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 8 of 11.
“We do not have a gas shortage problem in Australia; we have a gas export problem. Thanks to the work of the Australia Institute, we know that over half of Australia's gas exports are given away for free, without gas companies paying any royalties or petroleum resources rent tax. Since 2015, gas companies have exported nearly $132 billion worth of liquefied natural gas from Gladstone, in Queensland. Six out of 10 of these gas companies have paid zero company tax on these exports. In Australia, more tax is paid by both nurses and teachers than by gas companies. No wonder the ATO has labelled the gas industry as a 'systemic nonpayer of tax'. We cannot let the same thing happen to our critical minerals industry.”
“Gas exports use 13 times more gas than Australia's entire manufacturing industry each year, yet here in Australia the Tomago smelter, which supplies 40 per cent of Australia's aluminium, faces closure because of a so-called gas shortage and sky-high prices in Australia. The so-called gas shortage in Australia comes on the back of consecutive federal governments putting Australia last instead of first. While manufacturing businesses face closure due to so-called energy shortages both on the east and west coast of Australia, governments continue to allow predominantly foreign owned fossil fuel companies to export record amounts of LNG. Japan, for example, buys 43 per cent of imported gas from Australia, and then, for the last few years, has onsold more than this amount for profit.”
“So let's explore our experience of gas exports in Australia, because, as the saying goes, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Currently, Australia is paying a higher price for our gas than many countries importing it from us. In a cost-of-living crisis, this putting unnecessary pressure on families and, in many cases, driving manufacturers to the wall. Here in Australia we have an abundance of gas. Australia produces more than six times the amount of gas we need to supply our manufacturing industry, power stations, homes and businesses. We are the second largest exporter of LNG in the world, and 90 per cent of our gas is used for export.”
“And, as recently as two days ago, European carmakers warned that they may have to halt production in the next couple of days due to a shortage of chips and semiconductors following a dispute with China over control of the Dutch chipmaker Nexperia, which is owned by China's Wingtech. So it is clearly critical—pun intended—that we secure and diversify supply of these critical minerals and products. It is essential to the future security and prosperity of our nation and many of our allies. The recent critical mineral deal struck with our close allies America, Canada and Japan represents an exciting opportunity for Australia, if we get it right. But the experience of our gas export industry stands as a stark warning of just how wrong we can get it.”
“They're called 'critical' for a reason. Critical minerals and rare earths are the gateway to a decarbonised future. They are crucial to the manufacture of products including electric cars, wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries and solar cells. However, China has built a near monopoly on this industry, producing more than 90 per cent of rare earths and rare-earth magnets. Currently all G7 countries except Japan are heavily or exclusively reliant on China for these products. It's never good to put all your eggs in one basket, and the supply of these critical minerals and products is already under threat. Last month, China restricted the export of rare earth minerals and the products that use them as part of the trade fight with Donald Trump.”
“My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In February 2023, the Minister for the Public Service announced an inquiry into public sector board appointments to end the jobs-for-mates culture of the previous coalition government. The minister stated: 'In line with the government’s commitment to transparency, a report will be published after the review is finalised in mid-2023.' The government has had over two years to consider its findings and has repeatedly refused to make the report public. When will the government release the Briggs report and legislate a transparent, merit based appointment process across the public sector?”
“To build that future, Parliament must take steps of responsibility not just for what happens now, but for what happens next. That means: - Embedding a legal duty to consider the long-term impacts of decisions; - Investing in public education, so every Aussie kid, not just the lucky few, can thrive; - Funding real solutions to the mental health crisis; - Closing the gender pay gap; and - Giving young women a seat at every table where power is held. 'What do I want to be when I grow up?' I want to be heard. I want to lead. I want a future worth growing into. And I want to trust the government to take the steps to build a better tomorrow for young Australians.”
“I rise to share Mackellar student Imogen Kee's thoughtful response to this year's Raise our Voice campaign, which asked, 'How can government build a better future for young Australians?' Imogen wrote: "What do you want to be when you grow up?" It's a question we've been asked since we were five. The older I get, the harder it is to answer, not because I don't have dreams but because I wonder what kind of Australia I'll be stepping into. An Australia where climate change has gone unchecked. Where mental health is in crisis. Where access to opportunity depends on your postcode. And where young women still earn less than men of equal ability. Young Australians don't just want to grow up, we want to grow into a future that's fair, sustainable, and equal.”
