Tom French
Moore · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“I rise to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. At its centre, this bill is about whether a kid growing up outside capital cities can look at university, TAFE or any form of tertiary education and see a real path rather than a distant idea.”
“That is not always an exciting word, but it is a necessary one. For too long, parts of the higher education policy have been pulled towards short term politics, institutional competition and funding settings that do not always meet national needs.”
“It can go to academic support. It can go to scholarships and grants. It can help meet the higher cost of operating campuses outside the major cities. In this bill, the base equity amount is $1,535 and the base regional amount is $1,398.”
“That is why I'm less interested in reciting every number in the legislation and more interested in what those numbers mean when they land in a family living room in a regional town. They mean a student in Merriwa does not have to see university as something for other people.”
“I know the value of a trade, and I know that university is not the only path to a good life, and it should never be treated as the only respectable path. A good tertiary system is not university versus TAFE. It is not degree versus trade.”
“In plain English, that means we're moving to a system where growth in university places is planned and funded more sensibly. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission will have a formal role in allocating Commonwealth supported places.”
The complete record
Every one of 690 lines we hold for Tom French, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 14.
“Government has a responsibility to narrow that gap. The child growing up in Dungog, Merriwa, Auburn, Woy Woy, Joondalup or anywhere else in Australia should be able to see a path forward. They should be able to pursue a trade, a diploma, a degree or a change in career without the system quietly telling them that ambition is reserved for someone else. I got chances because education and training opened doors for me. I will do everything I can to make sure more people get the same chance and bring more people up the ladder of opportunity that this bill helps build. It says that if you have the ability and determination, the country should back you. That is good education policy, it is good economic policy and, most importantly, it is the kind of country we should be building. I commend the bill to the House.”
“We need the apprentice to know that further study is possible. We need the single parent returning to study to know that support exists. We need First Nations students who earn a place to know the place will be there. We need regional campus to know that its higher operating costs are recognised and not ignored. This bill does not solve every problem in higher education—no single bill does, and anyone who claims otherwise either has not read enough legislation or has read far too much of their own press release—but it does make real structural change. It moves us towards a system where growth is planned, funding follows need and opportunity is not rationed by geography. I support this bill because it reflects a principle Labor should always defend—talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not.”
“That is why this bill is important; it funds growth in a managed way and attaches additional support to the students and the campuses that need it most. For the electorate of Moore, this reform also has a local significance. We have the Joondalup Learning Precinct with Edith Cowan University, North Metropolitan TAFE and the Western Australia Police Academy. We know the value of education precincts that connect skills, training, employment and community. But this is not only about Moore; it is about the national interest. Australia cannot afford to waste talent because of postcode, family income or background. We cannot tell regional kids to dream big then build a system that makes those dreams too expensive, too distant and too fragile. We need the child in the country school to know that university is possible.”
“Those provisions are important for administration and oversight. The machinery needs to work even if the machinery provisions rarely stir the soul. For a young person in a regional town, a single closed door can be enough to stop them. The family cannot afford rent in the city. The student cannot afford to stop working. The campus is too far away. The course feels out of reach. The paperwork is confusing. The student starts but falls behind and the support is not there. Each of these barriers can look small from Canberra. They do not look small when you are the one facing them. The purpose of government is not to pretend those barriers do not exist; it is to remove as many of them as we reasonably can.”
“That is not always an exciting word, but it is a necessary one. For too long, parts of the higher education policy have been pulled towards short term politics, institutional competition and funding settings that do not always meet national needs. The ATEC is intended to provide a more coherent view across the sector, including through mission based compacts. When the Commonwealth invests in higher education, it should know what we are trying to achieve: more teachers, more nurses, more workers in areas of national demand, stronger research, viable regional campuses and better pathways for students who have been locked out. This bill also contains provisions about international student places and modernises information-sharing between the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and the ATEC.”
