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 5 of 11.
“Real-time prescription monitoring plays a critical role in identifying and preventing prescription misuse, prescriber shopping and unsafe combinations of medications, particularly where controlled drugs are involved. These amendments respond directly to the concerns raised by professional medical bodies and ensure that any expansion of prescribing authority under the bill is balanced by robust and appropriate safeguards. Of course, it must be made easier and more affordable for people to access the prescriptions and treatments they need; equity of access to health care is an essential goal. However, it is also essential that we do not cause unintended harm by undermining patient safety. We must ensure we maintain a safe, strong and well-regulated medical system.”
“Secondly, these amendments require that all the professional conduct attributes listed in section 84AAM form part of the definition of an eligible nurse prescriber. As the bill is currently drafted, the minister may determine eligibility by reference to one or more of these attributes. However, professional medical bodies would reasonably expect all nurse prescribers to meet all these requirements as a matter of course, including holding particular qualifications in nursing, having particular experience in nursing and being endorsed by a specified professional body. Thirdly, the amendments add further safeguards by requiring nurse prescribers to participate in relevant real-time prescription monitoring systems and to make contributions to the national medicines record.”
“Training in pharmacology, diagnostics, interpretation of test results and ongoing medication monitoring differs significantly between nurse practitioners and general practitioners. For this reason, the range of medicines that may be prescribed by nurse practitioners or nurse prescribers must be carefully balanced to ensure prescribing remains safe and appropriate. Given the high misuse potential associated with controlled drugs and the risk of increased fragmentation of care, schedule 8 medicines—the most dangerous and addictive drugs—should be excluded from the list of medicines that nurse practitioners can prescribe under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. These amendments would do just that.”
“Firstly, they specify that designated nurse prescribers cannot prescribe schedule 8 medicines under the PBS, making this a condition on the minister's power under section 84AA. This is a strong recommendation of both the RACGP and the AMA. Schedule 8 medicines are classified as controlled drugs and include opioids such as morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, which carry a high potential for misuse, dependence, addiction and harm. These drugs are subject to strict regulatory controls. Nurse practitioners are authorised health practitioners within collaborative prescribing frameworks. However, they do not possess the same depth or breadth of training as medical practitioners.”
“Specifically, these amendments address three main concerns, including, firstly, that designated nurse prescribers should not be permitted to prescribe schedule 8 medicines, otherwise known as drugs of addiction, under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; secondly, that there is currently no requirement for an eligible nurse prescriber to participate in real-time prescription monitoring or to contribute to the national medicines record; and, thirdly, that, unamended, the bill allows the minister to determine eligibility as a nurse prescriber by reference to one or more professional requirements, rather than requiring that all relevant clinical and professional standards be met. The amendments I'm moving today will do three things.”
“I wholeheartedly support the intention of this bill, as it responds to a clear need to improve access to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medications, ease workforce pressures and provide better access to health care for people living in rural and remote areas of Australia. However, serious concerns have been raised by key medical professional bodies regarding elements of this legislation. The amendments I have moved today seek to address those concerns. Both the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association have expressed strong reservations about the bill in its current form. Their concerns go directly to whether the framework provides adequate protections for patients.”
“(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (after line 11), after section 84AAN, insert: 84AANA Additional requirements for authorised nurse prescribers (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine requirements that authorised nurse prescribers must meet. (2) The requirements may relate to: (a) participating in relevant real time prescription monitoring; or (b) making contributions to the National Medicines Record. (4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 28), at the end of subsection 84AAP(1), add: ; or (e) has failed to meet a requirement determined under section 84AANA.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 7 to 11), omit subsection 84AAM(4), substitute: (4) The requirements determined under subsection (3) must include the following: (a) a requirement to hold particular qualifications in nursing; (b) a requirement to have particular experience in nursing; (c) a requirement to be endorsed by a particular body. (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 17), after "The approval is subject to", insert "the condition that the eligible nurse prescriber does not prescribe Therapeutic Goods Administration Schedule 8 medications and".”
“It is one thing to extend access to medical care, but we must absolutely be resolute in ensuring that this greater access does not undermine patient safety and outcomes. For these reforms to succeed, the safety concerns of professional medical bodies with deep experience in the field of prescribing and patient care must be heeded, and the safeguards they urge must be implemented.”
