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 8 of 14.
“It has refined its approach, and it has delivered legislation that aligns Australia with comparable jurisdictions while remaining grounded in its own legal and regulatory traditions. We are already seeing what responsible digital innovation looks like when talent, investment and clear rules come together. Western Australia has become an international epicentre for cybersecurity experts, businesses and leaders, with Perth emerging as a nationally significant hub for cybercapability and innovation. A major reason for that strength is the depth of skills and training being developed in Perth's north.”
“Digital assets have increasingly been used by criminals to obscure transactions, move funds across borders and exploit regulatory blind spots. This bill closes one of those blind spots. Bringing digital asset intermediaries within the financial services framework makes it harder for bad actors to operate and easier for law-abiding businesses to distinguish themselves. I also want to acknowledge the extensive consultation that underpins this bill. This framework did not happen overnight. It is the product of multiple rounds of public consultation, of engagement with industry, legal experts and consumer advocates and of careful consideration of international developments. The government has listened.”
“They recognise that innovation often begins small and that regulation should be targeted when the risk is greatest. This bill further includes an 18-month transition period. This is not an afterthought. It is an acknowledgement that both industry and regulators need time to adapt. Businesses that are trying to do the right thing will have a clear pathway into compliance, and ASIC will have the opportunity to engage constructively with the sector as the regime comes into force. This legislation does not exist in isolation. It sits alongside other reforms to strengthen the integrity of our financial system and protect Australians from harm, including reforms to our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime, as broader efforts to combat scams and financial crime.”
“It targets the source of the greatest risk the platforms and the custodial arrangements that hold digital assets on behalf of consumers. Under this framework, those platforms will be subject to the general obligations that underpin trust in our financial system, including obligations to act efficiently, honestly and fairly, as well as prohibitions on misleading conduct and oversight by ASIC. The bill demonstrates a strong commitment to proportionality. It includes exemptions for genuinely small operators, including a low-value threshold that ensures startups and early-stage innovators are not crushed under compliance costs before they have a chance to scale. It also provides an exemption to businesses where digital asset services are incidental to a broader non-financial activity. These are sensible carve-outs.”
“It tells businesses what is expected of them, tells investors and consumers what protections they can rely on, and gives regulators the tools they need to intervene early rather than cleaning up the wreckage after the harm has occurred. That certainty is not a barrier to innovation; it is a precondition for it. The framework recognises the importance of startups and small operators in driving innovation. Exemptions for genuinely small and lower-risk providers ensure that early-stage businesses are not burdened with obligations that are disproportionate to the risks they pose. Rather than attempting to define every possible digital asset—a task that would be obsolete almost as soon as it was completed—the bill takes a more sensible, future focused approach.”
“Businesses invest where the rules are clear, stable and predictable. Capital flows to jurisdictions that combine openness to new ideas with confidence in the rule of law. By providing regulatory certainty, this bill supports productivity growth across the economy. Tokenisation and digital infrastructure have the potential to reduce costs, speed up settlement and unlock new forms of economic activity, but only where trust in the system exists. This is how Australia positions itself as a serious and competitive digital economy, open to innovation but clear eyed about the risk. This bill provides regulatory certainty.”
“In addition, the bill introduces specific, bespoke obligations designed to address real-world risks that have emerged in digital asset markets. These include minimum standards for asset holding, requirements around transaction and settlement, and tailored disclosures to help consumers understand how platforms operate and the risks that are involved. Importantly, these disclosures are not about burying consumers in technical jargon or dense legal documents. The bill replaces the need for multiple product disclosure statements with a clear, platform-specific guide. This is about transparency that is meaningful, not performative. I want to address directly a concern that is sometimes raised in debates like this: that regulation will stifle innovation. A well-designed regulatory framework is not the enemy of innovation; it is its foundation.”
“Under the bill, operators of digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms will be required to hold an Australian financial services licence unless a targeted exemption applies. Requiring an Australian financial services licence is not a punishment; it is a signal of legitimacy. It ensures operators meet baseline standards of competence, financial capacity and governance. It means they are accountable to ASIC and that consumers have clear avenues for redress. ASIC's supervisory and enforcement role under this framework is not about micromanaging innovation; it is about ensuring minimum standards are set, risks are managed responsibly and consumer assets are handled with the care Australians expect elsewhere in the financial system.”