“The children's schools are doing their best, but they are already stretched to capacity and don't have the required expertise. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader experience as children with clear developmental needs are being exited from the scheme before the new supports are in place. The Thriving Kids program is welcome in principle, but we must ensure that, as government works with families and the sectors to design this program, transitional safeguards are in place. No child in our community should be left without the care and support they need during these early vital years. Our children deserve better, our families deserve certainty, and our community deserves a system that works for everyone.”
“Despite assurances from the government that no child would be removed from the NDIS before foundational supports are in place, I have heard from local providers and families that this is not the case. One local provider, Kids First, has had to advocate for 10 families whose children were exited from the NDIS when their funding expired. These families were left without support for up to five months—months that are critical in a child's development. This has caused immense stress and disrupted care, and has led to setbacks in the children's progress. Another local speech pathologist shared with me that two of his young clients have also already been removed from the NDIS despite no alternative supports being available. The proposed Thriving Kids program is intended to fill this gap, but has not yet been designed or implemented.”
“I speak today on behalf of families in my community of Mackellar who are very worried about the transition to the new Thriving Kids which the government plans to roll out from July 2026. The 2023 NDIS review recommended investing in foundational supports outside the NDIS for children aged zero to eight years with mild-to-moderate developmental delay or disability, including autism. The goal is to ensure early identification and support for children while also ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. These are incredibly important goals; we all want our children to have the best possible start in life and we all want a sustainable NDIS, but in the rush to implement change, our community is already feeling the unintended consequences.”
“While the creation of the Australian CDC as a statutory Commonwealth entity with clear lines of accountability delivers on this objective, public trust will absolutely hinge on the CDC's independence from political interference now and into the future. The politicisation of the US CDC, under the influence of health secretary Robert F Kennedy, has shown how misinformation and political pressure can undermine scientific leadership. Australia must proactively design safeguards to prevent similar vulnerabilities. My amendment to this bill would do this, so it's somewhat alarming that the way this bill is currently drafted means that the minister of the day will retain discretion over the appointment of the director-general. Again I say: let's establish this really important institution in a way that safeguards its integrity.”
“The amendments I'm introducing today are also made in good faith and will do four things. Firstly, they'll create an independent selection process for the appointment of the director-general and the advisory council. Secondly, they stipulate that the chair of the advisory council be a member of the council rather than the director-general. Thirdly, they expand the functions of the director-general to include both the promotion of research and advice to government on workforce capability. Lastly, they ensure consultation occurs with preventive health bodies. A central objective of the Australian Centre for Disease Control is to guide independent, evidence based public health decision-making that builds and maintains public trust.”
“(5) Clause 30, page 28 (line 25) to page 29 (line 10), omit subclause (4), substitute: Process for appointment (4) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Advisory 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 at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria: (i) appropriate expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following: (A) public health matters; (B) clinical practice; (C) economics; (D) human rights; (E) data and statistics relating to public health matters; (F) emergency management; (G) communications; (H) any other field that the Minister considers appropriate; (ii) integrity; (iii) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and (c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 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 paragraph (b).”
“(2) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 19), after subparagraph (h)(v), insert: (va) bodies whose objects include the prevention and management of occupational disease and injuries; (3) Clause 11, page 17 (after line 3), after paragraph (j), insert: (ja) promoting public health research through: (i) maintaining close relationships with key public health research entities; and (ii) providing advice to government grant making entities on research priorities for public health matters; (jb) building and enhancing expertise in relevant public health expertise and workforce capacity; (4) Clause 29, page 28 (lines 11 and 12), omit the clause, substitute: 29 Chair of the Advisory Council The Minister must appoint an Advisory Council member other than the Director-General to be the Chair of the Advisory Council.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 10, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The Minister must not appoint a person as the Director-General 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 at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria: (i) appropriate expertise; (ii) qualifications or experience in public health matters; (iii) integrity; (iv) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and (c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 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 paragraph (b).”
“So my question to the Minister for Health and Ageing and the government is this: what is the government doing to ensure Australia is on track to dedicating at least five per cent of the health budget to prevention by 2030, as outlined in the National Preventive Health Strategy? And will the government implement the recommendations of the inquiry into diabetes mellitus in Australia—specifically, the introduction of a tiered levy on sugar sweetened beverages and the regulation of the marketing and advertising of unhealthy food to children?”
