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 9 of 11.
“It was designed to address some of the causes of sharply increasing electricity prices in the decade to 2017. With key provisions due to sunset shortly, it's reasonable for the government to extend these provisions for another five years following the review by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water into how they have impacted market efficiency, reliability, affordability, emissions and investment, but let's be honest: extending misconduct rules is not enough. If the government is serious about lowering energy prices, it must go beyond market reforms and regulations and home energy efficiency upgrades. It must stop backing and approving expensive fossil fuel projects, like Narrabri gas.”
“Schedule 5 is a set of machinery amendments. Schedule 6 extends the energy market misconduct provisions. In 2017, the ACCC was asked to conduct a detailed inquiry into the retail electricity market, looking at both supply and the competitiveness of pricing. This inquiry, the retail electricity pricing inquiry, or REPI, delivered its final report to the government in July 2018. It found that, over the previous decade, average residential electricity bills had risen by more than 35 per cent in real terms. The report identified a wide range of contributing factors and put forward 56 recommendations, aimed at bringing down prices and restoring consumer confidence. In addition to implementing many of those recommendations, the government introduced the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Act in 2019.”
“The people of Mackellar consistently tell me, loud and clear, that they are sick of scams. Whether it is credit card fraud, cybercrime and data breaches or transactions involving faulty products or impersonation fraud: it is hurting people and it is eroding trust. This bill clarifies the functions and powers of the Scams Prevention Framework general regulator, but let's be clear: the government's Scams Prevention Framework only goes part way. We need a whole-of-government crackdown on scams and a presumption of reimbursement as recommended by consumer advocates, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, CHOICE and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network. Victims should not be further punished by having to wait months, and often years, for reimbursement, and I will keep pushing for this reimbursement model.”
“It gives the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission more power to disclose information about investigations and regulatory actions when it is in the public interest. This comes directly from the independent review of the ACNC, which recommended: … The Commissioner be given a discretion to disclose information about regulatory activities (including investigations) when it is necessary to protect public trust and confidence in the sector. Charities and not-for-profits do vital work in our communities. They support mental health, homelessness, education, the environment and so much more. Public confidence in their integrity is essential, and transparency is the foundation of that confidence. Schedule 4 makes technical amendments to the Scams Prevention Framework. These may be minor and technical amendments, but they matter.”
“Importantly, it gives ASIC stronger powers to enforce compliance and increases penalties for misconduct, ultimately cracking down on hidden ownership and improving corporate accountability—something I strongly support and something that is broadly supported by major interest groups, including the Australasian Investor Relations Association, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, MUFG Corporate Markets, Ownership Matters, Transparency International Australia and the Tax Justice Network Australia. People in Mackellar expect fairness and they expect transparency. They want to see government hold corporations to account, and this measure helps deliver that. Schedule 2 deals with the charities and not-for-profit sector.”
“It is beyond time that we gave small businesses the certainty they deserve. As I said, the bulk of this bill is sensible and necessary. Schedule 1 is about corporate transparency. It enhances the rules around substantial holdings and beneficial ownership for listed entities, making it clearer who really owns and controls companies operating in Australia. It brings interests arriving from equity derivatives into the disclosure regime so that all types of interests are treated consistently. It also ensures that foreign registered entities listed on Australian markets meet the same disclosure standards as local companies.”
“Let me start by saying that much of what's in this bill is sensible. It makes some important technical fixes and introduces a range of amendments across financial services, corporate regulation and taxation, including enhancing ownership disclosure for listed entities, implementing a recommendation of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission legislation review and extending consumer protections in the energy market. It also legislates the instant asset write-off for small businesses. But, once again, we see this important measure being extended for just one year. Once again, small businesses will be left in limbo, holding on, waiting to see if the government will renew the measure next year. This is not how we should be treating the backbone of our economy.”
“I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 and, whilst not declining to give this bill a second reading, I move: That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: (1) notes that the bill continues the practice of legislating the instant asset write-off measure annually, which creates uncertainty and discourages investment at a time when many small businesses are already struggling; and (2) calls on the Government to do more to support small businesses, including: (a) making the instant asset write-off permanent; and (b) adopting a $20,000 tax-free threshold for small business operators with annual turnover of less than $10 million, as proposed by the Member for Mackellar".”