“I know the value of a trade, and I know that university is not the only path to a good life, and it should never be treated as the only respectable path. A good tertiary system is not university versus TAFE. It is not degree versus trade. It is about building a system where people can get the skills that suit them and where those pathways are respected. The bill also effectively uncaps the number of places for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and regional areas through the new managed growth arrangements. The ATEC will be able to allocate additional places where they are needed. If the demand from those students exceeds the allocation pool, the ATEC can seek an increase. When a student has the marks, the ability and the determination, the system should be able to respond. This bill is also about stewardship.”
“That is why I'm less interested in reciting every number in the legislation and more interested in what those numbers mean when they land in a family living room in a regional town. They mean a student in Merriwa does not have to see university as something for other people. They mean a student in Dungog who has the ability, drive and curiosity has a better chance of finding a pathway. They mean a young person on the Central Coast, in country South Australia or in any regional community should not have to overcome the system before they even begin their course. And they mean that Australia get the nurses, teachers, engineers, electricians, social workers, accountants, scientists and skilled workers that we will need. I often speak about my trade training and TAFE because that is part of my story. I became an electrician.”
“I later did a pre-apprenticeship in South Metropolitan TAFE in Beaconsfield before starting my electrical apprenticeship. Years later I went to Murdoch University to study law. None of those steps were inevitable. Each one gave me a rung on the ladder. Each one gave me the chance to build a life, develop skills, change direction and contribute in a different way. I would not be who I am today without that opportunity, and that is why I do not see TAFE and university as competing ideas. I see them as part of the same ladder. For some people, the first rung is a bridging course. For others it is a certificate. For others it is an apprenticeship, a diploma, a degree and a second chance later in life. Good policy keeps the ladder in place; great policy makes sure more people can reach the first rung.”
“There is the pressure to work long hours. There is the pressure of being away from home. There is the feeling, sometimes unspoken, that university is a place built for someone else. It can determine whether a student asks for help or stays silent. It can determine whether they keep going after the first failed assessment. It can determine whether they feel like they have the right to be there. This bill says that participation and success are both part of the job. I know the value of this personally. I was the second person on one side of my family to go to university. That is not said as a complaint; it is said because it gives me a clear view of what opportunity can do when a door opens at the right time. My own pathway was not a straight one. I went to TAFE in Maitland to get into university.”
“It can go to academic support. It can go to scholarships and grants. It can help meet the higher cost of operating campuses outside the major cities. In this bill, the base equity amount is $1,535 and the base regional amount is $1,398. Those amounts are more than double what some previous programs involved, but the real point is not a figure in isolation. The real point is what it lets universities do. It lets a university notice when a student is struggling and intervene earlier. It lets a regional campus provide support that would otherwise be stretched too thin. It helps make success part of the funding design, not an afterthought. For students from country areas, the obstacles do not end when they receive an offer. In some ways, that is when the real test starts. There is the cost of moving. There is the cost of staying.”
“In plain English, that means we're moving to a system where growth in university places is planned and funded more sensibly. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission will have a formal role in allocating Commonwealth supported places. That is important because the system should not rely on drift, guesswork or a contest where universities chase enrolments without the Commonwealth funding being properly aligned. The bill also establishes demand driven, needs based funding. That phrase sounds technical, but the idea is straightforward: if a university enrols more students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, more First Nations students or more students studying at regional campuses, it will receive extra support to help those students participate and succeed. That funding can go to tutoring. It can go to mentoring.”
“But we cannot reach that goal by relying only on the same students from the same suburbs going to the same institutions through the same pathways. If Australia needs more skilled workers, then Australia must widen the pool of people who can get those skills. That is the logic behind this bill. The Albanese Labor government has already implemented more than 30 of the accord's 47 recommendations in full or in part. We have made HECS fairer, introduced paid prac, expanded study hubs, increased bridging courses, created the National Student Ombudsman, strengthened protections against gender based violence, opened demand driven places for First Nations students and established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. This bill is the next step. It provides a new managed growth funding system.”