“The recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into the state of diabetes mellitus in Australia in 2024 called for more diabetes prevention measures, including food labelling and a levy on sugary drinks, and for the Australian government to consider regulating the marketing and advertising of unhealthy food to children. The time for action is now, and we have the evidence and the policy frameworks. The cost of inaction is mounting. By increasing investment in preventive health to five per cent of health spending, the Australian government can reduce long-term healthcare costs, enhance productivity and improve community health and wellbeing now and for future generations.”
“Rates of obesity have tripled since 1980, and the prevalence of diabetes has nearly tripled since 2000. Australia is now among the countries with the highest obesity rates worldwide. Currently, 24 per cent of Australian children are overweight or obese, placing them on a trajectory to chronic disease. Among adults, these figures rise to 63 per cent, revealing a systemic challenge that begins in childhood and compounds over time. This escalating burden underscores the critical importance of prevention as the most effective strategy to halt the rising tide of obesity and related chronic disease.”
“Failing to act comes at a cost to both our health and our wealth. Chronic conditions are the biggest killer in Australia, making up to 85 per cent of the burden of disease and contributing to nine in 10 deaths. Chronic conditions contribute to around 6.4 million hospitalisations per year. That's 55 per cent of the total, which costs the government approximately $82 billion a year. People with chronic disease are 60 per cent more likely to not participate in the labour force, are less likely to be employed full time and are more likely to be unemployed than those without a chronic disease. In 2024 over one-third of the total burden of disease in Australia could have been prevented by reducing exposure to all the modifiable risk factors. Obesity and diabetes, in particular, have become pressing public health problems in Australia.”
“As our population ages and chronic disease prevalence grows, our demand on the health budget will continue to expand unless something changes. That change must be increased investment in prevention of chronic, non-communicable diseases. It is the key both to better population health outcomes for Australians and to reducing our health expenditure. The National Preventive Health Strategy sets a clear target. Five per cent of the health budget should be dedicated to prevention by 2030. Despite this, Australia currently only allocates two per cent of its health budget to prevention, accounting for roughly 0.2 per cent of GDP. This is a fraction of what the UK and Canada dedicate to illness prevention initiatives, which are at five to six per cent and seven to eight per cent respectively.”
“I would like to question the government today about a critical area of health reform—our national approach to preventive health. For many years successive governments' approach to health funding has been reactive rather than proactive. State and territory health systems around the country are now dealing with the financial consequences of this, and many are in crisis. Hospitals and emergency departments remain under pressure with too-frequent ramping of ambulances and bed block, and surgery waitlists continue to grow. The five-yearly National Health Reform Agenda to fund hospitals is being renegotiated right now. State and territory leaders claim that the federal government's proposed funding changes leave them tens of billions of dollars short of agreed-upon public hospital cost-sharing commitments.”
“I move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "(1) notes that: (a) chronic conditions: (i) are the biggest killer in Australia, contributing to nearly 9 out of 10 deaths; (ii) result in 6.4 million preventable hospitalisations per year costing approximately $82 billion in health expenditure; and (iii) are estimated to cost $67.7 billion in lost labour force participation by 2030; and (b) preventing and reducing this burden of disease would provide an estimated $8 billion in extra earnings, and $6.3 billion in welfare support and hospital admission savings annually; and (2) calls on the Government to include prevention of chronic conditions as part of the Australian Centre for Disease Control's mission from the outset".”
“If we are serious about building a strong, independent and effective public health institution, we must back it with the resources it needs to succeed. In conclusion, I commend the government for taking this important step in establishing the Australian Centre for Disease Control, and I acknowledge and thank the minister for his leadership in bringing this long-awaited reform forward. With some targeted improvements, such as embedding prevention and chronic disease within the CDC's foundational scope, ensuring an independent appointment process for its director-general and advisory council, strengthening its remit on climate and health and providing it with adequate and sustained funding, the CDC could be truly a world-class institution that protects and promotes the health of all Australians.”
