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 3 of 11.
“This bill would ensure that private health insurers are required to seek ministerial approval for new products and for existing products where certain changes are proposed. The bill has been welcomed by both the Australian Medical Association and Private Healthcare Australia, as it gives the consumer greater visibility of fees and out-of-pocket costs, which will help them to compare options and make informed choices about their health care. I support these steps that improve choice and transparency for consumers. However, without a single independent steward to oversee and regulate the private health insurance sector, these gains won't stick. Private health insurance is a vital part of our health system. It works to take pressure off our public health system.”
“I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. This bill is about clear, transparent and accurate information for people making decisions about their health. The purpose of this bill is to improve fee transparency for consumers by allowing the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to publish information on medical fees charged by medical practitioners on the Medical Costs Finder website and to abolish product phoenixing in the private health insurance sector. Product phoenixing is the practice of closing existing policies and replacing them with almost identical policies at a higher price.”
“I'd like to acknowledge and thank the Assistant Treasurer for his very constructive engagement with the sector in developing this legislation. In closing, this bill represents an important step forward for fairness, for public health and for the future of personalised medicine in Australia, and I commend these amendments and the bill to the House.”
“The Human Genetics Society of Australasia has highlighted that patients have delayed or declined testing even when there is a strong family history of serious disease. The Public Health Association of Australia has pointed to broader public health implications, noting that reduced uptake of testing limits opportunities for early intervention and prevention. Consumer groups, including the Cancer Council Australia, have emphasised the very real human cost of missing the chance for early detection because they fear being penalised financially. This bill responds directly to those concerns and has been welcomed by the Council of Australian Life Insurers as giving Australians more certainty and empowering them towards better health outcomes.”
“This will safeguard against any future narrowing of the protections in this bill, whilst still allowing the legislation to evolve appropriately through proper legislative processes. This bill is the culmination of years of advocacy from medical professionals, researchers and consumer advocates who have consistently called for change. For too long, Australians have faced what has rightly been described as genetic discrimination in life insurance, where the results of a genetic test, often undertaken to better understand or prevent disease, could be used against them. The Australian Medical Association and Monash University's Public Health Genomics unit have cited research that shows that fear of insurance discrimination has deterred many at-risk people from having potentially life-saving genetic testing.”
“It is not appropriate for regulations to have the power to limit or expand the meaning of terms that are so central to the operation of the legislation. While the explanatory memorandum suggests that this flexibility is needed to keep pace with advances in medicine, the Australian Human Rights Commission asserts that this is not sufficient justification for such an extensive delegation of power. They argue that substantial changes to the meaning of prescribed terms should only be done through legislative processes and appropriate scrutiny. My proposed amendments remove from sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) the words: Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.”
“These amendments respond to concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding sections 33E(2) and 33F(5) of the bill. As currently drafted, these sections allow regulations to override the definitions of key terms, such as 'genetic testing' and 'protected genetic information'. Specifically, the provisions state that the regulations 'have effect despite anything else in this section'. This means that regulations could, in effect, redefine what constitutes protected genetic information, even if that contradicts the definitions set out in the legislation itself. This creates a risk that the scope of protections could be narrowed in the future. In doing so, it dilutes the strength and certainty of the ban.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.". (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 26 to 28), omit "Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite anything else in this section.". I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This legislation establishes a statutory ban on insurers using the results of genetic tests when offering or pricing life insurance. While I strongly support this bill, I will be moving two amendments to strengthen it.”
“It ensures that Australians are not penalised for seeking to understand their own health, and that medical advice, not financial fear, guides decisions about genetic testing. It reflects years of advocacy and a clear consensus that the status quo is no longer acceptable. This legislation represents a critical step towards ending genetic discrimination in life insurance and unlocking the full potential of the genomic medicine in Australia. I commend this bill to the House.”
“It will give Australians the confidence to access potentially lifesaving information about their health without fear of financial penalty, and it will ensure that advances in genetic and genomic medicine—advances that have the potential to transform health care through earlier diagnosis, more precise treatment and better prevention—can be fully realised for the benefit of all Australians. To ensure the law keeps pace with developments in genomics and insurance markets, the bill currently requires mandatory reviews every five years of the genetic testing ban. I support the independent member for Kooyong's proposed amendment to change this mandatory review period to every three years—this is a rapidly changing field of medicine. In closing, this bill is about restoring fairness and trust.”