“That gap has created uncertainty for regulators and confusion for consumers, and risk for the system as a whole is encouraged—a form of regulation-by-enforcement where businesses only discover they are compliant after legal action has commenced. This bill replaces ambiguity with clarity by making it clear which activities are captured, which obligations apply and where responsibility lies. The bill introduces two new categories of financial products into our existing framework: digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms. By doing so, it ensures businesses performing functions that look and feel like traditional financial services are subject to comparable obligations tailored to reflect the unique features of digital assets. This is the principle of 'same activity, same risk, same regulation' in action.”
“It recognises that, while technology evolves quickly, the fundamentals of consumer protection do not. Australians should not face a lower standard of care simply because an asset is digital rather than physical. This bill addresses those problems directly. Australia's existing financial service laws were never designed to deal comprehensively with large-scale custodial holdings of non-financial digital assets. While parts of the current framework apply in some circumstances, significant gaps remain. In practice, this has meant that businesses could hold large volumes of client digital assets without licensing, custody or disclosure obligations that would apply in more traditional financial arrangements.”
“In some cases, digital asset platforms failed not because of market volatility but because of basic governance failures that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the financial system. These events have had real consequences for people. Australians have lost savings set aside for first homes, retirement or small business investment. Confidence has been shaken not only in individual platforms but in the broader promise of digital finance itself. That erosion of trust does not hurt just consumers; it hurts legitimate Australian businesses that are trying to innovate responsibly and to compete globally. The absence of clear standards has allowed poor practices to persist and bad actors to hide in plain sight. This bill is a direct response to those failures.”
“Blockchain technology and tokenisation have the potential to reduce transaction costs, speed up settlement, expand access to capital markets and enable new forms of innovation across the economy. If Australia gets this right, we can be a serious player in the digital economy. But with opportunity comes risk, and for too long those risks have fallen disproportionately on consumers. We do not need to speculate about what happens when fast-growing financial activity is allowed to operate without clear rules; we've already seen it. Consumers have experienced frozen withdrawals, lost access to assets they believed were held in trust and discovered, often too late, that their assets were co-mingled or inadequately protected.”
“I rise to support the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. This is a significant piece of legislation. It's not flashy and it doesn't chase headlines, but it does something far more important. It brings clarity, accountability and confidence to a part of our economy that has grown rapidly, often noisily and, until now, too often without the protections Australians rightly expect. Digital assets are no longer a fringe interest. They are not the preserve of early adopters, hobbyists or speculative traders operating on the margins of the financial system. Digital assets and the platforms that support them are now firmly embedded in the global economy. Australians are using them to invest, to transact, to build businesses and to experiment with new models of value creation. With that growth comes opportunity.”
“That reflects the fact that this reform changes who can prescribe, not who is eligible to receive, the subsidised medicines. It improves access and efficiency without expanding entitlement. Taken together, the measures in this bill modernise Australia's health legislation to reflect contemporary practice and patient needs. They strengthen Medicare's capacity to respond to demand and support a workforce that is better equipped to deliver timely, high-quality care. For the people I represent in Moore, this matters. It means a health system that works more effectively in practice, recognises the professionalism of nurses and delivers care when and where it is needed. For those reasons, I support the bill and commend it to the House.”
“The use of legislative instruments to determine the prescribing scope ensures flexibility while maintaining parliamentary scrutiny. It allows adjustments to be made in response to evidence and experience without undermining the integrity of the framework. It recognises that modernising health regulation requires both ambition and caution, particularly where patient safety and public confidence are concerned. By embedding oversight, review and accountability mechanisms, the bill ensures that implementation proceeds in a way that is transparent and adaptable. This reform is focused on improving how care is delivered within the existing health system rather than changing infrastructure or hospital planning settings. The financial impact of this bill indicates there is no expected additional cost to the PBS.”
“By enabling nurses to manage appropriate prescribing within collaborative arrangements, general practitioners are better able to focus on patients with complex diagnostic needs, multimorbidity and care coordination requirements. This strengthens rather than undermines the role of general practice. International experience supports this approach. Nurse prescribing models operate safely and effectively in countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland and the Netherlands. Evidence from those systems demonstrates that non-medical prescribing, when governed properly, improves access to care, supports workforce retention and maintains high standards of patient safety. The bill makes clear that prescribing by authorised nurse prescribers will commence only after the relevant delegated legislation is in place.”