“Finally, the Australian Centre for Disease Control must be properly funded to fulfil its mandate. Preventive health care is consistently underfunded and often overshadowed by more immediate and politically visible health pressures, but the establishment of the CDC presents a rare opportunity to shift that pattern. The government's current commitment of $250 million over four years, with further funding for ongoing annual operations, falls well short of what is needed. For comparison, the Rudd government allocated $218 million to chronic disease prevention programs in a single year. With a total health and aged-care budget of $146 billion in 2024-25, the CDC's proposed funding is entirely inadequate.”
“While this advice must relate to public health matters, which is defined broadly at clause 5 of the bill to include 'preventative health, environmental health and the health effects of climate change', it is currently not an explicit function of the director-general to consult with and provided advice to bodies whose objects include mitigation of an adaptation to climate change. The member for Kooyong is moving an amendment to that effect, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment. I also strongly support the member for Kooyong's amendment that would require the minister to prepare a biennial statement on the health effects of climate change to be tabled in each house of the parliament. Health and climate are inextricably linked, and we must recognise and respond to the growing health impacts of a warming world.”
“It is already driving increases in heat related illnesses, the spread of infectious diseases, food and water insecurity and the displacement of vulnerable populations. A national CDC must be equipped to respond to these complex and evolving challenges with evidence based strategies and long-term planning. While the current interim CDC includes a climate and health expert group charged with implementing a national health and climate strategy, it is not clear whether it will be funded and staffed to undertake this role before the agency's initial review in 2028. Additionally, one of the key functions of the director-general is the provision of public health advice to Commonwealth ministers, Commonwealth entities, state and territory entities, international organisations and a range of other public health bodies.”
“I also support the member for Indi's related amendment that would ensure an independent and transparent review of the operation of the act, and I will be moving an amendment to ensure that the chair of the advisory council is selected from the council rather than being the director-general, which, as currently drafted, unnecessarily risks undermining the independence and accountability of the council's advice. Next, I want to turn to the relationship between the CDC and climate change and how this connection could be strengthened to ensure our public health response is aligned with the realities of a warming world. Climate change is one of the greatest threats—it is the greatest threat—to global public health.”
“I will be moving amendments to the bill to ensure that the appointment of both the director-general and members of the advisory council includes the establishment of an appropriately qualified selection panel for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for the appointment; a requirement for the panel to advertise the appointment, conduct interviews and shortlist at least three candidates for appointment; a requirement for the panel to consider the criteria set out in clause 10 as well as quality, experience, integrity and opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; a requirement for the panel to provide a comparative assessment of the candidates and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for the appointment; and, finally, a requirement that the minister may only appoint from those shortlisted candidates.”
“This shift has been made possible in large part because the health secretary holds the power to hire and fire the CDC leadership. Dr Susan Monarez was dismissed as director of the US CDC by Secretary Kennedy after just one month in that role. In testimony before the US Senate, she stated that her dismissal followed her refusal to terminate senior scientists or to preapprove changes to vaccine guidance without access to the relevant scientific data. The White House later confirmed that she was removed because she was 'not aligned with the President's agenda'. This example underscores the critical importance of ensuring that our own CDC is built on a foundation of independence, scientific rigour and transparency.”
“As we prepare for the creation of our own Australian Centre for Disease Control, many have looked on with deep concern at recent developments in the US, where Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy Jr's former deputy has been selected as the interim director of the US CDC. As a doctor, I understand intimately the importance of ensuring that public health advice is grounded in science, not personal opinion or political ideology. That is precisely why double-blind randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard of medical evidence. They are designed to minimise human bias and uphold scientific integrity. In the case of the US CDC, we are now witnessing one of the world's most respected scientific institutions being influenced by a figure with a well-known history of vaccine scepticism.”
“Ideally, this would be undertaken within a comprehensive Commonwealth framework for transparent and quality appointments, such as was put forward in my own Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill that I introduced in this place in 2023. However, in the absence of this framework, the bill itself should be amended to ensure that the appointment of the director-general and members of the advisory council is independent from government. This is essential not only to safeguard the integrity of the CDC's scientific advice but also to avoid any perception of political interference, undue influence or jobs for mates. Public trust in the CDC will depend on its ability to operate transparently and free from partisan interests, and that begins with how its leadership is selected.”