“Insurers should identify which individuals have received adverse underwriting outcomes on the basis of genetic test results and remove these loadings and exclusions from each of them from the date of the ban's commencement. This does not require completely new underwriting to be done but merely for adverse terms applied on the basis of genetic results to be removed. It's clear this legislation is urgently needed. Without it, the system would continue to discourage preventative health care, penalise individuals for seeking medical advice and undermine public confidence in both the health system and the insurance sector. Implementing this legislation will remove one of the most significant barriers to genetic testing in Australia.”
“On this basis, the impact of removing loadings or exclusions prospectively for those already insured who have been discriminated against should be negligible in the context of the entire insurance market. Given the additional premiums collected from many of these individuals by insurers in the past, it's not unreasonable to ask insurers to proactively rectify the discrimination applied and cease to discriminate prospectively against current clients in a way that is unlawful for new life insurance applications. This is not a suggestion that insurers should retrospectively refund premiums but only that penalties should be removed prospectively.”
“A key concern raised by stakeholders deals with the imposition of penalties, loadings, exclusions and other adverse action in existing contracts. Many Australians have done the right thing—disclosing their genetic test results in good faith—and have paid the price through higher premiums or restricted cover over many years. At present, the ban only applies to decisions about entering into new life insurance contracts. It does not apply to the enforcement of unfair terms on people who already have contracts of insurance in place with discriminatory terms applied. The Council of Australian Life Insurers 2024 submission to Treasury reported that a small number of applications have received adverse underwriting outcomes on the basis of genetic results—only 90 out of 1,674.”
“The stakeholders also highlight that discrimination is not always direct and can occur in more subtle but equally harmful ways. For example, insurers may infer genetic information from a person's medical care, surveillance programs or family history, effectively using proxies for genetic test results. Furthermore, stakeholders warn of emerging risks as genomic testing becomes more widespread. One such risk is the potential for insurers to offer so-called discounts to individuals who disclose low-risk genetic results. While framed as a benefit, this would in practice create a two-tiered system where those without favourable results are effectively penalised. This is precisely the kind of indirect discrimination this legislation must guard against.”
“Together, these stakeholders came to a powerful consensus that, without legislative intervention, genetic discrimination will continue to undermine both individual wellbeing and the future of health care in Australia. At the heart of their concern is the reality that Australians have been penalised simply for accessing information about their own health. Individuals who have undertaken genetic testing, often on the advice of their doctor and often to prevent or better manage serious disease, have faced higher premiums, exclusions or outright denial of life insurance. In many cases, these are people who are not unwell but who carry a genetic predisposition. This is discrimination not on the basis of current health but on the basis of potential future risk.”
“This bill has been shaped by an extraordinary coalition of more than 60 stakeholders across the medical, research, legal and consumer sectors, who came together to produce a unified voice to government. It includes the Australian Medical Association, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Rare Voices Australia, Genetic Alliance Australia, the Lung Foundation Australia and the Australian Alliance for Indigenous Genomics, alongside leading research institutions like the Murdoch Children's Research Institute and the Centre for Population Genomics.”
“They're putting their health on the back foot because of all of this.' Another study participant, Frank, whose father had Huntington's disease, was penalised by his insurance company prior to undertaking genetic testing. He was penalised with a 200 per cent premium loading due to his family history of the disease. Despite Frank subsequently receiving genetic test results that showed he did not inherit the Huntington's disease variant and was not at risk of the disease, the insurer refused to remove the loading unless Frank made a new application. Frank took the insurer to the complaints tribunal and a settlement was reached. The insurer refunded Frank's loading from the date he informed them of his genetic result on the condition he withdrew the complaint. It is scenarios like Frank's that this bill will ensure no longer occur.”
