Madonna Jarrett
Brisbane · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“Parents, teachers and mental health professionals have increasingly expressed concern that social media companies have prioritised engagement and profit over children's wellbeing.”
“Since the introduction of those reforms, we have seen over five million accounts belonging to under-16s deleted off social media. That's an outcome, Member for Casey. This is a very positive development.”
“Protecting big tech or protecting young children—easy choice. Those opposite have the wrong priorities for this country, and we see it time and time again, whether it's keeping Australians locked out of the housing market, not supporting wage increases, voting against higher taxes or not acting on climate change.”
“Fourth is greater protection from online predators, scams and harmful content. Finally, the reforms send a strong message to the technology companies that child safety should be built into platform design rather than treated as an afterthought.”
“Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X are all central to our modern lifestyle. But, while they're great opportunities to learn, to be creative, to connect, they also expose young people to significant risk. I'm going to make a point here: there is research behind this. There are facts that support this.”
“I'm pretty proud that the government is standing strong against big tech because that's what we need to do. We went out alone, but there are 16 more countries that are coming in behind us, which is pretty important. That's a pretty strong contrast to those opposite, who have chosen big tech over Australian kids.”
The complete record
Every one of 612 lines we hold for Madonna Jarrett, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“I'm pretty proud that the government is standing strong against big tech because that's what we need to do. We went out alone, but there are 16 more countries that are coming in behind us, which is pretty important. That's a pretty strong contrast to those opposite, who have chosen big tech over Australian kids. I really do feel like it's climate 2.0—when those opposite are presented with facts and research, instead of taking note and showing leadership for change, they fail Australians. They're putting politics over people, ideology over safety, and they're not helping our kids. (Time expired)”
“Fourth is greater protection from online predators, scams and harmful content. Finally, the reforms send a strong message to the technology companies that child safety should be built into platform design rather than treated as an afterthought. Australian parents and carers have called on this government and those before to act and to look after our young people. And we are. Despite what the member for Bowman says, by voting against this bill in the Senate, turning and pushing it away, they are walking away from protecting our kids online. Increasingly, governments around the world are asking tech companies to accept greater responsibility for products they create and profit from. Australia's reforms are already world leading, and we've got plenty of countries that are following us.”
“Parents, teachers and mental health professionals have increasingly expressed concern that social media companies have prioritised engagement and profit over children's wellbeing. In response to that, this government has acted and, importantly, has tried to take a bit of the effort away from parents and put it where it belongs—with tech companies. There are potential benefits in these reforms. Again, the data is there. The first is improved health, improved teenage mental health. Teenagers are still developing emotionally and psychologically, and removing this constant exposure to bullying and addictive algorithms—all that we see online—can reduce stress and anxiety. Second is the benefit of increased face-to-face interactions, participating in sports and hobbies and having conversations with families and friends. Third is better sleep.”
“Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X are all central to our modern lifestyle. But, while they're great opportunities to learn, to be creative, to connect, they also expose young people to significant risk. I'm going to make a point here: there is research behind this. There are facts that support this. Research has linked excessive social media use with increased rates of anxiety, depression, body image concerns, cyberbullying, sleep deprivation and reduced attention spans, especially amongst teenagers. Many young people, too many, compare themselves to unrealistic online standards. Algorithms, as we know, prioritise and push sensational or emotionally charged content to keep the users engaged, to keep our kids scrolling. They can create endless cycles of that.”
“Since the introduction of those reforms, we have seen over five million accounts belonging to under-16s deleted off social media. That's an outcome, Member for Casey. This is a very positive development. However, we know that kids are still getting through, and it's clear that big tech companies just aren't doing enough to keep children off the platforms. That's why this government is stepping in, to get things done and to do more. We announced this week that we will double the penalties for tech companies and give more powers to the regulators so they can investigate what's going on within those big tech companies. It's a pretty simple bill. Why did we decide to act? We heard from the member for Newcastle why it's so important, but social media really, truly has transformed how we communicate.”
“Protecting big tech or protecting young children—easy choice. Those opposite have the wrong priorities for this country, and we see it time and time again, whether it's keeping Australians locked out of the housing market, not supporting wage increases, voting against higher taxes or not acting on climate change. Now, they have the chance to come together in this parliament to protect our children. And what have they chosen? They've chosen the interests of big tech ahead of keeping our children safe, with the red herring argument. On this side of the House, we make no apologies for keeping our children safe on social media. That's why, last year, we introduced some of the most significant and controversial technology reforms in Australia, introducing that minimum age of 16 for social media use.”