“Waiting another two years to consider including prevention of non-communicable diseases in the remit of the Australian CDC is not good enough. We must listen to the healthcare professionals who are seeing the costly and debilitating impact of chronic disease on Australians and include the prevention of chronic conditions in the mission of the Australian CDC from the start. Next, I am deeply concerned by the lack of an independent appointment process for both the director-general and the advisory council members. Both the director-general and the advisory council members represent significant public appointments, and they should be subject to a transparent and quality appointments process.”
“The report, based on the results from the health of the nation survey of nearly 3,000 GPs, found that the prevalence of chronic diseases, including diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular conditions, is a major concern for GPs across the country. These conditions are often presenting earlier and with greater complexity and multimorbidity, requiring sustained and coordinated management. The alarming fact is that more than one-third of Australia's burden of disease in 2024 could have been prevented by reducing exposure to modifiable risk factors. GPs are uniquely placed to provide comprehensive preventive care, and the health of the nation report shows that four in five GPs want to provide more of this type of care, but they need increased MBS rebates and incentive schemes to be able to do so.”
“As asserted by the University of Sydney School of Public Health, the Australian CDC will underperform if it is purely limited to infection disease outbreaks from the outset and must include chronic disease prevention. Both the George Institute for Global Health and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners support the establishment of an Australian CDC that incorporates both communicable and non-communicable disease prevention. This year's General practice: health of the nation 2025 report shows that, in 2022, an estimated 15.4 million Australians were living with a long-term or chronic health condition.”
“I want to speak firstly to the foundational scope of the CDC, which does not reflect Australia's burden of disease. Currently, the scope of the CDC excludes prevention of non-communicable diseases or chronic conditions altogether. While the draft legislation specifies that the inclusion of chronic conditions in the CDC's remit will be considered by a review of operations and funding in 2028, the reality is that our population and our health system cannot wait. Excluding the prevention of chronic disease from the foundational scope of the CDC is a missed opportunity for the future of public health. Chronic conditions are right now driving the greatest morbidity, inequity and health costs in our country.”
“These concerns relate to the exclusion of prevention of non-communicable diseases or chronic conditions from the foundational scope of the CDC, the lack of an independent selection process for the employment of the director-general and the members of the advisory council, the lack of an explicit climate change ambit, and the limited functions of the director-general, which currently do not include the promotion of research or ensuring workforce capability. I have raised these concerns in detail with the Minister for Health and Ageing with the aim of ensuring that the final legislation delivers the robust, independent and effective public health agency that Australians deserve, and I thank the minister and his staff for their time and consideration.”
“The idea of a national CDC has been discussed for multiple decades, with repeated calls for it to be established from public health experts and professional bodies dating back to the 1980s. It was promised during the 2022 federal election and has been the subject of extensive consultation since. While I strongly support the intent of this bill, I do have a number of concerns about specific provisions and believe the bill could be improved.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 and commend the government for establishing an Australian CDC to permanently monitor and assess public health risks, proactively work to prevent them and prepare Australia for future health crises. The establishment of an Australian centre for disease control is long overdue and is a welcome initiative. It represents a critical step forward in strengthening our national public health infrastructure and ensuring we are better prepared for future health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed serious gaps in our readiness, coordination and data sharing, and this bill seeks to address many of those shortcomings.”
“My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The former director-general of the American Centers for Disease Control, Dr Susan Monarez, testified that she was illegally sacked from the role by the US secretary for health for refusing to fire top scientists at the agency or to pre-approve changes to vaccine advice without evaluating the evidence. In her place, the health secretary's own deputy has been inserted into the role. Minister, will the Australian CDC be safeguarded from political interference by ensuring that its director-general is appointed from a shortlist determined by an independent selection panel?”
“Secondly, I believe the government needs to better explain the decision to reduce the frequency of the assessments of ASIC and APRA, particularly at a time when many Australians are reeling from the collapse of First Guardian and looking to our corporate regulators for answers and resolutions. Finally, I urge this government to stop extending the instant asset write-off in a piecemeal fashion one year at a time. Small businesses deserve better.”
“These are the kinds of reforms we need, not just temporary fixes like the yearly extension of the instant asset write-off but structural changes that give small businesses the certainty and support they deserve because they are the backbone of our communities. They are our cafe owners, florists, tradies, creatives and carers. They deserve a tax system that works for them. So, in conclusion, yes, much of this bill is sensible. It improves transparency, strengthens oversight and supports consumer protections. While I support the extension of the energy market misconduct rules, I urge the government to take real action on energy affordability, starting with cancelling expensive gas projects like Narrabri.”