“When they do not see it, that path can feel like it belongs to someone else. That is not about ability; it is about visibility. It is about confidence. It is about whether a system has been built with you in mind. Too often, it is not. This bill helps change that. The Australian Universities Accord sets out a long-term plan for what Australia needs from its tertiary education system over the next decade and the decade after that. One of the central conclusions is clear: Australia will need more people with qualifications, certificates, diplomas and degrees. It says we will need around 80 per cent of the workforce to have a tertiary education over the coming decades. That means more people at TAFE. It means more people at university. It means more people getting skills for the jobs our economy will require.”
“It is moving away from the people you know. It is trying to work out whether you belong in a lecture theatre when no-one in your immediate circle has done it before. Those communities are not short of ambition. They are not short of capable students, practical intelligence or people who work hard. What they are often short of is access—access to campuses, access to advice, access to financial support and access to someone saying early enough and clearly enough that tertiary education is a realistic option. There is a phrase that often gets used: you cannot be what you cannot see, and there is truth in that. When a young person grows up seeing people around them go to university, apply for apprenticeships, finish diplomas, start careers, retrain and move between industries, their sense of what is possible grows.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. At its centre, this bill is about whether a kid growing up outside capital cities can look at university, TAFE or any form of tertiary education and see a real path rather than a distant idea. It is about whether a young person in a country town or a regional community or a family without much spare money gets told that this door is open to them. I grew up spending time in Dungog and Merriwa in New South Wales. I spent time visiting family in Auburn in South Australia and Woy Woy on the Central Coast. Those places shape the way you see education, opportunity and distance, because, in country towns, distance is not just kilometres on a map. Distance is cost. It is accommodation. It is transport. It is leaving family. It is leaving work.”
“It improves readability and administration across the Commonwealth Statute Book, and, in a parliament which often deals with large and contested reforms, this bill is a reminder that practical work also counts. Sometimes governing is not about announcing a new scheme. Sometimes it's about fixing a section number, updating a court name, deleting the dead provision and putting the full stop where the full stop was always meant to be. That may not be dramatic, but it is necessary. I commend the bill to the House.”
“It will not produce a dramatic division across the chamber, but it will make the Commonwealth legislation cleaner, clearer and more coherent. There is value in that. The public does not benefit from unnecessary complexity. Public servants do not benefit from obsolete provisions. Practitioners do not benefit from incorrect cross-references. Courts do not benefit from avoidable drafting confusion. Even lawyers, despite our reputation, do not need every possible interpretive argument preserved for future generations. Some clutter can simply be removed. The Statute Update Bill 2026 does exactly that. It corrects errors. It updates references and removes those spent provisions. It repeals obsolete acts.”
“That is why these bills are traditionally non-controversial. Since 1934, statute law revision and statute stocktake acts have been used to correct errors, remove obsolete provisions and keep Commonwealth legislation accurate. That history reflects sensible a proposition: parliaments should not only make new laws; they should also maintain laws already made. We do that in every serious field. In construction, we maintain buildings. In electrical work, we maintain systems. In public administration, we maintain records. In law, we maintain the statute book. If we fail to do that, we should not be surprised when people find the system harder to use. This bill is modest, but it is useful. It will not dominate the evening news. It will not trend online unless punctuation Twitter has a very big day.”
“When the text is unclear, outdated or inconsistent, the dispute shifts from the real issue to the wording itself, and that is rarely efficient. It is very good for billable units but less good for everyone else. Good drafting reduces friction. Accurate references reduce confusion. Removing spent law reduces clutter. Modernising language and structure improves access. This is not about changing the direction of government policy. It is about keeping the statute book in working order. The explanatory material makes that clear. The amendments are minor and technical. This bill has no financial impact. It is compatible with human rights, and it does not limit human rights. It does not change legal rights obligations or entitlements except in minor ways consistent with existing provisions.”
“But citizens should be able to approach law with a reasonable expectation that the references are correct, the provisions are current and obsolete material has been removed. That is part of the discipline of responsible government. It is also part of respect for the public. The law belongs to the public. It should not be maintained only for lawyers, judges, departments and parliamentary counsel. It should be maintained because the people are entitled to know the rules that apply to them. They are also entitled to expect that those rules are written, updated and organised with care. As someone who worked in industrial relations, I know, when laws and instruments are clear, disputes can often be avoided. Employers, workers and unions may not always agree on the policy, but at least they can understand the starting point.”