“It's a must that your health records now include pathology and diagnostic imaging results. The new Environmental Protection Agency is opening, and we're establishing the veterans wellbeing agency. The $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses is now permanent, and our solar sharer offer starts, which means you get three hours of free electricity between the hours of 11 am and 2 pm, which will help reduce energy costs. We know the month of July is special, and with these initiatives it's even more special. But what's more special is that this Labor government will keep listening and delivering in this month and every other month.”
“I love the month of July. Throughout history, many great things have happened during this month. We walked on the moon for the first time. The great and inspiring Nelson Mandela was born. The summer Olympics are held in July. The FIFA World Cup is running in July. Go, Socceroos! And our beloved ABC was born in the month of July. But there is more good news for July. From today, we're giving every taxpayer a tax cut, we're banning supermarket price gouging and there will be wage increases for three million workers who are on minimum and award wages. We're expanding paid parental leave to a full six months. Payday super begins. Our Medicare urgent care clinics become permanent. Our hospitals get more funding increases. Endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics now include menopausal and perimenopausal services.”
“As Australians, we must continue asking how we can enjoy the benefits of digital technology—we know there are many—while protecting the wellbeing of future generations. As leaders, we have to have the courage to take on the big issues, and the issue of social media addiction for our young people is one of these big issues. The Albanese Labor government are on the side of parents and kids, not the side of platforms, and we will keep fighting for them every step of the way. (Quorum formed)”
“Australia's social media reforms represent a bold attempt to address one of the defining public health and technology challenges of our generation, and the strength of their success will depend on how effectively these laws can be enforced, whether privacy can be protected and whether technology companies genuinely cooperate. The debate reminds us that technological innovation should always be accompanied by ethical responsibility and that ethics should be introduced at the start of the development of any product or service that is delivered through the digital space. Just because technology evolves rapidly, it doesn't mean society should accept every consequence without question or without compromise.”
“In this space, digital literacy remains essential. Young Australians still need education about misinformation, online scams, cyberbullying, privacy settings and responsible online behaviour. Parents play a crucial role by maintaining open conversations with our kids about online experiences, modelling healthy technology use and setting clear boundaries. Schools likewise have an important responsibility to teach students critical thinking skills so that they can navigate the digital world safely. Ultimately, protecting young people requires cooperation between families, educators, governments, community and technology companies. So where does this leave us?”
“Over the past months, many countries have restricted or announced plans to restrict social media access for children and teens. The UK is the latest country to announce a ban on social media for children; it did that in June, this month. There are 16 other countries: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Vietnam, Türkiye et cetera just to name a few. This is important, and the reason it's important is we know that if we work together around the world, at a global level, we can send a clear and strong message to the tech giants that this is a serious issue and they must act. It was brave for Australia to go it alone, and I am proud that we took the steps to act in the interests of young people. Governments must stand strong, and that's exactly what we are doing. Of course, legislation alone cannot solve every problem.”
“We have to take steps to ensure that our community is safe, so we have to ask ourselves: should companies that make billions and trillions of dollars, whose business model depends on keeping users online, be responsible for protecting children? We argue—yes. For years, platforms have developed sophisticated algorithms that are capable of predicting what users will watch, buy and click, then they push this content to them. If companies possess technology advanced enough to personalise data and advertisements within seconds, surely they can also develop effective systems to protect children. Increasingly, governments around the world are asking technology companies to accept greater responsibility for the products they create. Australia's reforms are already world leading, and they could become even more so with these reforms.”
“For many young people it provides friendship, support networks, educational content and opportunities to express creativity. People living in rural areas or experiencing isolation rely heavily on online communities for connection, and critics argue that banning access altogether may remove these positive benefits. There is also concern that responsibility should remain primarily with parents, rather than with government. Some families say they're capable of deciding when their children are mature enough to use social media safely. Other families question whether government intervention is the right approach. But, overall, these reforms raise broader questions about the role of technology companies.”
“But the Albanese government is not stopping here. The next step in the government's mission to protect Australians from online harm is to legislate a digital duty of care. That duty of care will put the responsibility on digital service providers to adopt safety by design and have systems in place to protect Australians—and, in particular, young Australians—from harm before it occurs. However, as we know, every major reform has challenges. I've heard about the previous challenges from some people in my community, and we'll see where we go with this lot. Teenagers are technologically savvy. Some teenagers may simply create accounts using false ages, virtual private networks or accounts registered by adults. Some people think that social media may not be entirely harmful.”