“Additionally, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has long called for meaningful relief from the tax burden placed on small businesses, and they are right. Small businesses don't need gimmicks or policies that reward long lunches. They need real, practical support to help them grow, innovate and invest in their future. When small businesses thrive, they create jobs, lift productivity and strengthen our communities. But COSBOA has identified a major barrier to innovation. It is access to finance. A $20,000 tax-free threshold for small businesses would help unlock the capital they need to invest in new ideas, improve efficiency and build resilience.”
“I strongly believe that it is the small-business owners themselves that are best placed to decide how to reinvest the savings into their businesses. This policy is the product of months of conversations, listening and walking the streets of Mackellar. I have spent countless hours doorknocking local small businesses and hearing from them about just how tough the last few years have been. Businesses have told me repeatedly about rising costs, shrinking margins and the sheer pressure of trying to stay afloat. Our shopping strips have too many empty shopfronts, and behind every one is a story of struggle, resilience and, often, frustration. I ran a local business survey, and the results were clear. A staggering 86 per cent of respondents said that the escalating cost of doing business was their No. 1 concern.”
“But the way it's delivered, one year at a time, with no certainty, is just not good enough. I've spoken to many local businesses—cafe owners, tradies, retailers and creatives—all trying to grow their businesses and trying to plan ahead, and they're tired of the uncertainty. To give small businesses the confidence they deserve, I implore this government to finally make the measure permanent. But we should go further. That's why I have proposed a $20,000 tax-free threshold for all small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million. This simple change could reduce a small business's tax bill by up to $5,000 a year—money that could be reinvested in innovation, energy efficiency, staffing, renovations or simply provide some much-needed cost-of-living relief.”
“We must ensure our regulators are empowered, resourced and independent enough to act swiftly and decisively in cases such as this, and I do not believe the government have sufficiently explained their decision to reduce the frequency of assessments of the effectiveness and capability of ASIC and APRA at a time like this. Finally, schedule 7 is about the instant asset write-off. This measure has been rolled over year after year, one year at a time, always tucked into treasury laws amendments bills like this one, and every year small businesses are left wondering: 'Will it be renewed? Can I plan ahead? Can I invest?' The write-off itself is good. It helps small businesses invest in tools, equipment and upgrades. It improves cash flow and it reduces compliance costs.”
“This has been made painfully clear by the collapse of the First Guardian and Shield master funds, which have left more than 12,000 investors, including many retirees, facing devastating losses exceeding $1 billion in total. These Australian managed investment schemes were allegedly riddled with misconduct. ASIC is now conducting multiple investigations into these collapses and seeking to preserve any remaining assets, but this case exposes serious flaws in our financial regulatory system and the importance of our regulators. I have heard directly from people in my community who have been devastated by the collapse of First Guardian and are desperate for answers.”
“However, this is contrary to the recommendations of the Senate Economics References Committee, which in its inquiry into ASIC's investigation and enforcement activities recommended that the Australian government reverse its decision announced in the 2023-24 budget to reduce the frequency of Financial Regulator Assessment Authority reviews from every two years to every five years and that the FRAA undertake an inquiry into the effectiveness of the oversight mechanisms of corporate regulators. The ability of our corporate regulators to do their job to hold financial entities to account and to regulate financial services and products in a way that protects consumers is absolutely paramount.”
“These change how often the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority conducts reviews of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA. The bill decreases the frequency of those reviews from every two years to every five years, ostensibly to lessen the regulatory burden on ASIC and APRA and to allow for a more comprehensive review process of these financial regulators.”
“Research by the Institute for Energy, Economics and Financial Analysis shows that gas from Narrabri is up to 40 per cent more expensive than gas from Queensland. Narrabri gas will drive up prices, not to mention locking in decades of pollution and making our already weak climate targets harder to meet. It will lock us into high-cost fossil fuels and it will undermine our transition to clean energy. Extending energy market misconduct provisions as this bill does may be a sensible step, but cheaper, more reliable energy will be a pipedream if the government continues to lock in expensive gas infrastructure that undermines affordability and competitiveness. As I said, much of this bill is reasonable and sensible; however, I am concerned about the measures in schedule 3.”