“It is easier to comply with. It is easier to enforce, and it is easier for the public to trust. When the law contains obsolete provisions, outdated references and technical errors, people lose time working around them. Departments have to explain them. Lawyers have to interpret them. Courts may have to resolve them. Members of the public may be left wondering why a law points them to an institution, provision or process that no longer exists. That is not good administration. It is not good drafting, and it is not good enough. This bill also has a broader democratic purpose. Legislation should be accessible to the people who are governed by it. Of course, not every statute will be read like a beach novel. No-one is taking the Income Tax Assessment Act on holiday unless something has gone terribly wrong.”
“Of those 106 acts, 104 are from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. That is quite a harvest. There is no criticism in that. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry may have technical, transitional and amending acts over the years, but, once those acts have performed their function, there is no great public benefit in leaving them sitting on the statute book indefinitely. At some point, the legal paddock has to be cleared. The statute book should not be a storage shed for expired machinery, old forms and equipment nobody has used since 2004. It should be accurate, current and as accessible as possible. Some may ask why parliament needs to spend time on this kind of bill. The answer is simple: the quality of legislation affects the quality of government. A statute book that is accurate and up to date is easier to administer.”
“As an industrial lawyer, I've often seen how much turns on the words of a page. In workplace law, people tend to find out very quickly whether a clause is clear. If an enterprise agreement is drafted badly, someone will discover it, usually at the worst possible time, often on a Friday and almost always after everyone else had thought the issue had already been settled, and the same lesson applies to legislation. Clarity is not an optional extra. It is part of making the law usable. Schedule 2 the bill repeals 102 spent or obsolete acts. These acts have done their work. They no longer have an ongoing role. The repeal of these acts does not alter the current or future effect of the law. It does not remove rights. It does not create new obligations. It simply clears away legislation that is no longer required.”
“For example, it corrects an incorrect reference in the Family Law Act 1975 relating to child related proceedings and the application of the law against hearsay. It corrects errors in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, including references to registered political parties and timing terminology. It updates references connected with Western Australia's application of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. It corrects a reference in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 concerning crisis or emergency funding as a result of a significant change to a participant's support needs. These are not headline reforms, but they are precisely the kinds of corrections that make the law work better. They reduce confusion. They assist administration. They help ensure that the words on the page match the intended operation of the law.”
“These update requirements about how certain applications may be sent to the agency or minister. The existing provisions refer to methods that no longer properly reflect the current framework. The amendments align those provisions with modern communication methods, including electronic communication. That is sensible. The public should not be forced through outdated procedural hoops because the statute book has not caught up. There is a place for paper, and there are some who remain deeply committed to it. I have met lawyers who would laminate an email if they could. But even the most committed paper enthusiast would accept that legislation should reflect how government actually operates. The bill also corrects technical errors in family law, electoral law, health law, maritime safety law and other areas.”
“The bill also updates references to the Federal Circuit Court so that they properly refer to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2. That is not just a cosmetic update. If a person is reading the Federal Court of Australia Act, they should be able to identify the correct court without first needing to understand the full history of the court restructuring in this country. The law should not operate like a scavenger hunt. A reader should not have to move from an old act to a repealed act to a transitional provision to a renamed institution and then finally to the body that actually exists. Updating those references makes the law more accessible and easier to administer. There are also amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982.”
“They either make no change to the substance of the law or make minor changes consistent with the scope and purpose of the relevant provisions. Some of the examples are modest. Some are almost charmingly modest. The bill corrects a punctuation error in the Australian Centre for Disease Control Act 2025, where a provision ends with a colon rather than a full stop. Now, I do not want to overstate the national significance of a full stop. No-one is going to the barricades over punctuation. But legislation is a place where punctuation can do a surprising amount of work. A colon where there should be a full stop might not bring the Commonwealth down, but it should still be fixed before some poor lawyer decides to see how far they can run with it—and let's be honest: some poor lawyer absolutely would.”