“In particular, the amendment enables the commissioner to issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents from any person where the commissioner reasonably believes they hold material relevant to compliance with the minimum age framework, including whether a service falls within its scope. For example, there may be situations where information and documents are held by a third party that might refute the information provided by, or claims made by, the age restricted social media platform, or they may show that the steps taken are not operating as claimed. The bottom line is that these changes will provide the commissioner with more information as to how the platforms are complying with the laws, which will support more effective investigation and potentially stronger enforcement action.”
“This bill responds to those challenges by strengthening the enforcement framework so that platforms take their minimum age obligation seriously and do more to comply. With this bill, the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with minimum age obligations extends from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units, or it brings that maximum penalty up to $99 million. It's also important that the information-gathering powers of the eSafety Commissioner are strengthened so they can get the information they need from the platforms to access compliance and understand what's going on.”
“Speaking of resources, Meta alone has a market cap of more than US$1.4 trillion. In March 2026, the eSafety Commissioner released a public compliance update which found that while platforms have removed, deactivated or restricted access to more than five million accounts there is a substantial proportion of Australian children under the age of 16 who continue to hold or create new accounts or are able to bypass existing age assurance systems. It's just not good enough. The eSafety Commissioner is concerned. The commissioner is actively investigating the compliance of five platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. In considering enforcement action, the eSafety Commissioner has advised the government that it needs stronger investigative powers to build stronger evidence against potentially non-compliant platforms.”
“This session was designed to give parents the knowledge and confidence to help guide them and their children in the new social media landscape. We enjoyed a presentation from Paul—who was representing the eSafety Commission—which was very informative, and we finished the evening with Professor Morawska from the University of Queensland. She partners with Triple P, an organisation that specialises in child psychology. But even with our existing historic laws, it's clear that big tech is not doing enough to protect our children from online harm. Social media companies are some of the largest and most influential companies globally. They have the capability and they have the resources to meet their obligations under the social media minimum age framework and protect young users.”
“The fourth is greater protection from online predators, scams and harmful content. The internet, as we all know, contains misinformation, violent material, gambling promotion and inappropriate content that younger users may struggle to interpret critically. Finally, the reforms send a strong message to technology companies that child safety should be built into platform designs rather than treated as an afterthought or something that they just have to deal with. When these reforms were first announced last year, there was excitement across the country but also trepidation. 'Will it work?' 'How will it work?' 'What do I need to do?' That's why I decided to hold a social media forum in Brisbane, alongside our state MPs Grace Grace and Jonty Bush, to discuss with parents the reforms and what to expect.”
“What are the benefits of these reforms? The first is improved mental health. Teenagers are still developing emotionally and psychologically, and removing constant exposure to social media comparisons, cyberbullying and addictive algorithms may reduce stress, anxiety and depression. The second is the benefit of increased face-to-face interaction. Young people are spending more time participating in sport and hobbies, outdoor activities and even conversations with friends and family—activities we did as kids—rather than endlessly scrolling through content. The third is better sleep. Many teenagers use social media late into the night, reducing sleep quality and affecting school performance. Less screen time before bed could improve concentration, learning and overall health.”
“Many young people compare themselves to unrealistic online standards, and algorithms often prioritise sensational or emotionally charged content because it keeps the user engaged. This can create an endless cycle of scrolling that is difficult for adults to manage, let alone children. Parents, teachers and mental health professionals have increasingly expressed concern that social media companies have been prioritising engagement and profit over children's wellbeing. In response to this, our government has acted and announced legislation requiring major social media companies to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media and creating accounts. Importantly, the responsibility takes a bit of the effort away from parents and puts it on technology companies themselves.”
“That's why this government has stepped in again to do more. With this bill, we are doubling the penalties these companies face when they do the wrong thing, and we're also giving more power to the regulator so they can investigate what's going on. But why did the government have to act? Social media has certainly transformed the way we communicate. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X have become a normal part of our modern life. While these platforms offer opportunities for learning, creativity and connection, they also expose young people to significant risks. As we heard in the chamber earlier, research has linked excessive social media use with increased rates of anxiety, depression, body-image concerns, cyberbullying, sleep deprivation and reduced attention spans amongst teenagers.”