“The results are clear: 93 per cent of health professionals, 88 per cent of patients with experience of genetic testing, 78 per cent of the general public and 86 per cent of researchers agreed that legislation is required to regulate the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. That is why we're here today. Patient testimonies from the A-GLIMMER project present a stark illustration of how a fear of discrimination has deterred people from undertaking genetic testing. A 34-year-old female interviewee who has a high risk result for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, stated, 'Even in my extended family, there's quite a few people who haven't done genetic testing because they don't want to be denied insurance cover. They're not getting regular scans.”
“To investigate the effectiveness of the FSC moratorium as a regulatory solution to genetic discrimination in Australian life insurance, the Commonwealth government funded the Australian Genetics and Life Insurance moratorium, monitoring the Effectiveness and Response Project, otherwise known as the A-GLIMMER project. This was funded from 2020 to 2023 through the genomics mission of the Medical Research Future Fund. The A-GLIMMER project reported that health professionals, consumers and researchers are all concerned about the life insurance industry's self-regulation of the FSC moratorium and its effectiveness. The majority of stakeholders expressed concern about the absence of any Australian government oversight, demonstrating that the FSC moratorium is inadequate to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life assurance insurance.”
“In 2018, a joint parliamentary committee inquiry into the life insurance industry recommended that Australia urgently implement a ban on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting, similar to the moratorium that was operating in the United Kingdom since 2001. In 2019, the life insurance industry peak body, the Financial Services Council, or FSC, introduced a partial moratorium requiring applicants to disclose genetic test results only for policies above certain financial limits. The FSC moratorium has been industry self-regulated, with no government oversight.”
“Life insurance in Australia encompasses insurance policies covering death, total and permanent disability, trauma and critical illness, and income protection, salary continuation or business expenses. The bill allows consumers to voluntarily disclose favourable genetic test results if they choose; for example, where the results indicate reduced genetic risk. Insurers may consider such disclosures but cannot require them. The field of genetics has great potential to improve medicine and public health through enabling diagnosis, prevention and early treatment of disease. However, to date in Australia, the life insurance industry has been legally allowed to use genetic test results in underwriting, leading to what has rightly been described as genetic discrimination.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to prohibit life insurers from requesting, using or relying on the results of an individual's genetic tests when deciding whether to offer life insurance cover or the terms and conditions of that cover, including pricing and exclusions. This applies to genetic tests undertaken for clinical care, for research participation or for personal or preventive reasons. Genetic discrimination in life insurance will also be unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Act.”
“The Australia Institute research has shown that the $100 million in the Active Transport Fund would only be enough to build 25 kilometres to 50 kilometres of new separated bike paths. In contrast, France plans to invest the equivalent of around A$3.2 billion in cycling infrastructure between 2023 and 2027, and they have committed to building 100,000 kilometres of cycle lanes by 2023. ( Time expired )”
“Now is not the time to be removing the very incentives that are helping people make this switch. We need clear targets, as well, to reach 100 per cent electric passenger car sales, just as countries like the UK and France have already set. We also need stronger support for charging infrastructure right across the country, and, importantly, we must introduce policies that help low-income households and renters make the transition to electric vehicles. Australia also desperately needs proactive policies and investment to increase our active transport rate. Currently, we spend $714 per person on roads every year, but just 90c goes to walking, wheeling and cycling. The government's Active Transport Fund is woefully inadequate.”
“Accelerating the uptake of electric vehicles, especially public transport, and shifting shorter car trips to walking, cycling or e-mobility devices will directly reduce our dependence on imported oil. It is important to note that around two-thirds of the car journeys in our cities are able to be walked, wheeled or cycled in 15 minutes or less. The new vehicle efficiency standards, introduced by government in 2024 following a strong push from the crossbench, were a great first step. We've heard there are now twice as many EVs on our roads as there were two years ago. Yet the government is now considering winding back tax incentives and exemptions for EVs purchased through novated leasing programs. This is despite electric vehicles still making up only 13 per cent of new car sales in Australia.”
“The 2020 Liquid Fuel Security review revealed that, alarmingly, the emergency powers to ration fuel stocks could take up to three weeks to implement in the event of a fuel emergency. We remain non-compliant with the IEA obligation to hold 90 days of net oil imports. As a country that imports the majority of our liquid fuels, it will always be difficult to achieve this target. The more reliant our transport sector is on foreign oil, the more exposed Australians are to higher prices during global conflicts. The faster we shift our cars, vans and buses off petrol, the more capacity we free up to tackle more difficult fuel security problems such as diesel for freight and aviation fuel.”
