence from clinicians, researchers, public health experts and patient groups, as well as many public submissions and multiple hearings. I was very proud to be a part of the health committee conducting the inquiry. It examined the rapid rise of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Australia, including amongst our young people. Importantly, the report set out a series of practical, evidence-based recommendations particularly focused on prevention and early intervention. The government's response was to adopt none of them.”
“Minister Butler identified in his speech to the National Press Club last month that the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee said recently more time is needed to deal with the legislative uncertainty and remove the risk of other unintended consequences. The same advice must apply to this bill. While the NDIS desperately needs reform, let's take the time to address this now and get it right.”
“However, the potential for significant cuts and changes to people's plans that this bill enables and the level of direct ministerial control that will be made possible have the potential for disastrous outcomes for some of our most vulnerable citizens. Pragmatic system improvements, such as fraud minimisation; provider enrolment; payment changes to improve capacity for the National Disability Insurance Agency to monitor and ensure compliance; and, if implemented correctly and safely, new framework planning, provide the necessary foundations for prudent management of scheme finances while also retaining a focus on participant rights and outcomes. Providers and participants must be part of the solution and participants must not be moved off the NDIS until alternative support is real, funded, staffed and ready. These are reasonable requests.”
“Evelyn and Alexander are also concerned about broad powers to reduce plan funding. They point to the proposed section 34A and the risk of a large percentage reduction that may not be reviewable. They're also concerned about the move away from reasonable and necessary supports, which are part of the promise of the NDIS. Sustainability should mean providing supports that are reasonable, necessary, evidence based and cost-effective. It should not mean giving executive power to reduce supports below what has been assessed as needed. I absolutely recognise the need to ensure that scheme growth is sustainable.”
“He has been able to take part in meaningful activities and contribute in ways that were not possible before. This gives him purpose, achievement and connection. Alexander and Evelyn are worried that the definition of 'functional capacity' may be shaped later by rules made outside of this parliament. They're worried about changes to the permanence test and what those changes may mean in practice. Key terms such as these in the act should not be left to uncertain future rules. They're also worried about plan reassessments. Their own request for a plan review was not acted on for more than a year. They had no clear way to track the progress and they found contact processes unreliable, inaccessible and unfair, yet the bill proposes consequences when participants do not respond to contact.”
“A child may manage in one controlled setting and struggle in a busy classroom, on public transport or in crowded community spaces. Assessment must look at how a child lives, learns and plays. It must not reduce complex children to rigid categories or an automated result. One of the main concerns is that families need a fair and responsive pathway for review when a plan no longer fits. They need human review, transparency and clinical judgement. They need the ability to correct errors easily. I've also heard from Evelyn and Alexander. They are Northern Beaches parents of a 22-year-old son with severe autism and intellectual disability. Their son has limited speech and no effective means of self-care. He relies on others for daily care, transport and basic needs. With the NDIS, his life changed for the better.”
“At that time, there were only 19 hours of paediatric occupational therapy available each week for the whole of the Pittwater and Warringah council areas. The NDIS has allowed many children to access regular, local and consistent support. It has helped families avoid long waitlists. It has helped children build skills early at a time when support can make the biggest difference. Lisa's concern is that children may lose access before alternative local supports are funded, staffed and tested. Lisa also raised concerns about the new assessment process. Children do not function the same way in every setting. Their needs change with fatigue, sensory load, school demands, emotional regulation, family stress and the environment around them.”
“She also asked a simple question about review rights: 'If funding is cut where is the fair opportunity to challenge it, and where is the consideration of safety, continuity and longer term costs when support is removed?' I've also heard from Lisa Hughes, Founder and CEO of Occupational Therapy Helping Children in Frenchs Forest. Lisa has supported children, young people and families for more than 30 years. She's worried this bill may reduce access to early intervention, weaken family choice, increase pressure on parents and destabilise experienced local providers. Lisa knows what existed before the NDIS. In the 1990s, she ran the paediatric occupational therapy service at Mona Vale Hospital.”
“I've also heard from Nora, from North Narrabeen. Nora is 69. Her daughter is a young, vibrant, happy adult and an NDIS participant. Nora's husband had a stroke seven years ago and uses a wheelchair. Nora's daughter is non-verbal. She cannot read or write. She cannot drive, and she cannot go to the shops alone or meet friends safely without support. Nora is deeply concerned about cuts to social and community participation funding. For her daughter, this support is not an optional extra. It's what lets her leave the house, meet people, be safe and live a life beyond four walls. It took years to build the right team of support workers. These are trusted relationships that were built slowly and carefully. Nora is worried that the changes to provider rules and pricing may disrupt these relationships.”
“But Rafferty has recently been given a five-year plan that has no funding for physiotherapy and allows only 12 hours a year for exercise physiology. There's also no funding for a new day chair, even though he will grow out of his current adjustable chair in about six months. There is no funding for a sports chair to enable him to continue the sport he loves. There is no funding for the changes that happen between 14 and 19: growing independence, learning to access the community safely and building confidence. His mother puts it plainly: 'These are not nice-to-have items; they are core necessities for functional capacity and basic daily living.' This is why people are frightened by broad ministerial powers to cut supports. If this is already happening, families rightly ask: what will happen when wider ministerial powers are added?”
“Such issues include the ministerial power to cut support determinations, the ministerial pricing power, changes to the permanence test, the hierarchy of evidence for reasonable and necessary supports, the reliance on automation and the lack of readiness for alternative supports outside the NDIS. Until these issues are fixed, the risk of unintended consequences and people being left behind without adequate support is simply too high. We cannot ask families to trust a new system when the details are unpublished, the rules are not clear and the services outside the NDIS are not yet established. Parents, carers, participants and local providers in my electorate are deeply anxious about this bill. Elise, mum of Rafferty, a 14-year-old hot-shot wheelchair basketballer in Mackellar, fought to get him on the NDIS.”
“I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The intent of this bill is to ensure a sustainable NDIS for future generations by slowing growth of scheme costs, reducing fraud, strengthening provider regulation and improving governance. I recognise the need to rein in the NDIS, to make it sustainable, fair and protected from fraud and poor providers. Like me, many providers and families in Mackellar support sensible reforms. We want the scheme to work for the people it was designed to support, and we want to ensure that public money is used well. However, several core issues must be addressed before this bill proceeds to ensure that participants are not left without important supports they need.”
“My question is to the Attorney-General. The recent resignations of both the commissioner and the deputy commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission present an opportunity to rebuild public confidence in the institution but only if the new appointments are made independently and transparently. In line with best practice, will the positions be advertised for at least two weeks, will selection criteria be made public, and will the appointments be made by an independent selection panel? If not, can you please explain why?”
“This government came to office on an election platform centred on restoring trust and accountability in federal politics. Yet, while there have been some steps forward, the reality is the system has not been fixed. This government has done little to stamp out the sources of power these industries thrive on: the political donations, the gifts, the advertising, the paid lobbyists, the frequent access and closed political networks. The revolving door still turns, and the jobs-for-mates culture has not been stamped out. The Briggs review into public sector appointments was quietly released just before Christmas, with its recommendations left unimplemented. My bill, developed in consultation with the Centre for Public Integrity, to ensure transparent, merit based appointments, has not been taken up. (Time expired)”