“When care moves away from collaboration towards independent prescribing, risks multiply due to the fragmentation of care, gaps in clinical oversight and reduced continuity of care for patients. What is clear from the evidence presented by both the RACGP and the AMA is that prescribing is not an administrative function; it is a clinical responsibility grounded in deep training, broad diagnostic expertise and ongoing professional oversight. Australians rightly expect that the medicines they are prescribed, particularly higher-risk medications, are supported by robust safeguards and delivered within a model of care that protects continuity, safety and accountability. I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of this bill to expand access and support a more flexible and responsive primary healthcare workforce. But intent alone is not enough.”
“The AMA also joins the RACGP in its concern that the bill does not clearly define the term 'authorised health practitioner'. They are concerned that one of the approval criteria allows prescribing agreements to be established with one or more PBS prescribers. This potentially opens the door for non-medical practitioners, including pharmacists or podiatrists, to act in this supervisory role in the future. The AMA argues strongly that only medical practitioners or nurse practitioners acting within their scope are suitably qualified to supervise prescribing. The AMA warns that permitting agreements with other professions risks undermining the collaborative model. They stress that doctors and nurses need to work together within defined protocols and safeguards.”
“While the AMA notes that not all their concerns have been addressed, they acknowledge that the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia has incorporated several important safeguards into the national prescribing framework introduced under the new registration standard. These include that designated RN prescribers, firstly, can only prescribe a limited range of medicines only for defined conditions and only within their scope of practice; must have at least 5,000 hours of recent clinical experience; and must complete an Australian Qualifications Framework level 8 qualification and have accredited training aligned with predetermined competencies. They must also have a six-month mentorship and a documented collaboration protocol within the prescribing agreement.”
“Admission criteria to nurse practitioner training programs have also been relaxed significantly to reduce the prerequisite total hours of clinical and advanced nursing experience as an RN. Of particular concern is the proposal for nurse practitioners to be subject to only 30 hours of continuing professional development annually. This does not align with the minimum 50 hours of continuing professional development annually that GPs must undertake. The AMA has also consistently advocated that any prescribing of schedule 2, 3 or 4 medications must only occur within medically led, delegated team environments and always under an active prescribing agreement with a medical practitioner.”
“While the College of GPs support strengthening the Professional Services Review to ensure consistent oversight of designated RN prescribers, they warn that proceeding with PBS prescribing reforms before nurse practitioner accreditation standards, scope boundaries and professional safeguards are finalised would risk undermining patient safety and the integrity of collaborative care models. The college also warns that reforms to nurse practitioner accreditation standards have removed some of the existing safeguards. This includes the abolition of collaborative arrangements which legally required nurse practitioners and midwives to work in structured partnership with medical practitioners. This mandatory requirement was abolished in November 2024.”
“In practice, these prescribers should be medical practitioners—not a wider group that could include other, non-medical practitioners. Prescribing agreements for designated RN prescribers must clearly document the roles of the RN and the authorised practitioner. There needs to be clarity that this role is medically led and auditable by the organisations in which designated RN prescribers work and/or by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. Where RN endorsement involves mentoring, there must be certainty that the mentors are clearly qualified for broad prescribing and are accountable within robust clinical governance.”
“While nurse practitioners would be classified as authorised health practitioners within prescribed agreement frameworks, the RACGP points out that nurses do not undergo the same breadth or depth of training as medical practitioners, including in pharmacology, diagnosis, the interpretation of tests and medication monitoring. As such, the RACGP urge that the medicines prescribed by nurse practitioners need to be carefully selected to ensure patient safety is maintained. Because state and territory legislation defines who can prescribe what, the RACGP and the AMA warn that a vague 'authorised practitioner' label will create cross-jurisdictional inconsistency and safety gaps. They assert that the definition is too broad and ambiguous and that supervising or partner prescribers must have extensive prescribing experience.”
“Increasing the number of people who can prescribe these addictive medications, paired with a possible fragmentation of patient care, will mean more opportunities for these medications to be erroneously prescribed. Another serious risk identified by the RACGP is the absence of a requirement that nurse prescribers undertake real-time prescription monitoring—a national system designed to monitor the prescribing and dispensing of controlled medicines with the aim of reducing their misuse in Australia. This should be absolutely necessary. The RACGP has also raised the concern that the definition of an 'authorised practitioner' is not limited to medical practitioners. This poses a risk of unintended consequences, including cross-jurisdictional inconsistency and safety gaps.”