“The medical professionals, nurses, midwives, allied health and administrative staff are all incredible and have worked tirelessly to deliver the best-quality care possible. However, there is a complexity with the transition, and that is that many of the public and private services are intermingled and will be tricky to untangle. But it is absolutely imperative that the transition does not impact the delivery of private healthcare services at the hospital. In Mackellar, 77 per cent of adults have private hospital cover, so the people of the northern beaches need an assurance from the New South Wales health minister that the new model of care at the Northern Beaches Hospital retains the current level of private healthcare services, including the full complement of inpatient beds. (Time expired)”
“The Northern Beaches Hospital in Mackellar is the last public-private partnership hospital in New South Wales—but not for much longer. The private operator themselves conceded in April that it is best for patients, staff and the community that the Northern Beaches Hospital be transitioned to NSW Health to administer. The good news is the New South Wales government is currently working towards this transition. The transition of the public hospital means it will now be eligible for the same staff-to-patient ratios, junior doctor levels, IT systems and resourcing that is available to all other public hospitals across New South Wales. The issues with the Northern Beaches Hospital were never about the staff.”
“That's why this week I introduced the Road Vehicle Standards Amendment (Safer E-Bikes) Bill 2025, which would legislate a national standard for the importation of e-bikes, ensuring that only compliant, safe devices enter the country. E-bikes are a clean, accessible and empowering form of transport, but we must act now to make sure they are safe for both riders and pedestrians alike.”
“All levels of government, together with community, need to step up to make e-bikes safe for the whole community. At the federal level the problem is that currently e-bikes do not have to meet any minimum safety or quality standards when being imported into the country. This has led to an explosion in the number of bikes that can be easily modified to go at speeds well above 50 kilometres an hour—without any peddling at all. This makes them more motorbike than bicycle. We also heard from a local bike retailer who has found that, when servicing e-bikes, around 80 per cent of bikes have been modified in this way to exceed legal speed limits. A legal e-bike is one where the electric motor only assists the rider when they are pedalling and cuts out at 25 kilometres an hour.”
“This sentiment was echoed in a Northern Beaches Council youth survey which found that, for young people aged 12 to 17, transport is their second-most-important issue. We also heard from pedestrians who are fearful for their safety on footpaths. This is particularly acute for people with hearing and vision impairments. We heard from trauma surgeons who spoke of the rise in critical injuries: head injuries, spinal trauma and fractures. We heard from parents who are confused about what is legal and what is not, and we heard from local police who are grappling with enforcement challenges. Pedestrians are fearful of being hit by speeding bikes, riders are fearful of being hit by a car, and drivers are fearful of hitting a rider. I do not want to see any fatalities or serious injuries in Mackellar on my watch.”
“I recently co-hosted a community forum with the NSW member for Pittwater, Jacqui Scruby, to discuss the evolving use of e-bikes on the northern beaches of Sydney. E-bikes are a fun and clean way to get around, and their use in the electorate of Mackellar has exploded. But with this rise in popularity has come a rise in concern about safety for both riders and pedestrians. We heard directly from young riders, parents, police, pedestrians, e-bike retailers, transport experts, trauma physicians and school principals about the growing use of e-bikes. A 14-year-old local, Tilly, shared how her e-bike has given her independence, allowing her to explore her community, connect with friends and get to school on time.”
“These are not radical ideas, but we also need to look beyond individual tax reforms. The truth is our inability to deliver fair and future-focused tax policy is a symptom of deeper structural policy dysfunction, which is why I have been advocating for a 'wellbeing of future generations' act and commission.”
“In the area of preventive health, targeted taxes on junk food and gambling could not only reduce harm but also generate revenue to reinvest in public health. What better way to improve the wellbeing and productivity of Australians than to help them live healthy lives? Instead we allow our young people to be the cannon fodder for the profits of predatory multinational gambling and junk food companies at the expense of their health. In housing, we need to discuss reforming the tax concessions, including the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, to help give our younger Australians a fairer go when it comes to buying their first home. This does not have to be an all-or-nothing equation. Reforms could be grandfathered or limited to a set number of investment properties.”
“Many of these opportunities would raise revenue while improving intergenerational equity and long-term sustainability. Reforming the petroleum resource rent tax, for example, could ensure Australians receive a fairer return for the extraction and export of our natural resources. Norway has built an almost $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of their resource taxation so that future generations can thrive. We, on the other hand, have an almost $1 trillion debt that will burden our future generations for decades to come. Also, here in Australia, the government currently collects four time as much money from student HECS repayments as it does from the petroleum resource rent tax. This is despite these multinational fossil fuel corporations being amongst the most profitable companies in the world. We've got it backwards.”