“Last year, we introduced some of the most significant and controversial technology reforms Australia has seen in recent years—to introduce a minimum age of 16 for social media use. This reform did spark debate across the country. Some believe it was necessary to step up and protect young Australians from online harm. Others argued it limited freedoms, is difficult to enforce and may create new problems rather than solve existing ones. On this side of the House, however, we make no apologies for keeping our children safe from online social media harm. Since the introduction of these reforms in December last year, we have seen over five million accounts belonging to under-16s taken off social media, and that really is a positive development. But it is clear that big tech companies aren't doing enough to keep children off their platforms.”
“We didn't know their values either, nor what they may be saying to two very vulnerable young lads, who, like any teenagers, were trying to work out who they were. As parents, we obviously want our kids to explore, we want them to find their peeps, and we want them to be safe. They are rightly curious. Their brains are sponges, they want to feel part of the community, and they want to feel loved. But those traits, however, also make them vulnerable to pressures in what they see and what they hear. We've seen the worst that this can lead to, which is why keeping Australians safe online, particularly children and young people, is a top priority of the Albanese Labor government.”
“Growing up, I was spared what we now know as the intrusion of Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube and other social media platforms. However, as my sons grew from children to adolescents, technology developed so rapidly. There was a plethora of platforms to engage with friends and others. This included online games they played with their friends and, dare I say, their online acquaintances. Here we are in 2026, where not only is there a plethora of platforms available but there are also algorithms that push content that can be predatory and harmful to young people. I was concerned about what my sons had access to 15 years ago to the point that we insisted that their online games were played in the living room, where it was possible to keep that little lazy ear on the discussions between them and the people they really didn't know.”
“They've cancelled 10,000 social and affordable homes, and they've scrapped mandates requiring them in new builds. In the middle of the housing crisis, the LNP would rather help developers building high-end apartments, turning a blind eye to social and affordable housing. The LNP has abandoned Brisbane and Queensland. In their cold, rocky sea of blue, those opposite are clambering onto each others' life rafts while the community around them is sinking. They can't see that the community needs a life raft too, for people like Caitlin, in my electorate, who recently bought her home for her family on Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. As leaders, we can make it better for the next generation, and that's what this Labor government is doing.”
“We know that people are working hard and doing the right thing but still can't get into a home of their own. The system is broken, and that's why we're changing the system. Everyone on this side of the House heard that message loud and clear. Each one of us in this chamber should want to provide the same opportunities to the younger generation as we had. Labor understands that, and that's why we're doing the work. Labor is tackling the housing crisis from every angle. We're increasing supply and we're giving young people the means and the opportunity, while those opposite want to keep Australians down. During the nine years the LNP were in power, they neglected housing. There was no housing minister for most of it, and they built just 373 social and affordable homes. In Queensland, the LNP is no better.”
“We're providing greater transparency so that patients and people who need medical care can make informed decisions in relation to their health care. I commend this bill to the House. (Quorum formed)”
“We've been funding our hospitals, we're investing in Medicare, we're rolling out urgent care clinics across the country, including one in my electorate, in Kelvin Grove. We've had almost 4,000 patients visit that clinic, and it's only been open for less than six months. We're increasing bulk-billing rates, we're rolling out mental health centres across the country, and we're providing $25 scripts—or $7.70, if you're on concession. Why? By backing a strong healthcare system, we are backing everyday Australians. We're making sure every person in my electorate and every person across the country has access to affordable health care when they need it. With this bill, we're going further. We're protecting consumers who are under the private health insurance system as well because that is a key part of our healthcare system.”
“Those opposite don't like it when we get out that green and gold card in this House, but our communities do. It's a strong reminder of the LNP's efforts to undermine Medicare every time they're in government. I outlined some of the history earlier. They know their record when it comes to investing in health care. It's shameful. The previous leader of the LNP, Peter Dutton, was voted the worst health minister in the world. Under Scott Morrison, they were sharpening their knives to privatise Medicare. That's their go to. They froze GP bulk-billing for years, leading to higher costs to see a GP, and the list goes on. On this side of the House, we know the importance of backing our healthcare system, we know the importance of making sure our communities have access to high-quality affordable health care when they needed it. What's Labor done?”