“Yet one of the most effective ways to reduce this risk is often overlooked, and that is investing in electric and active transport. The International Energy Agency has emphasised this point. In response to the oil shock, triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine back in 2022, the IEA released a 10-point plan to cut oil use aimed at easing market strain. Among its key recommendations were making public transport cheaper; incentivising micro-mobility, walking and cycling; and speeding up the adoption of electric and more efficient vehicles. For more than a decade, analysts and industry have warned Australian governments about our poor fuel security. Australia imports more than 90 per cent of our refined fuel, tying households and businesses to volatile global markets.”
“I thank the member for Kooyong, too, for raising this matter of public importance on the opportunity for Australia to improve our sovereign capability and make energy cheaper for everyday Australians through the clean energy transition. I will focus today on household transport, something that is particularly topical considering the recent petrol price hikes that have occurred in response to the Middle East war—price hikes that are impacting Australians across the country right now. It must be noted that we live in an increasingly volatile world. In just a handful of years, we've had a number of major international disruptions, including the COVID pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and now the war in Iran. Australia's poor fuel security remains one of our biggest national vulnerabilities and drives up cost of living.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. People in my electorate of Mackellar are concerned about recent media reports that allege the government offered the coalition more personal staff in exchange for their support of the controversial Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. To avoid a perceived conflict of interest, will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring personal staff allocations for non-government parliamentarians are decided by an independent body, rather than awarded at the discretion of the prime minister of the day?”
“On behalf of the people of Mackellar, I thank you for the wonderful work that you do, and continue to do, in supporting the men and families of the Northern Beaches.”
“The collective is supported by the Sydney North Health Network, the Northern Sydney Local Health District, Northern Beaches Community Health Services and the Northern Beaches Mental Health Interagency, who are all member organisations. I'd like to recognise the 10 local men's organisations, many of them volunteer run, and thank them for their commitment to fostering a connected and resilient community of men by normalising help-seeking, increasing awareness of supports and providing accessible pathways to health resources and services. My deepest thankyous go to Man Anchor, ManUnplugged, Mentoring Men, Mongrels Men Health and Wellbeing, MoWaNa Northern Beaches Safe Space, Northern Beaches CARES, Pittwater Offshore Men's Shed, Proveda, Saltwater Veterans and Lifeline Northern Beaches.”
“These organisations offer a wide range of support, from early intervention and prevention programs, to fundraising, mentoring, peer connection, counselling, crisis assistance and pathways to recovery. Each organisation has a different focus and approach, but all share a common goal: helping men feel supported, connected and empowered to take care of their mental and emotional wellbeing. The Northern Beaches Men's Wellbeing Collective was born out of a men's mental health roundtable I hosted in July 2024 which identified the need for local men's groups to come together on a regular basis to share ideas and resources and to increase public awareness of local services and support for men and their loved ones.”
“Across the Northern Beaches many men experience challenges such as stress, anxiety, depression, isolation, relationship breakdown, addiction, work pressures, grief or major life transitions. For many men, asking for help can feel difficult, whether that's due to stigma, uncertainty about where to turn or a belief that they should cope alone. That's why I'm so proud of the work being done by the Northern Beaches Men's Wellbeing Collective. The Northern Beaches Men's Wellbeing Collective is a trusted network of local men's community health organisations operating across the Northern Beaches to improve the lives of men through compassion, connection and community driven action.”
“Closed non-competitive grant processes, by their very nature, lack transparency, allowing ministers to choose the pool of candidate projects as well as allowing for greater discretion in the final selection. The majority of Australians want this to change. It's time the government put an end to the practice of closed, non-competitive grant programs and instead implement transparent, open, competitive, merit based grant funding that fairly and equitably offers the same opportunities to all electorates around the country to support community needs.”