“Today's younger generations face a growing set of economic challenges in the rising cost of education, rising cost-of-living pressures and, of course, lack of affordable housing to rent or buy—such that many young people have given up the hope of ever owning their own home. These burdens are compounded by a tax system that leans heavily on income tax. As our population continues to age and spending continues to grow, including for aged care, health and the NDIS, we will become increasingly reliant on taxing an ever-shrinking proportion of income earners. Former Treasury secretary Ken Henry called this an intergenerational tragedy, and I could not agree more. The good news is that there are clear opportunities to make meaningful progress to reform Australia's tax system.”
“It also stated: Tax reform is … important in terms of providing a robust tax base that will grow in line with the economy. Then, in 2010, the review of Australia's future tax system, chaired by Dr Ken Henry, laid out another compelling case for change. It warned that our heavy reliance on taxing labour income, transactions and the normal return on capital would ultimately undermine productivity growth and workforce participation—key drivers of future living standards. It identified that a broader, more sustainable tax base, including properly taxing our resources, is essential to meeting the demands of a changing economy. Yet, despite these insights and warning signs over 20 years, we are yet to see the kind of comprehensive reform that matches the scale of the challenges before us.”
“Young people today will be the first generation in modern history to be worse off than their parents. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since Australia last undertook broad structural reform of our tax system. Over that time, the warning signs have been clear: productivity growth has slowed through the early decades of the 21st century and Commonwealth spending has continued to rise—just as projected in the very first intergenerational report, back in 2002. That intergenerational report made clear that, without reform, our tax system would struggle to support the demands of future generations. It warned: Deterioration of our natural capital would be likely to affect the wellbeing of current and future generations, reduce the economic base and consequently affect intergenerational equity.”
“So what are we waiting for? By increasing investment in preventive health to five per cent of total health spending and prioritising evidence based prevention measures, the Australian government could reduce long-term healthcare costs, boost productivity and improve community wellbeing. That's a fact.”
“The 2023 parliamentary health committee inquiry into diabetes mellitus in Australia recommended a graded levy on sugar sweetened beverages, including soft drinks, energy drinks and fruit drinks, something that would drive companies to reformulate them to contain less sugar. Health stakeholders including the AMA, the Public Health Association of Australia, the George institute, ACOSS and others support the reformulation levy, and AMA modelling suggests it could generate $4 billion in revenue over four years, which could be reinvested in health promotion and preventive health. The National Preventive Health Strategy estimates that, by addressing the wider determinants of health, 170,000 Australians could enter the workforce, generating $8 billion in extra earnings and annual savings of $4 billion in welfare payments.”
“For the past three years, I've been calling for the government to implement two immediate policy mechanisms to help combat this crisis: the restriction of junk food advertising on TV, radio and social media; and the implementation of a reformulation levy on sugar sweetened beverages. Children aged five to eight are exposed to over 800 junk food ads on TV each year. Restricting junk food advertising during children's viewing hours is a commonsense, evidence based intervention that has been implemented in dozens of countries worldwide. Modelling suggests that banning these ads between 6 am and 9.30 pm would save $780 million in healthcare costs over the lifetime of the 2010 population.”
“Despite having strong national health strategies in the National Preventive Health Strategy and the National Obesity Strategy, the federal government has failed to fully fund and implement them. Currently, one quarter of Australian children are overweight or obese, placing them on a trajectory towards chronic disease. For adults, that figure rises to two thirds. Obesity already costs our health system around $12 billion annually. Without decisive action, this is projected to rise to $88 billion by 2032. The obesity epidemic, in turn, is causing rapid growth in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, a leading cause of heart disease, stroke, amputation, kidney failure and blindness.”
“The Productivity Commission's recent report Delivering quality care more efficiently recommends establishing a national prevention investment framework to support investment in prevention. The benefits of disease prevention for a population's health are manifold, including longer life expectancy, reduced incidence and severity of chronic diseases, improved mental health, better educational outcomes, improved employment prospects, and greater quality of life and sense of wellbeing. Failing to act comes at a cost in terms of both our health and our wealth. Here are some more numbers. In 2023, Australians lost 4.4 million years of healthy life due to chronic conditions. By 2030, lost labour force participation from chronic disease is projected to cost $68 billion.”