“For families balancing work and care responsibilities, it can mean less time navigating fragmented services. For people living with chronic illness, it can mean earlier intervention and reduced risk of avoidable deterioration. This reform is also significant for equity of access. Workforce shortages are not evenly distributed. Regional and remote communities and some outer metropolitan areas have greater difficulty attracting and retaining health professionals compared with metropolitan centres. By expanding the capacity of nurses to deliver care within their scope, this bill helps ensure that access to affordable medicines is not constrained by geography or workforce bottlenecks. It also supports the sustainability of general practice.”
“This bill includes provisions allowing the secretary to suspend or revoke approvals where conditions are breached, along with clear notification and review rights. These measures ensure that participation in nurse prescribing is contingent on ongoing compliance with professional and legislative requirements. From the perspective of the electorate I represent, the benefits of this reform are practical and tangible. Across Moore, nurses already play a central role in managing chronic disease, supporting older Australians, delivering preventive care and coordinating services for people with complex needs. Allowing appropriately endorsed nurses to prescribe under the PBS enables more complete and efficient episodes of care. For older residents managing multiple medications, this can mean fewer appointments and better continuity.”
“These measures collectively demonstrate that the reform balances improved access with strong governance and public confidence. The bill also makes clear that authorised nurse prescribers may only prescribe pharmaceutical benefits determined by the minister for the purposes of the PBS. In making those determinations, the minister must have regard to the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This preserves the independence, rigour and evidence-based nature of PBS decision-making. Further, authorised nurse prescribers will be subject to the Professional Services Review scheme under the Health Insurance Act. This ensures that their PBS prescribing is subject to the same peer review and accountability mechanisms that apply to other PBS prescribers, maintaining the integrity of the system.”
“Eligibility, approval and prescribing arrangements operate together to ensure that nurse prescribing under the PBS occurs within a framework that prioritises safety, accountability and professional standards. Approval as an authorised nurse prescriber is not automatic. Applications must be assessed by the secretary, and approvals may be subject to conditions. Chief among these requirements are prescribing agreements with other authorised PBS prescribers. These arrangements embed nurse prescribing within collaborative, team based models of care. The inclusion of authorised nurse prescribers within the Professional Services Review scheme further strengthens accountability. It ensures consistency and oversight across the PBS and provides mechanisms for peer review and sanction where appropriate.”
“This process commenced several years ago and involved engagement with governments, nursing and medical organisations, medical organisations, clinicians and consumers. It culminated in the endorsement of a new registration standard for designated registered nurse prescribers by all health ministers, which came into effect in 2025. This bill provides the necessary Commonwealth legislative framework to support that standard by enabling access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is worth setting out how this legislation operates in practice, because its safeguards are central to its integrity. The safeguards contained in this bill are comprehensive and deliberate.”
“Modern health systems function best when each professional is supported to contribute their skills within a coordinated and collaborative framework. The policy foundations for this reform are well established. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce identified scope-of-practice reform as essential to improving access, affordability and sustainability in primary care. That work was reinforced by the scope-of-practice review, which found that unnecessary regulatory barriers were preventing health professionals from contributing fully to patient care and system efficiency. Alongside this work, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, working with the Australian Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer, undertook extensive research and consultation on nurse prescribing.”
“Yet, despite their expertise, regulatory and funding arrangements have often limited their ability to operate at the top of their scope, particularly in the primary and community based care areas. The reforms in this bill allow endorsed registered nurses who meet rigorous education, experience and accreditation requirements to prescribe specified medicines under the PBS. This enables patients to receive timely and affordable treatment from the health professional who is already providing their care, without unnecessary duplication, delay or additional appointments. It is important to be clear that this reform is not about replacing doctors or diminishing the role of general practitioners. Rather, it is about strengthening multidisciplinary, team based care.”
“For providers, it supports more efficient use of clinical time and skills. This reform recognises how care is delivered on the ground in growing outer metropolitan communities and ensures Medicare settings better reflect those realities. Enabling registered nurses to prescribe under the PBS within defined parameters directly supports that goal. It allows care to be delivered more efficiently and reduces unnecessary duplication while preserving clinical governance and patient safety. For patients, this can mean faster access to treatment and fewer barriers to care. This bill responds to those realities by making better use of the skilled health workforce already embedded in our communities. Registered nurses comprise approximately half of Australia's health workforce and play a central role across the health system.”
“Demand for care continues to grow as our population ages and as more Australians live with chronic and complex conditions. These pressures are compounded by workforce shortages, particularly in primary care and general practice. Too often, these challenges manifest as long wait times, fragmented care pathways and avoidable escalation of care that could have been better managed earlier in community settings. Enabling appropriately endorsed nurses to prescribe under the PBS allows care to be delivered more seamlessly within existing service models. It reduces the need for multiple appointments and supports continuity, particularly for patients with ongoing care needs. For constituents, this can translate into more timely access to treatment, fewer delays and a better experience of the health system.”