“Neither group supports the prescription of schedule 8 medicines by designated nurse prescribers. Schedule 8 medicines are those that have a high potential for abuse, dependence, addiction and harm, including opioids like morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl. The RACGP and the AMA recommend the bill explicitly prohibit designated nurse prescribers from prescribing schedule 8 medications. With my 20 years of experience as a GP and emergency doctor, I wholly concur that there is serious risk in significantly expanding the number of prescribers of S8 drugs. There can be enormous pressure for prescribers to provide scripts for these drugs of addiction. Some people will go to extreme lengths to ensure their stories are highly convincing and backed with manufactured evidence.”
“This standard, called the 'endorsement for scheduled medicines—designated registered nurse prescriber', sets out how suitably qualified RNs can qualify to prescribe scheduled medicines 2, 3, 4 and 8 in partnership with an authorised health practitioner. The Australian College of Nursing has stated that this standard aligns Australian nursing with international best practice, following successful implementation in countries such as New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. The intent of this bill, and the expansion of the integral role that nurse practitioners play in healthcare delivery, has also been welcomed by professional doctors' groups, including the RACGP and the AMA. However, as previously mentioned, these professional medical bodies also have several serious concerns with this bill in its current form.”
“Currently in Australia, to be able to prescribe medications, a health practitioner must meet certain criteria, including having completed accredited prescribing education and training that is consistent with their scope of practice, being registered with the national board of their speciality, being approved under the National Health Act 1953 for prescriptions of PBS or Repatriation PBS medicines, and being approved under relevant state and territory legislation and regulation. In September last year, a new registration standard for nurse practitioner prescribing came into effect under AHPRA, the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency.”
“Specific concerns include, firstly, that designated nurse prescribers should not be able to prescribe schedule 8 medicines, otherwise known as drugs of addiction, under the PBS; secondly, that there is no requirement for an eligible nurse prescriber to undertake relevant, real-time prescription monitoring or to make contributions to the national medicines record; thirdly, that PBS prescribing reforms should not occur before nurse practitioner accreditation standards scope boundaries and professional safeguards are finalised; and, lastly, that the definition of an authorised practitioner is not limited to a medical practitioner, which poses the risk of unintended consequences, including cross-jurisdictional inconsistency and safety gaps.”
“However, despite endorsing the intentions of this bill, serious concerns have been raised by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the RACGP, and the Australian Medical Association, the AMA. Both of these professional medical bodies believe this bill, in its current form, does not provide sufficient protection for patients.”
“The Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation has welcomed this bill that removes barriers and finally allows highly qualified nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives to work autonomously to their full scope, providing people with better access to quality care without the need to visit their GP or a hospital emergency department. The federation has pointed to the success of nurse led clinics in Tasmania and the ACT that have empowered more nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives to work to their full skill set, thereby expanding the provision of health care in those communities. There is a clear need to enable future designated nurse prescribers to prescribe PBS medications within their scope of practice and as part of collaborative prescribing agreements.”
“I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable registered nurses, or RNs, who meet specified criteria to prescribe certain medications under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The bill implements reforms identified by the government's Strengthening Medicare Taskforce and Unleashing the potential of our health workforce : scope of practice review . These explored the system changes and improvements needed to support health professionals and multidisciplinary team members to work at their full scope of practice. The aim is to deliver best practice primary health care.”
“It sets out practical measures that can be used to address racism against First Nations peoples: truth-telling for First Nations people, support for self-determination, a nationally recognised definition for First Nations cultural safety and coordinated action across health, media, justice, the arts and data. It recognises that racism in Australia is systemic and structural. The government hasn't yet responded to this proposal, it has not yet funded the framework and it has not yet implemented it. That is a decision. If the government is serious about preventing violence against Australia's First Nations people, rather than simply reacting when it nearly costs lives, then it should urgently fund and implement the National Anti-Racism Framework in partnership with First Nations communities across the country.”