“Around 6.4 million hospitalisations each year, 55 per cent of the total, are due to chronic diseases, costing around $82 billion a year. Fact: about half of these are preventable. Another fact: in 2024, over one third of the total disease burden in Australia could have been prevented by reducing exposure to modifiable risk factors. Every dollar invested in prevention yields around $14.30 in healthcare savings and broader economic benefits, yet Australia currently invests only two per cent of the health budget on prevention, significantly less than the UK at five to six per cent and Canada at seven to eight per cent. Fact: we need to do better. The 2023 Intergenerational r eport makes it clear that, to meet escalating health demands and costs, we need a sustainable healthcare system that invests effectively in preventive health.”
“My question is for the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Currently, e-bikes do not have to meet minimum quality or safety standards on import. The result has been a proliferation of e-bikes that can be easily modified to go at speeds well over 50 kilometres an hour without a single push of the pedal. Yesterday, I introduced a bill, the Road Vehicle Standards Amendment (Safer E-Bikes) Bill 2025, to ensure e-bikes imported into Australia meet international best practice standards, and multiple state transport ministers have also written to you seeking federal leadership on this issue. Minister, will you act to ensure imported e-bikes are safe before there are further tragedies, including in my electorate of Mackellar?”
“Anything less than 75 per cent by 2035 risks locking in dangerous climate impacts and undermining our credibility, while a strong target would drive clean energy investment, protect public health and help Australia thrive in a decarbonising global economy. This is also about fairness. Communities on the front line of climate change—regional towns, coastal suburbs and vulnerable populations—deserve leadership that puts their safety and future first. We cannot afford to be timid. The decisions we make now will shape the next generations' opportunities, wellbeing and security. Let's be bold, let's be science led and let's get this right for the sake of our climate, economy and children.”
“Climate change is continually raised as one of the biggest concerns of my community. From parents worried about their children's future, to people who are concerned whether they'll be able to insure their home in areas prone to fires, floods or coastal erosion, they want action that's grounded in science and urgency. Right now, we have a critical opportunity to set Australia's 2035 emissions reduction target, a target that will shape our path towards a net zero economy. This isn't just a number; it's a signal to the world, to investors and to our communities about how serious we are about tackling the climate crisis. Australia is a privileged, wealthy and respected nation. What we do counts, especially in the eyes of our Pacific neighbours.”
“While states and territories are responsible for setting speed limits and writing regulations on our roads and footpaths, the federal government also has a clear role to play in regulating and supporting safe e-bikes by ensuring that e-bikes imported into this country are safe, compliant and fit for purpose, as this bill does. This bill is about protecting riders, pedestrians and drivers—and making our community safe for everyone. And it is about supporting the growth of a sustainable transport mode that can help us meet our climate goals, reduce congestion and improve public health. I commend this bill to the House and cede the remainder of my time to the member for Bradfield.”
“Shifting from car use to active transport and e-mobility on trips like these will help reduce emissions, improve public health, connect people to public transport hubs and make our communities more livable. E-bikes also make cycling accessible to more people—older Australians, people with injuries, those like me who live in hilly areas and those who might not otherwise ride. They are a gateway to healthier, more active lives, but they must be made safe for the entire community. This bill responds to widespread calls from parents, pedestrians, trauma surgeons and state governments for national safety and import standards for e-bikes.”
“This addresses the rapid proliferation of overpowered ebikes, including 'fat bikes' that operate exclusively via throttle without requiring pedalling and which can reach speeds of 50 kilometres per hour and above. Ebikes are a wonderful innovation that will play an increasingly important role in Australia's clean transport future. Transport is currently the third-largest carbon-emitting sector in Australia and is on track to become the highest source of emissions by 2030. According to the Climate Council more than two million car trips in Sydney each day are under two kilometres, and in Melbourne half of all weekday trips are under five kilometres. These are distances that could easily be covered by ebikes. We just need to make them safe to use for both riders and pedestrians.”
“It defines EPACs as road vehicles under the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018 and requires the minister for infrastructure and transport to develop a national standard for EPACs, addressing: Importantly, EPACs that meet this new national standard or are designed for people with disability or off-road use will be exempt from regulation under the act. The bill also calls for a new vehicle class called 'powerful ebikes' and defines them as road vehicles under the Road Vehicle Standards Act, providing the relevant department with the authority to oversee the importation of these bikes. It also requires the minister to create a national road vehicle standard for powerful ebikes.”