“The new merit based processes principles still allows ministers, accountable authorities or delegates to bypass competitive merit based selection wherever they choose, leaving the door wide open to the very practices these reforms were meant to prevent. This brings me to the bill introduced by the independent member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, the Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024. This offers a framework that puts an end to misusing taxpayers' money for political purposes. The bill requires all grants to have publicly available merit based criteria. The reality is that all communities deserve equal access to funding based on merit and need, not political affiliation.”
“A minister's responsibility should be to all Australians, not just those in their own backyard or their party colleagues' backyards. It is the minister's responsibility to spend taxpayers' money responsibly. When ministers and government use public funds as a tool for political advantage, it undermines trust, fairness and principles of democracy, and Australians won't stand for it. The Australia Institute's research shows that four in five Australians consider it corrupt to allocate public money to projects to win votes. Despite the government formally agreeing or agreeing with qualification to all eight recommendations of the 2023 joint committee's inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration, nothing has meaningfully changed.”
“And who could forget the community sport infrastructure program under the coalition, better known as sports rorts, whereby the Australian National Audit Office found that the minister had disregarded departmental advice and program guidelines and that government seats had received much higher levels of funding. The minister responsible at that time, Senator Bridget McKenzie, justified it by saying: 'I make no apology for exercising ministerial discretion. To do so was my prerogative, but more importantly it was my responsibility.' The senator and I obviously have different definitions of responsibility. Commonwealth grant funding is relied upon by small businesses, volunteer led organisations and not-for-profits around the country to support local communities.”
“Both the major parties engage in this pork-barrelling. Analysis by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age of 19,000 federal grants allocated 11 grant programs between 2017 and 2021 under the coalition government found that coalition electorates received $1.9 billion while Labor electorates received $530 million. We all remember the $660 million carpark rort scandal, where not a single commuter carpark site was allocated grant funding based on the need to solve congestion issues which was the stated aim of the program. Instead, each grant was handpicked by the coalition to serve its own ends at the taxpayers' expense.”
“In Mackellar we have the largest Tibetan community in Australia, yet we cannot apply for funds through this program to build a much needed cultural centre for this community. Quite simply, they have to still go without. The irony is that one of the stated objectives of this program is to improve equity outcomes and social inclusion, yet this program treats multicultural communities around the country unequally. This is pork-barrelling at its finest, directing public funds for political gain rather than merit or community need. Where is the transparency on how these decisions are made to allocate grant money to one project over another? The answer is that there is no transparency. Instead, it seems like the government of the day simply handpicks the projects where votes are needed most.”
“It even states on the website: The Australian Government is investing up to $190.3 million over 2 years from 2025-26 to provide direct support to multicultural communities … in line with the 2025 election commitments. This program, like the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, will be funded through closed non-competitive grants rounds. The first cab off the rank was the Supporting Multicultural Communities Infrastructure Program which opened on 14 November last year. This closed non-competitive grant program allocates over $109 million to more than 40 organisations all located in Labor electorates. Many of these projects are for community centres and cultural hubs.”
“Local football clubs in the Labor electorates of Boothby and Gilmore, for example, have been promised millions in funding for projects that include upgrades to changerooms, training facilities and a new clubhouse. Yet Forrest Rugby Club in Mackellar, which needs funding to upgrade its facilities to cater for the rapid growth in female participation in rugby, cannot apply to this grant program. Similarly, surf life saving clubs in the Labor electorates of Lyons and Kingsford Smith have been promised around $5 million in funding. Meanwhile, Newport and North Narrabeen surf life saving clubs in Mackellar, which both need funding for upgrades to improve accessibility, public amenity and facilities for education and training, cannot access these funds. The Supporting Multicultural Communities Program follows the same pattern.”
“The Labor government allocated $650 million in taxpayer funded election commitments through a one-off round of the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. This program is closed and non-competitive, meaning community organisations in electorates like Mackellar cannot apply. Instead, projects have already been hand-picked and decided by the government. The majority are in Labor electorates, thus creating a system that prioritises political interest over community need. Out of 197 local community infrastructure projects committed to during the 2025 election, totalling over $1 billion, 180 of these are in Labor Party seats.”