“Transitional laws complete their purpose. Drafting conventions change. References that were once accurate become outdated. A statute book that is not regularly updated becomes harder to navigate, and that has real consequences. It makes the law harder for public servants to administer. It makes the law harder for lawyers to interpret. It makes it harder for businesses, unions, community organisations and ordinary Australians to understand. The rule of law is not assisted by legislation that reads like an archaeological dig. Schedule 1 of this bill makes general amendments to 42 acts. These amendments are intended to enhance readability, facilitate interpretation, and administration, and promote consistency across Commonwealth law. They are minor and technical in nature.”
“It amends 42 Commonwealth acts, repeals 106 spent or obsolete acts, corrects clerical and drafting errors, updates references, removes spent provisions and improves consistency across Commonwealth legislation. This is legislative maintenance. It is not glamorous, but neither is changing the oil in the ute, testing a circuit, updating a register or cleaning out a filing cabinet that has been threatening to achieve a legal personality. These things are done because systems work better when they are kept in order. The Commonwealth statute book is large. It deals with family law, electoral law, social security, Veterans' Affairs, health, customs, transport, communications, the environment, agriculture, fisheries and many other areas. Over time, provisions expire. Agencies change their names. Courts are restructured.”
“A missing word can generate a dispute. A comma can ruin a perfectly good afternoon. The difference between 'and' and 'or' can, in the wrong hands, become a three-hour argument followed by a letter beginning, 'With respect, your construction is misconceived.' That is why this bill is worth doing. It is also why I have some sympathy for the drafters. They are asked to produce laws that are precise, durable and readable while knowing that every word may one day be examined by people with too much coffee and a professional interest in disagreement. The Statute Update Bill 2026 makes minor and technical amendments across the Commonwealth statute book.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Statute Update Bill 2026. I begin with a confession. This is not a bill that will have Australians gathering around the kitchen table tonight cancelling their plans and saying: 'Quick! Parliament is dealing with obsolete acts, incorrect cross-references and the national crisis of the missing full stop.' But that does not mean it is unimportant. In fact, some of the least dramatic work of this parliament is also some of the most necessary. The law has to be maintained. It has to be kept coherent. It has to be capable of being read, used and applied by the people who rely on it. As a former industrial lawyer, I have spent enough time with statutes, awards, agreements and regulations to know that small drafting errors can become very practical problems. A wrong cross-reference can send parties in circles.”
“It directly implements 15 recommendations and supports a further 20. It strengthens information sharing for prevention and early intervention. It modernises Defence health services. It supports families, including in circumstances involving family and domestic violence. It improves service entry and exit arrangements. It strengthens governance and accountability. None of this removes the pain already experienced by families who have lost someone. No legislative amendment can do that, but parliament can act on what it has learned. It can ensure that the evidence given in the royal commission leads to durable reform. It can require Defence and DVA to work together more effectively. It can insist that the health, wellbeing and safety of those who serve and those who have served and their families sit at the centre of this system.”
“For the rest of the year, much of that work happens in conversations, phone calls, visits, practical assessment and the quiet acts of care. The Commonwealth must match that community commitment with systems that work. We cannot ask RSL volunteers, partners, families and mates to carry the full load while government agencies remain fragmented. Community support is essential, but it is not a substitute for competent national systems. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was a solemn warning. It told us that admiration for service is not enough. Thanks are not enough. Ceremonies are not enough. We honour service by building systems that reduce harm, treat people with dignity and respond before crisis becomes tragedy. This bill is a serious step in that direction.”
“It should not isolate them inside disconnected systems. The royal commission made clear that fragmented information, poor coordination and delayed support can contribute to harm. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:52 to 12:03 The answer is not careless data sharing. The answer is lawful, proportionate and accountable information sharing directed at care, prevention and safety. I acknowledge the veterans and families in Moore who continue to contribute to our community. North Beach RSL and Joondalup City RSL both provide leadership, welfare, remembrance and connection. Their volunteers do work that is often unseen but deeply valued. Every Anzac Day and every Remembrance Day, we see the public face of that contribution.”