“In a joint letter to the federal treasurer and the minister for infrastructure and transport, Bicycle Industries Australia, We Ride Australia and other leading organisations urged the government to reinstate ebikes under the Road Vehicle Standards Act and require compliance with international best practice safety standards such as EN15194. The European standard outlines safety requirements for the design, assembly and testing of electrical power assisted cycles, or EPACs for short. The industry has also made it clear: they want clarity, consistency and safety. This is what this bill responds to.”
“This situation has also created significant challenges for enforcement agencies and confusion amongst consumers about what constitutes a legal device and what can be ridden without being licensed. There is also broad support for reform from state politicians. The New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian transport ministers have all written to the federal government calling for national leadership on unsafe ebike imports and the establishment of national safety standards. The cycling and e-mobility industry is also calling for change.”
“The failure to adequately regulate these bikes is a serious public safety issue. As a doctor who worked in emergency departments for many years and on a neurosurgical award, I clearly understand the risk these overpowered and unregulated bikes pose and feel compelled to act before tragedy strikes again. Evidence presented to the parliament of New South Wales inquiry into the use of e-scooters, ebikes and related mobility options suggests that a divergence between federal and state regulations has led to confusion in the proliferation of noncompliant devices in the market, with retailers exploiting the gap between federal import standards and state road regulations.”
“I recently hosted a community forum on ebikes with the state Independent member for Pittwater, Jacqui Scruby, where we heard directly from local community members, trauma surgeons and transport exports about the alarming rise in injuries and enforcement challenges linked to illegal and noncompliant ebikes. Data on injuries caused by ebikes is scant, but research from St Vincent's Hospital Sydney found that over a two-year period from 2023, 500 e-bike riders required critical care in New South Wales emergency departments. These injuries are often severe, including head trauma, spinal injuries and fractures. While some of these injuries were influenced by alcohol use or insufficient infrastructure to protect cyclists, many also involved modified or overpowered ebikes.”
“This situation has caused deep concern across our communities for the safety of both riders and pedestrians. Parents, pedestrians, state politicians, trauma surgeons and even police are all calling for leadership from the federal government to address these pressing safety concerns. The major regulatory failing at the federal level is that, when e-bikes are being imported into Australia, they do not have to meet any mandatory safety or quality standards because they are not considered road vehicles under the Road Vehicle Standards Act. It is this issue that my safer e-bikes bill seeks to solve.”
“I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce the Road Vehicle Standards Amendment (Safer E-Bikes) Bill 2025 to ensure e-bikes are fit for purpose and safe in terms of international safety standards and speed capability. E-bikes have transformed the way Australians move around our cities and suburbs—and they have been taken up with particular eagerness in my electorate of Mackellar on the northern beaches of Sydney. They are a vital part of the shift to cleaner, more active transport and have provided greater transport independence for many thousands of people—especially those without a licence. But the technology has raced ahead of our safety and import regulations so that now we frequently have e-bikes that are more like motorbikes than bicycles being used on our roads and our footpaths.”
“My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I like science and I like facts! It's been over a year since the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport made 23 recommendations following its inquiry into the state of diabetes mellitus in Australia. With obesity costing our health system around $12 billion a year every year and the rate of diabetes in Australia reaching crisis point, when will the government release its response to this inquiry and get on with the job of improving the health of Australians?”
“This comes at a time when the government is currently undertaking a strategic examination of research and development to grow our core science and innovation capability. If we are serious about building long-term prosperity and sovereign capability, we must disallow backroom deals that go against these very principles. This is not about opposing mRNA technology. It has been transformative. But innovation must be supported by a fair, transparent and accountable process—one that ensures competition, builds local capacity and safeguards public trust. We need smarter investment, not secret deals. We need robust systems, not parallel ones. We need to support Australian innovation, not undermine it. For these reasons, I strongly support the member for Kooyong's disallowance motion and thank her for moving it in the national interest.”
“Our Future Made in Australia has overlooked the health and medical innovation sector, one of our greatest economic opportunities. We have examples of world-leading Australian innovation—Cochlear, ResMed and others—who succeeded because they had access to research support, regulatory integrity and, importantly, fair competition. We must not create a system where one multinational receives preferential treatment while local companies are left to wait three years or more for approval. That is not smart investment; that is a barrier to innovation. The Australian public agrees. Nine in 10 Australians support investment in local companies producing medical products. They want transparency, fairness and sovereign capability, not secret deals.”