“Nurses at the Joondalup Health Campus already play a critical role in assessment, care coordination, chronic disease management and discharge planning. What this bill recognises is that in appropriate circumstances and within defined governance arrangements those nurses should be able to complete an episode of care rather than fragment it. Enabling appropriately endorsed registered nurses to prescribe under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme supports safer transitions from hospital to community care, reduces unnecessary delays in treatment and helps prevent avoidable readmissions. For a health campus operating at scale, and for a community that relies on it every day, these efficiencies matter. They improve patient flow, reduce pressure on emergency departments and support better continuity of care once a patient leaves hospital.”
“This bill takes a targeted approach to reform. Rather than restructuring the system wholesale, it removes a specific constraint that has been well identified through policy review and professional consultation. It enables appropriately qualified registered nurses to contribute more fully within defined clinical and governance arrangements. By doing so, it supports a health system that is better aligned with how health care is delivered in practice, particularly in primary and community settings where demand continues to grow. Australia's health system is under sustained and increasing strain. In my electorate, the Joondalup Health Campus serves a large and growing population across Perth's northern corridor and highlights the importance of strong primary and community care in supporting timely treatment and safe transitions for patients.”
“Importantly, it does so within a clearly defined regulatory framework that includes professional oversight, prescribing agreements and established accountability mechanisms. This legislative change reflects a broader shift in how health care is delivered in Australia. Contemporary care increasingly relies on multidisciplinary teams, continuity across settings and the effective coordination of skills, and yet our legislative and funding frameworks have not always kept pace with these changes. In the many parts of the health system, professionals are trained to undertake responsibilities that existing settings prevent them from exercising fully. This creates inefficiency, duplication and frustration both for patients and for providers. Addressing these barriers is essential if Medicare is to remain responsive and sustainable.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill represents a careful and deliberate reform to Australia's health system. It strengthens Medicare, improves access to affordable medicines and ensures that our health workforce is better supported to meet rising demand by enabling professionals to work to their full and appropriate scope of practice. It is a reform grounded in evidence, consultation and an understanding of how health care is delivered on the ground in communities across Australia. At its core, this legislation amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Insurance Act 1973 to allow appropriately qualified and endorsed registered nurses to prescribe certain pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.”
“It supports creators by maintaining strong rights and remedies; it supports creators and students by providing clarity and certainty; it supports cultural institutions by unlocking access to orphan materials; and it supports the Australian community by promoting the diffusion of knowledge, culture and learning. This is thoughtful reform. It is careful reform. It is reform whose time has come. I commend the bill to the House.”
“This bill does not pre-empt that debate; instead, it focuses on targeted, consensus based reforms that address clear and longstanding problems. Finally, I want to acknowledge the broader human rights context of this legislation. The orphan works scheme and remote learning amendments positively engage the right to education, the right to participate in cultural life and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. They promote accessibility, inclusion and non-discrimination. Where the bill places limits on rights, those limits are reasonable, proportionate and necessary to achieve legitimate public objectives. In conclusion, this bill strengthens Australia's copyright system by making it more responsive to contemporary realities while preserving the fundamental balance at its heart.”
“Before concluding, I want to address an issue that has understandably attracted attention: the interaction between copyright reform and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. This bill does not create a general exemption for the use of copyright material in training AI systems, nor does the orphan works scheme provide a practical pathway for bulk use of works for that purpose. The scheme's requirements, particularly the obligation to conduct a reasonably diligent search and provide notice in relation to each use, are deliberately structured to prevent inappropriate reliance for large-scale automated uses. AI raises complex questions for creators, educators, industry and society, and those questions deserve a dedicated consideration.”
“In particular, the bill makes clear that the provision governing the duration of Crown copyright applies only to material made or first published by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a state. It does not apply to material later acquired by government from third parties. This clarification ensures that government acquisition does not inadvertently extend copyright duration and provides certainty to rights holders and users alike. While these amendments are technical in nature, they improve the clarity, coherence and administration of the act. Good law reform is not only about major policy shifts; it is also about ensuring that statutes operate efficiently and transparently.”