“Systems tend to return to old habits unless someone keeps asking whether promised reform has changed experience on the ground. But, for my community, the test will not be whether this legislation is neat on paper. The test will be whether a veteran in Joondalup gets support earlier, whether a family in North Beach knows who to call, whether a member transitioning out of service has continuity instead of a cliff edge, whether a claim is processed with information already held by the government or whether a young veteran who is not coping is contacted before they disappear from view. That is the measure of this bill. There is always legitimate scrutiny about information sharing. There should be. Privacy is not an inconvenience; it is part of dignity. However, privacy should protect people.”
“The substance related charges are also sensible. Substance use can be misconduct. It can also be linked to medical conditions, mental health challenges, trauma or dependence. Aligning these processes more closely with medical separation arrangements allows for a more coherent approach, one that can preserve discipline while also recognising underlying health issues. That is not softness; that is competence. Schedule 5 makes related governance and accountability amendments to support the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. Oversight is essential because the task does not end when parliament passes a bill. The royal commission's recommendations require implementation across agencies over time with proper scrutiny.”
“The provisions concerning serious violent and sexual offending are direct and necessary. Service in the ADF carries authority, trust and responsibility. It also places people in close working and living environments where power, hierarchy and discipline are significant. The royal commission made findings about sexual violence and its connection with harm, trauma and suicidality. The Commonwealth must set clear standards about who can enter and remain in the Defence Force. Mandatory discharge for members in prison for relevant offences sends a clear signal about institutional safety and integrity. It protects members, it protects trusts and it recognises that defence cannot credibly address culture, safety and wellbeing while retaining people whose conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with service.”
“They are part of the service community. When a member is struggling, a partner or family member may be the person trying to help. If Defence only communicates through the member, families can be left without information about available support. Better communication with families and appropriate privacy protections is a necessary reform. Schedule 4 deals with requirements to serve in the Defence Force. It prohibits persons who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for serious violent or sexual offences from joining the ADF. It also introduces mandatory discharge for members sentenced by an Australian court to imprisonment. It consolidates 'fit and proper person' requirements and aligns substance related separation processes with existing medical separation arrangements.”
“The bill seeks to draw that line in a way that supports safety, capability and trust. Schedule 3 supports ADF families. This is one of the most human parts of the bill. It improves information sharing and communication between Defence and families where contact details have been provided. It also ensures that benefits and supports can continue for a former spouse or partner in the immediate aftermath of separation where family and domestic violence is present. Family violence creates a particular risk at the point of separation. Benefits being cut off abruptly can make the separation harder. A system that removes support at the very point the person is trying to leave an unsafe situation can unintentionally increase danger. The bill recognises that reality and provides a safer approach. It recognises that families are not spectators.”
“It enables lawful, proportionate use of health data to improve care, supports suicide prevention and assess the performance of the Defence health system. Good health systems learn. They review errors. They identify patterns. They ask whether particular environments, postings, exposures or service pathways are associated with greater risk. They look to whether programs actually work. That is ordinary clinical governance in a modern health system. Defence should be no exception. This bill also supports disclosure for limited and relevant command purposes, and that distinction is important. A commander may need enough information to make safe fitness-for-duty decisions, but that does not mean a commander needs every private detail disclosed in a clinical consultation.”
“Schedule 2 modernises the legislative framework for Defence health services. It establishes a dedicated legislative basis for Defence health services, including clinical governance, health monitoring, quality assurance and improvement activities. The Defence health system has a unique role. It must support operational capability and fitness for service but also the health of the individual member. Those purposes will sometimes sit comfortably together. At other times, they require careful governance. The royal commission recognised that Defence health arrangements must be contemporary, clinically sound and trusted. This schedule clarifies how Defence health information can be collected, used and disclosed. It supports quality assurance and continuous improvement.”