“Again, this incident was initially underreported and minimised. The City of Melbourne had been warned of the potential threat against that camp, but those who made that warning received no response. These events reflect an escalation in racism and threats against First Nations people that too often goes unnamed. Too often it is left to First Nations people themselves to fight for the recognition of the seriousness of these attacks, to ensure they are not again overlooked by the media, politicians and law enforcement, and to force a response that should have come immediately and automatically. There is a clear step that the government can take. More than a year ago, the National Anti-Racism Framework was delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission.”
“This incident reflects how far racial hatred against our First Nations people has been allowed to mushroom, and how emboldened people now feel to act on it. The slow and muted response is also sadly indicative of the institutionalisation of racism against our First Nations people, and this incident has not happened in isolation. The attempted bombing at the Invasion Day rally at Boorloo follows a pattern of racism and violence directed at our First Nations people that so often does not make it into the media as it should and does not receive the response that it should. Just last year in August, the Neo-Nazi attack on the Camp Sovereignty in Naarm, a sacred Indigenous site for healing, ceremony and protest, was similarly muted. Four people were injured that day, two seriously, with head injuries requiring hospitalisation.”
“And yet, in the aftermath, the response from much of the political leadership and media was muted to the point of seeming indifference. Of particular note was the fact that the leader of Western Australia's opposition Liberal Party, Basil Zempilas, took three days to even mention it publicly. Where was the outrage? Where was the urgency, the clear and immediate condemnation, the sustained attention and the decisive action? Instead, there was minimisation and there was delay. It was only after First Nations leaders and communities pushed for answers that WA Police confirmed they were investigating the incident as a potential act of terrorism, but that response did not seem to happen automatically—it had to be demanded—and that should concern us.”
“I thank the member for Curtin for moving this motion and also Senator Thorpe for moving it in the other place. It is only by sheer luck that a bomb lobbed into the thick of a crowd at a peaceful rally of First Nations people in Boorloo on 26 January did not detonate, and it was only sheer luck that nobody was killed or seriously injured. This deeply disturbing event and the following response, or lack of it, raises many concerns and questions that need scrutiny and a response. The reality is a home-made bomb was thrown into a peaceful public gathering where families, elders and children were present, gathering in a way that was their democratic right to express their own views. This was a potential mass casualty event and it was avoided not because the risks were managed but because the device failed.”
“This amendment clarifies that offences relating to training, funding or support would apply only where the conduct is intended to facilitate or is likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime. This amendment responds to the recommendation of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It provides better balance, better targeting and better alignment with human rights principles, and, for that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.”
“In criminalising a wide array of activities, such as attending training or providing support after a group has been listed without clear evidentiary thresholds or fair-listing processes, the laws could capture people engaged in an activity that had nothing to do with promoting hatred or violence. Under this bill, a person could be prosecuted simply for receiving training from a listed organisation, even if the training had no connection to hate motivated conduct and the individual had no intention to be involved in hate motivated conduct. The threshold is extremely low for offences of such gravity. Remember that this could result in a person spending several years in jail.”
“That amendment noted that the Australian Human Rights Commission introduced a National Anti-Racism Framework in November of 2024 and the government has not responded. During the very limited consultation on the original exposure draft, numerous significant concerns have been raised, including by the Australian Human Right Commissioner. Many of those concerns remain unresolved in the current version of this bill. One particular area of concern relates to the proposed prohibited hate groups framework. As identified by the Australian Human Rights Commission, this framework is overly broad, lacks essential procedural fairness and risks criminalising people on the basis of association rather than on their conduct or their intention. It is this critical aspect of the bill that this amendment addresses.”
“This bill seeks to respond to that reality. Whilst I fully support efforts to criminalise the incitement of racial hatred and to prohibit organisations that actively promote or encourage such hatred—these are important and necessary steps—we must also, while seeking to protect one right, ensure that we do not erode others. Our response must be proportionate, well calibrated and firmly grounded in human rights principles. I note the rushed nature of this debate and the lack of time in being able to get across this bill adequately, as well as the compressed nature of the bill. I also note that I had a second reading amendment that I would have liked to have introduced, but debate was curtailed, so I was not able to do that.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 22 (after line 19), after paragraph 114B.4(1)(a), insert: (aa) either: (i) the person intends the training to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or (ii) the training is likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and (2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 23 (after line 9), after paragraph 114B.5(1)(a), insert: (aa) either: (i) the person intends the funds to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or (ii) the funds are likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and (3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 24 (after line 15), after paragraph 114B.6(1)(a), insert: (aa) either: (i) the person intends the support or resources to facilitate the commission of a hate crime; or (ii) the support or resources are likely to materially assist the commission of a hate crime; and All Australians, including Jewish people, have the human right to feel safe in Australia, and, over the last two years, we've witnessed a deeply troubling escalation in antisemitism that has left many Jewish Australians feeling vulnerable to violence in their own communities.”