“Parents and carers often play a vital role in supporting students, particularly younger children and students with additional needs. Community members, including local professionals and service workers, frequently contribute to educational programs in ways that enrich learning and connect it to real-world experience. Copyright law should not inadvertently discourage that engagement. I now turn to schedule 3, which contains a number of minor but important technical amendments. These include simplifying the process for appointing an acting president and registrar of the Copyright Tribunal, updating outdated references to Commonwealth and state archives, modernising notification requirements by replacing gazette publication with notifiable instruments and clarifying the scope of Crown copyright.”
“This matters for equity. Online and hybrid learning models are not a luxury; they are a necessity for many students, including students in regional and remote areas, students with disabilities, students managing illness and students balancing education with caring responsibilities or work. Educators are not copyright lawyers, yet they are expected to navigate complex legal obligations while delivering lessons supporting diverse learners and adapting to rapidly changing modes of instruction. Uncertainty in the law does not promote compliance; it promotes hesitation, inconsistency and, in some cases, unnecessary self-censorship. The clarification regarding parental and community involvement is equally important.”
“The amendments to section 28 make it explicit that the provision applies equally to educational instruction conducted in person, online or through a combination of both. It clarifies that parents and guardians who assist students with their lessons are taken to be participating in the instruction. It also confirms that educational instruction may be delivered by persons other than a teacher, such as community members or external presenters, without altering the copyright treatment of the material used. These clarifications do not expand the scope of the exception. They do not disturb existing licensing arrangements, which remain vital to supporting Australian creators and publishers. What they do is ensure that teachers, schools and families are not left guessing about compliance when delivering education in modern formats.”
“It supports the diffusion of knowledge and culture, which is a core objective of copyright law itself. I now turn to schedule 2, which addresses copyright and remote learning. Section 28 of the Copyright Act permits the performance or communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction without that use being treated as public performance or communication to the public. That exception has long been understood as applying in physical classrooms. However, the rapid expansion of online and hybrid learning, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has created uncertainty about how those rules apply to remote teaching and learning. This bill removes that uncertainty.”
“For creators whose works have become orphaned unintentionally through lost records, defunct publishers or the passage of time, the scheme may in fact create new opportunities. Where a copyright owner later emerges, they are entitled to reasonable payment and may negotiate terms for ongoing use. In that sense, the scheme can reconnect creators with works that might otherwise remain unused and invisible. What this reform does is provide legal certainty where uncertainty has prevailed for decades. It unlocks access to material of cultural, historical and educational value while preserving fairness for rights holders. For researchers, educators, students and community organisations, this reform matters. It allows institutions to preserve, digitise and share material that would otherwise remain inaccessible.”
“Importantly, copyright owners retain the ability to assert their rights if they are later identified. They may negotiate terms for ongoing use or seek court ordered terms or injunctive relief in relation to future use. Moral rights are unaffected. Constitutional safeguards are preserved through an express just terms compensation provision. This is not a free-for-all. The burden of proof rests squarely on the user to demonstrate compliance with the scheme. Higher standards of diligence are expected for commercial uses, for sensitive or vulnerable materials and for works involving Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. The scheme is deliberately designed to encourage caution, transparency and respect.”
“Instead, it introduces a carefully calibrated limitation on remedies where a user has acted in good faith and met the strict statutory conditions. Under the scheme, a person may rely on the limitation on remedies only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, kept a record of that search, could not identify or locate the owner at the time of use and provided clear and prominent notice of reliance on the scheme. If, and only if, those conditions are satisfied, the court is prevented from awarding damages, additional damages or an account of profits for the infringing use. However, the court may still issue reasonable payment to the copyright owner if they later come forward, reflecting what would have been a reasonable licence fee.”
“They are held in large number of libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and community organisations. They include historical photographs, personal letters, diaries, unpublished manuscripts, audio-visual recordings and other collectables that document our social, cultural and civic life. Under current law, the inability to identify or locate a copyright owner often means these materials cannot be used at all, even for socially valuable purposes such as education, research, preservation or public exhibition. Institutions face legal uncertainty and risk, and the public is denied access to material that forms part of our shared heritage. The orphan works scheme in this bill addresses that problem directly. It does not abolish copyright. It does not create a blanket exception.”
“By addressing orphan works and clarifying educational use without undermining core rights or licensing frameworks, this bill strengthens that legitimacy. I'll turn to each of the key measures in this bill. I'll begin with schedule 1, which establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. As someone who was a longstanding supporter of the arts and a regular attendee of live music and performance and as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music, I am acutely aware of how central copyright is to the sustainability of Australia's creative industries. That is precisely why it is so important that reform in this area is careful, balanced and grounded in respect for creators. An orphan work is a copyright material for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located after reasonable efforts. These works are not rare.”