“Often described as grey corruption, pork barrelling is not how public money is supposed to be spent. As Simon Longstaff, executive director of the Ethics Institute, put it: … the practice of pork-barrelling … contravenes the core requirements of democracy and as such should be deemed an illicit form of conduct that corrupts the democratic process. As identified in the Grattan Institute's 2022 report New Politics : p reventing p ork - barrelling , the allocation of grant money in particular seats to try to buy votes is one of the most visible forms of pork barrelling. The report found: Grants processes often allow substantial ministerial discretion, with little transparency around decision-making, making them 'an ideal vehicle for delivering pork'. The 2025 federal election was no exception.”
“As the member for Indi so eloquently put it, it's time to put a fork in the pork. In other words, it's time to end the practice of pork barrelling—something that has long been relied upon by successive Australian governments to get into or maintain power. As Chair of the Centre for Public Integrity Anthony Whealy KC explained, in the eyes of the community, senior academics and lawyers: The deliberate misuse of large amounts of public money for political gain is seriously corrupt. To label it as mere 'pork barrelling' is a misleading misnomer. In this context, 'corrupt' does not mean criminally corrupt but instead means a lack of political integrity and doing something that is not in the best interest of the public but is instead in the best interest of a party by trying to buy favour in certain electorates, particularly swing seats.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. The review of public sector board appointments found that the current appointments process is not fit for purpose and often looks like patronage and nepotism. The review found: … the public's confidence in the integrity of appointments is so low that the clarity and assurance of legislation is required to rebuild trust and embed integrity in board appointment processes. Can the government explain why they ignored this recommendation to legislate an independent appointment process, instead releasing a seven-dot-point non-binding framework?”
“These incidents have had a lasting impact on our beach-loving community, and so I want to reassure beachgoers that, with the support of Surf Life Saving NSW, protection measures have been increased, including expanded drone surveillance, the installation of shark listening stations for faster detection, and an expansion of the SharkSmart education program. Today, on Red & Yellow Day, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of our lifesavers and thank them for their countless hours of training and patrolling our beaches to keep our communities safe. You guys are legends. Thank you.”
“Today is Red & Yellow Day, a nationwide celebration of the volunteers who dedicate their time, energy and courage to keeping Australia's beaches safe. The heroism of our surf lifesavers has never been more evident than over the last season when responding to several shark attacks, including in my electorate of Mackellar. It was a difficult summer for Sydneysiders, with two beautiful lives lost tragically through shark attacks, including local Long Reef surfer Mercury Psillakis and 12-year-old Nico Antic in the electorate of Wentworth. I want to extend my deepest condolences to their families and friends for their immense loss. I would also like to send my very best wishes to those recovering from their injuries, including 27-year-old Andre de Ruyter, also from the northern beaches of Sydney.”
“My team and I also took part in the RSL LifeCare veterans expo in Dee Why last Friday, an important community event where local organisations come together to connect veterans and their families to services and support. I am constantly awed by the people who give their time so generously on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, often quietly and without recognition. To every volunteer, organiser, coach and advocate, thank you. Our community is a much more wonderful place to live because of you.”
“I must certainly do a special shout-out to Jack Cannon and his team, who volunteer countless hours to get this transformative program off the ground. Last week, I also attended the relaunch of the Mona Vale Chamber of Commerce, where local business owners spoke candidly about the pressures they're facing. I look forward to working with them directly and advocating for policies at the federal level to help our businesses flourish on the Northern Beaches. Thank you to Kylie Harding, the new chamber president, for her hard work to get the chamber up and active again. I was also proud to receive a Scout supporter scarf from the 1st Elanora Heights Scout Group and congratulate Scout Leader Sean Blasdall on achieving his Wood Badge, the highest leadership training level in scouting.”
“I've met the incredible volunteers at the Collaroy Turtles water safety program, including President Tanya Carmont. They give their time to provide one-on-one support so kids and adults can learn to be safe and confident in the water. I also joined in the races with the Collaroy Swimming Club, the largest ocean pool swim club on the Northern Beaches. At the Special Olympics awards lunch, we celebrated the remarkable achievements of local athletes and the incredible commitment of their coaches and carers. I also met the children from Brewarrina taking part in the Bush to Beach program at South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club. First Nations students who demonstrate regular school attendance come to the beaches to learn to surf and snorkel. Watching their confidence grow is community in action.”