“It would support community focused harm prevention and report to parliament annually to ensure transparency and accountability. A national firearms safety council would strengthen national coordination and ensure our regulations keep pace with emerging risks and ultimately save lives. These amendments are a practical, evidence based measure that honours Australia's longstanding commitment to preventing gun harm. I commend these amendments to the House and urge all those who care deeply for the safety of Australians to support these amendments.”
“Among its responsibilities, the council would collect, analyse and publish national firearms data including licence and firearm numbers and types, approvals and refusals, and emerging trends; monitor and report on jurisdictions' compliance with the reformed 2026 National Firearms Agreement, identifying gaps, inconsistencies and regulatory failures; provide independent, evidence based advice to governments; commission and coordinate research into firearm related harm including suicide, family and domestic violence, accidental shootings, theft and crimes of violence; and develop national best-practice standards for licensing, safe storage inspection and risk screening. It would also evaluate firearm access pathways to ensure they do not undermine genuine-needs assessments.”
“Australia must not wait until the next major tragedy before again taking action. This proposal stems from the work of the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, which includes Gun Control Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Alannah & Madeline Foundation. It would embed community voices, public health expertise and transparency into national firearms policy. And, crucially, it would operate independently of industry influence.”
“Strong gun laws are not only critical to reducing the potential for massacre events; they are also crucial in the fields of domestic violence and suicide and accidental death prevention. In recent years we've also seen the tragic murders of several police officers in the course of their work. Gun harm is a public health and public safety issue, and yet, to date, the voices of these sectors have been largely drowned out. Whilst I support the provisions in the government's bill to strengthen gun laws today, we must also ensure that, over the years, our National Firearms Agreement evolves to remain fit for purpose. That's why I'm proposing the establishment of an independent, evidence based national firearms safety council, a body designed to ensure Australia's firearm laws continue to evolve and keep Australians safe.”
“The recent Bondi attack, with 15 innocent people murdered and many more injured, was a devastating reminder of the consequences when regulatory systems fail. Authorities have confirmed that the weapons used were legally owned. This exposes serious deficiencies in licensing, firearm categorisation oversight and national coordination. The gradual erosion of the National Firearms Agreement has occurred under sustained pressure from powerful vested interests and cashed-up gun lobby groups in Australia. The Bondi tragedy demands a national response to address these failings. A YouGov poll commissioned in December found that 92 per cent of Australians support stronger gun laws.”
“Regulatory approaches between states and territories have drifted apart, and national oversight mechanisms have weakened. Our gun laws are only as strong as our weakest jurisdiction. In the wake of the Bondi attacks, Australians have been alarmed to realise that, since the Port Arthur massacre, firearm ownership has not decreased but grown significantly, with more than one million firearm owners and four million registered guns—a 25 per cent increase from 1996, with some individuals owning over 250 firearms. The rise in licences and guns has occurred especially in urban areas. In my own urban Sydney electorate, there are at least two individuals that have around 200 guns each; they are not dealers or collectors.”
“221 Chair of Council The Minister must appoint a Council member to be the Chair of the Council if that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with subitem 220(3). Today I'm introducing an amendment to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 that would require the government to establish a national firearms safety council based on the principles of public health and public safety. Australia's firearm management framework, forged in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996, is recognised around the world for saving lives. But, for almost 30 years, our laws have not evolved to keep pace with changes in firearm technology, patterns of ownership or emerging risk factors.”
“Considerations of appointment (3) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Council unless: (a) the Minister first appoints a selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and (b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria: (i) the person has substantial expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following: (A) injury prevention; (B) public health; (C) policing; (D) public or community safety; (E) domestic and family violence; (F) suicide prevention; (G) invasive species; (H) regulatory policy; (ii) integrity; (iii) does not have a current or previous interest in, or represents or has previously represented, any industry, business, organisation or person that has or may benefit financially from changes to firearms regulation, or has a commercial interest in such matters; and (c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and (d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c).”