“It sits at the intersection of competing but legitimate interests: creators seeking fair reward for their work, educators and students seeking access to knowledge, cultural institutions seeking to preserve and share our collective memory and governments seeking to ensure the law keeps pace with technological and social change. The ministerial copyright roundtables, held in 2023, represented a different approach. They brought together representatives from across the creative, cultural, educational and research sectors, as well as industry representatives, collecting institutions and other interested organisations. The objective was not to reopen the entirety of copyright law, but to identify discrete, achievable reforms where there was genuine alignment and evidence of need.”
“Second, it clarifies that copyright exemptions for educational instruction apply consistently across physical, online and hybrid learning environments. Third, it makes a small number of technical and administrative amendments to improve the operation of the Copyright Act, including in relation to the Copyright Tribunal and the duration of Crown copyright. Each of these reforms has been developed following extensive consultation. They reflect years of policy work, including multiple ministerial roundtables convened in 2023 with stakeholders from the creative industries, the education sector, collecting institutions and rights holder organisations. The result is legislation that is balanced, proportionate and grounded in evidence. Copyright reform is rarely straightforward.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a measured, practical and overdue reform to Australia's copyright framework. It modernises the Copyright Act 1968 to reflect how Australians learn, create, preserve culture and share knowledge in the 21st century. It does so without undermining the legitimate rights and interests of creators, authors and rights holders who rely on copyright protection for their livelihoods. At its core, this bill responds to a simple reality: the way Australians access information, participate in education and engage with cultural materials has changed profoundly, yet key elements of our copyright law have not kept pace. This bill closes that gap carefully and responsibly. The bill does three principal things. First, it introduces Australia's first statutory orphan work scheme.”
“Finally, I join colleagues in standing with the people of Bondi, with the Jewish community, with the people of New South Wales and with Australians everywhere who were shaken by this attack. We mourn with those who have lost loved ones, acknowledge the bravery of those who acted and recommit ourselves to the values of safety, decency and mutual respect that bind this country together. In doing so, we affirm the kind of country Australia chooses to be.”
“That assumption was shaken at Bondi, but it was also reaffirmed by the conduct of those who helped, those who responded and those who supported victims and families in the aftermath. As a parliament, our words today must not be a substitute for continued care, support and seriousness in how we approach public safety and community protection. Respect for the victims requires more than a moment of silence; it requires follow-through. In supporting this condolence motion, we affirm that every life lost mattered, that every injury sustained is taken seriously and that Australians are entitled to feel safe in public places. We also affirm that Jewish Australians are entitled to live free from fear, intimidation and violence, just as every Australian is.”
“As the member for Moore, I represent a diverse community of different backgrounds, faiths and histories, united by a shared expectation they will be safe and treated with dignity in this country. In my first speech to this parliament I referred to Martin Niemoller's First They Came , a reminder that failing to speak out when one group is targeted ultimately weakens the safety of all. When Jewish Australians are attacked because of who they are, it is not a matter for one community alone; it is a test of whether we are prepared to draw a clear and unequivocal line against hatred and political violence. Australia is a country built on the assumption that people will look out for one another.”
“I also wish to place on record my respect and gratitude for the first responders—police, paramedics, surf lifesavers—who responded swiftly and professionally. Their actions undoubtedly saved lives. They ran towards danger, not away from it, with the calm confidence Australians rely upon in times of crisis. Events like this understandably provoke fear, anger and a demand for answers. Those reactions are human. But they also test us, particularly those of us entrusted with public office by demanding a response grounded in steadiness, clarity and resolve rather than one that flames anxieties or reaches for easy explanations. Violence of this nature has no place in Australian society. It cannot be normalised, excused or explained away.”
“It was an attack on Jewish Australians as a community and on the values of safety and inclusion Australians rightly expect. Jewish Australians should never be made to feel unsafe in public places, at cultural gatherings or in the simple act of living their lives. Antisemitism, whether expressed through words, symbols or violence, has no place in Australia. And terrorism driven by that hatred must be condemned unequivocally. In the midst of the chaos, however, we saw extraordinary courage and decency. Members of the public acted instinctively, helping strangers, shielding others and providing first aid in circumstances no-one should ever face. They were ordinary Australians who stepped forward because someone needed help. And that deserves recognition by this House.”