“In Defence, that is even more profound. Service is a culture, a community and a set of obligations that shape daily life. When that abruptly ends, the risk is obvious. The person may be dealing with injury, loss of identity, uncertain income, housing pressure, family strain and a complex compensation system. The Commonwealth should not make that harder by forcing people to carry paperwork from one agency to another, like an exhausted courier in a bureaucracy designed by a committee. Earlier transfer of information from Defence to DVA should mean earlier claims processing, earlier support and fewer gaps. That is practical reform. It is not glamourous, but, for a veteran waiting on income support, medical treatment or rehabilitation, it can be the difference between stability and crisis.”
“The bill requires compliance with ministerial guidelines, aligns with the Privacy Act framework, requires reasonable steps to de-identify personal information where appropriate, and limits use and disclosure to purposes connected with wellbeing, health and safety. ADF members and veterans need confidence that information about them will not be mishandled. They also need confidence that government will not hide behind fragmented systems when risk is emerging. Schedule 1 also supports claims processing and transitional support. The royal commission identified transition out of the ADF as a period of increased risk, particularly for members who are medically discharged or involuntarily discharged. Anyone who has worked in employment or industrial law understands that a person's identity is often tied up with their work.”
“When those parts are not brought together properly, the person at the centre can be left to repeat their story again and again, often when they are at their most vulnerable. That is not good administration. More importantly, it is not good care. This bill creates clear statutory authority for the collection, use and disclosure of information, including personal and sensitive information, for research, data analysis and evaluation relating to wellbeing, health and safety. It also supports information sharing for prevention, early intervention, continuity of care, proactive outreach and transition support. The privacy safeguards are important. Information sharing is not a blank cheque.”
“A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:31 to 11:43 This is one of the most important reforms in the bill. The royal commission found that better information sharing between Defence and DVA is fundamental to improving the health and wellbeing of Defence personnel and veterans and their families. At present, the information can sit in different parts of government. Defence may hold service records, health information, incident information, training information, deployment history and transition records, and DVA may hold claims, rehabilitation, compensation and service delivery information. Each dataset may tell only part of the story.”
“There are five schedules, on information sharing, Defence health services, support for ADF families, service entry and exit arrangements, and governance and accountability. The central theme is simple. Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and related agencies must be able to identify risk earlier, act earlier and support people through transition and beyond. That requires better systems, lawful and careful use of data, continuity of care, and respect for privacy but not paralysis dressed up as privacy. It also requires Defence and DVA to operate as connected parts of the same national obligation. Schedule 1 deals with information sharing to improve wellbeing, health and safety outcomes.”
“The government has agreed or agreed in principle to 104 of them and noted another 17 for further consideration. By the end of 2025, 32 recommendations had been implemented. By the end of this year the government expects around two-thirds to be implemented. That pace is important. Royal commissions cannot be an expensive form of national catharsis followed by administrative drift. Their recommendations must be translated into practice, into resourcing, into change behaviour and, where necessary, into law. This bill is one part of that work. This bill directly implements 15 accepted recommendations and supports a further 20. It amends the Defence Act 1903 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.”
“They are places where older veterans, younger veterans, serving members, partners and families find connection, practical advice and a familiar face. Often that support is quiet, informal and deeply important. Anyone who spends time with veterans quickly learns that service does not end neatly on the day a person takes off the uniform. The habits, injuries, memories, pride, obligations and sometimes trauma of service travel with them into civilian life. Families carry much of that load. Partners often notice changes first. Children live with the consequences. Parents, siblings and friends often become the first line of support without ever receiving a brief or a manual. The government announced its response on 2 December 2024. The royal commission made 122 recommendations.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. This is not a routine defence bill. It sits in the long shadow of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It deals with service risk, injury, transition, family responsibility, institutional accountability and the consequences that follow when systems designed to support people do not speak to each other quickly enough, clearly enough or humanely enough. In Moore, this is not a remote policy. We have a large veteran community, families with long links to service, and two active RSL clubs in North Beach and Joondalup. They do far more than host commemorations.”
“For nine years, those opposite had a chance to make work pay. Instead, they spent most of their time fighting each other, attacking workers, suppressing wages and telling Australians that insecure work was somehow flexible. Under this government, Australians see a different set of priorities: a tax cut for every Australian—”