“220 Appointment of Council members (1) Each Council member is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument, on a part-time basis. (2) An appointed member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 4 years.”
“219 Function of the Council The function of the Council is to provide independent, evidence-based policy advice to governments on any matter relating to firearms and harms that may arise from their use by: (a) collecting, analysing and publishing national firearms data, including licence and firearms numbers and types, firearms categorisation, firearms access laws and practices, and trends across jurisdictions, through regular public reporting; and (b) commissioning and coordinating public health and criminological research into firearms-related harm, including suicide, domestic and family violence, accidental shootings, theft, and crimes of violence; and (c) developing national best-practice standards and benchmarks for firearms regulation, including licensing, storage, training, inspections, and risk screening; and (d) monitoring and reporting annually to the Parliament on jurisdictional compliance with the National Firearms Agreement, and the effectiveness of legal frameworks for the regulation of firearms in Australia, including identifying regulatory failures and making recommendations; and (e) identifying conflicts of interest and regulatory capture risks; and (f) promoting transparency and integrity in firearms governance and advisory processes; and (g) developing harm prevention and education initiatives; and (h) other matters as requested by the Minister.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert: (2) Schedule 2, page 86 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 8 — National Firearms Safety Council 217 National Firearms Safety Council There is established a National Firearms Safety Council (the Council ). 218 Constitution of the Council The Council is to consist of: (a) the Chair; and (b) at least 7, but no more than 10 appointed members.”
“This is a time for unity—to come together and strengthen what is good in this country and not allow hate to weaken us. The day of 14 December displayed the worst of humanity, but it also displayed the best. The countless acts of selflessness and courage showed us that light is stronger than dark after all. On that dark day of 14 December, the light of humanity also blazed powerfully.”
“Even after being critically injured, Jack continued helping others. His actions were driven by an unwavering commitment to protect the community, even at great personal risk. Jack has undergone multiple surgeries and has lost the sight in one eye. Jack helped save lives that day, and all Australians are eternally grateful. Thank you, Jack, for your courage, professionalism and selflessness. In Mackellar we were all so relieved when we heard that Jack had made it home from hospital in time to celebrate Christmas with his family. This tragedy is a stark reminder that we must actively protect our fundamental Australian values of fairness and tolerance. We must renew efforts to eradicate antisemitism and all forms of prejudice.”
“Like others, he understood full well that he could be killed that day, saying to his cousin, 'I'm going to die. Tell my family I saved people's lives.' Acting out of compassion for his fellow humans, Ahmed not only saved innumerable lives that day but also helped prevent the further fracturing of our social cohesion, by unintentionally preventing the collective blame of an entire community. This is absolutely critical because, as Ali Kadri said in his article on 17 December, identity based suspicion does not make society safer. It fractures trust, deepens resentment and creates the very conditions in which violence becomes more likely. I also want to make special mention of 22-year-old Mackellar local Probationary Constable Jack Hibbert, who graduated just four months earlier. He was one of the first police officers to respond.”
“Our heartfelt thanks go to the police officers, paramedics, ambulance officers, healthcare workers and emergency services. Special thanks must also go to the local lifeguards and lifesavers, many of whom ran into live fire to help. Their bravery and composure saved lives in unimaginable circumstances. Thank you to all the incredibly brave bystanders—people of different faiths and backgrounds—who, against all natural instincts, ran towards danger, not away from it, to respond with courage and compassion. This is the true Aussie spirit, and you made us beyond proud. Amongst the many incredible acts of heroism, I want to make special mention of the actions of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a Syrian born Muslim man who acted to disarm one of the shooters.”
“This was a sickening act of antisemitic violence that targeted the Australian Jewish community on a day that should have been one of hope for them and a celebration of light prevailing over dark. This is not the Australia we know; it is not the Australia we will accept. All Australians should feel safe and welcome in this country. The day of 14 December was also a day of extraordinary courage and care, heroism and love—love for our neighbours, for fellow Australians, for fellow human beings. So I would like to extend a number of enormous thankyous on behalf of the people of Mackellar. Firstly, thank you from the bottom of our hearts to all the bystanders and first responders who put their own lives at risk to save others that day. I cannot imagine the level of relief of those injured when people arrived to help them so quickly.”