“Whilst sovereign manufacturing is vitally important for our country, existing safeguards and regulatory checks must not be disregarded. Let me remind the House that this 10-year agreement commits successive governments and taxpayers to purchase Moderna's vaccines for years to come, regardless of evolving science, emerging options or changing needs. The fact that the Australian National Audit Office has launched a formal inquiry into this deal speaks volumes. We are not just talking about vaccines here. This is about how government procurement power should be used to create a healthier population and a stronger economy. Just last week the government hosted the economic reform roundtable to discuss productivity and innovation, and yet we still have this deal.”
“Professor Peter Collignon of the ANU has said the PBAC process is critical, not just for safety but also to ensure value for money and informed comparison between vaccine options. PBAC chair Robyn Ward warned speeding up distribution must not come at the cost of fairness, access or safety. Australian manufacturer CSL offered to produce vaccines at a lower cost. They recently invested over $1 billion in a Melbourne facility, but they haven't been offered the same fast-tracked regulatory path. This deal puts CSL and other local innovators at a distinct disadvantage. So we are now at risk of creating two systems for vaccine approval in this country—one for a single foreign multinational and another for everyone else. This is anticompetitive, and it undermines the integrity of Australia's medical procurement processes.”
“What we do know is this: to date, Moderna has not produced a single dose for the Australian market from its new facility. The deal bypassed our proven robust systems for ensuring quality, safety and value. Moderna's vaccines were exempted from assessment by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, or PBAC, the very committee responsible for determining whether medicines are safe, effective and worth funding through the National Immunisation Program. This decision has created a parallel procurement process, exclusively for Moderna: fast-tracked, exempt and unexplained. Yet the Albanese government has forged ahead with it. It's a decision that has drawn serious concern from leading public health experts and regulatory bodies.”
“I, too, rise in support of this disallowance motion brought by the member for Kooyong, and I thank her for bringing it to the House. It's not a race—we all remember those four words from the former prime minister Scott Morrison during the COVID-19 pandemic. They symbolised a government that was unprepared and slow to act. So, after failing to promptly secure COVID-19 vaccines for Australians, the Morrison government, under pressure, struck a rushed deal in May 2021 with the US pharmaceutical company Moderna to build a domestic mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility. This was a $2 billion deal done behind closed doors, with no transparency, no scrutiny and no accountability. Not one detail was made public at that time. Even now we don't fully know what taxpayers got for that money.”
“My question is for the Treasurer. In February 2023, the government commissioned a review of public sector board appointments. At that time the Minister for the Public Service stated, 'In line with the government's commitment to transparency, a report will be published after the review is finalised in mid-2023.' The final report was handed to government over 18 months ago, and yet last sitting week the government opposed a motion in the Senate for an order for the production of documents to make the report public. Treasurer, why has the government reneged on their self-declared commitment to transparency?”
“Implementing the member for Warringah's framework would embed climate resilience into the DNA of our decision-making across all sectors and levels of government, and in the strongest terms possible I commend this bill to the House.”
“According to Deloitte Access Economics, extreme weather is already costing the economy more than $38 billion a year, and yet at last week's productivity roundtable climate risk wasn't even on the agenda. Lastly, the most critical action of this framework, I believe, is to ensure all new bills are compatible with climate change adaptation and resilience measures. Why? This is because we have two fundamental flaws in our political decision-making process. One, we have siloed decision-making so that different ministers and departments take actions that conflict and undermine the goals of other ministers. Two, we have an absence of long-term vision. Without an all-of government response, we are unlikely to ever make real progress, and it cannot be left solely to the purview of the minister for climate change to act on this existential threat.”
“The frequency and ferocity of extreme weather events will only get worse, and yet here in Australia we have not implemented even some of the most basic measures required to respond and adapt effectively. The member for Warringah's bill addresses these failings. It would require government to undertake a number of actions, including regularly assessing climate risk, formulating a plan to address the risks and mapping our progress against that plan. These three actions represent some of the most basic and most commonsense steps required by any government that is serious about rising to meet the threat of climate change. I'd also like to highlight that the member for Warringah is calling for the cost of climate change to be incorporated into the federal budget. Until this happens, action will never meet the challenge.”