“Australia has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and many of us are really proud that everyone can get access to quality health care. I've lived through the flip side. While living in the US—another developed country, by the way—I saw families go broke because of an unexpected illness or injury. I saw elderly people suffer in pain because they couldn't afford a knee replacement. I saw young people not getting health checks because it was too costly. Not that long ago, we saw Medicare almost broken and people putting off seeing a doctor or buying their medicine. Why? Because Medicare was neglected under the LNP and, as a result, it became too costly. This Labor government, like those before it, is committed to Medicare and has poured billions of dollars back into strengthening the system.”
“This could enable a reduced process for certain categories of applications outside the premium round. A delegation would likely be for relatively straightforward applications where they're more clearly in the public interest, and details will be worked through with the industry. There are more changes in that schedule. These reforms are an important step in holding private health insurers to account and empowering consumers to make informed decisions about the cost of their health care. The government will always pursue reforms that ensure that private health insurers deliver genuine value for money and greater transparency for consumers and that put consumers rights at the centre of healthcare decisions.”
“In addition to requiring ministerial approval for proposed premium changes, insurers will have to apply if they open a new product or if they reduce the cover, a benefit or other term of condition of an existing product. Additional changes are being made to formalise and enhance existing practices that also occur under the annual premium round process. These include specifying the premium round submission date in the legislation while allowing the minister to make a legislative instrument to vary those dates, encouraging submissions to be made through the premium round by introducing a more stringent public interest test to be applied to the applications made outside of the premium round submissions, and allowing delegation of the minister's premium approval power but not the power to refuse an application.”
“Some insurers have avoided the intent of the premium round by shutting down an existing product to new customers and introducing a new, nearly identical product priced higher than the minister had approved for the original one. This process is known as phoenixing. This hurts not just new entrants to private health insurance, who are directly impacted, but the 15.3 million people who hold private health insurance, who are left unprotected from unscrutinised changes. To address this issue, amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 will require insurance companies to apply to the minister for approval of the premiums for new and existing products.”
“Patients will continue to be unable to compare private healthcare providers and unable to seek better value for their health care. Frankly, they'll make more-informed decisions with the passing of this legislation. Currently, private health insurers are required to apply to the minister if they wish to change the premium of an existing product. This has typically occurred once a year through the annual premium review round process. Schedule 2 of the bill relates to changes to strengthen ministerial oversight of private health insurance premiums to better protect consumers. Insurers are not required to seek approval for the premium charge for new products.”
“The forth includes an immunity from civil proceedings, and the fifth modernises the secrecy regimes that make it consistent with the amendments to secrecy provisions in portfolio legislations made by the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Act 2025. Importantly, the amendments will continue to protect the privacy of consumers. No patient information will be published. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing is establishing an internal review process for medical practitioners to inquire about, or to request that the department review, the fee information that is published about them. Without passage of this schedule, Australians will continue to have uncertainty about the potential costs of their treatment, and that's just not fair.”
“The first allows for the publication of information about medical practitioners and their billings, including their names, their locations, their fees charged by location and the utilisation of gap cover arrangements with insurers where insurers pay a medical practitioner more if they agree to charge no, or fixed, out pocket costs. The second allows for the publication of information about hospitals, including medical practitioners who provide services at the hospital and insurers that have gap cover or contracting arrangements with that hospital. The third allows for the publication of information about insurers, including the proportion of policyholders who experienced different gap cover arrangements and the out-of-pocket costs.”
“So this legislation will allow for the publication of relevant data on the Medical Costs Finder without the need for input from specialists, as it will be drawn from Medicare, hospital and insurer billing data already collected by the government. While the focus is on the charging practices of non-GP specialists, general practitioners and their billing could also be published on the website in future. Schedule 1 will amend the Health Insurance Act of 1973 and the Private Health Insurance Act of 2007 to do a few things.”
“Since 2022, specialists and insurers have been able to participate in the Medicare Costs Finder by voluntarily publishing their fees and their out-of-pocket information. This platform was created to provide transparency for patients seeking clearer information about medical expenses. But guess what? Uptake has been too low, with only one to two per cent of specialists and 10 per cent of insurers participating on the website as of December 2025. That's simply not good enough. There is a product there; there is a system there to provide transparency for patients and it's not being utilised. People deserve to know what their costs will be right from the start.”
“It leads to poorer health outcomes for Australia and higher costs in the long run. The most common cause of out-of-pocket costs is medical specialist fees. It's unreasonable to require patients to commit to a course of medical treatment without clear, upfront information about the associated costs. Patients should be able to understand what they will be charged and have the opportunity to compare those costs with fees offered by other providers, enabling them to make informed and financially-sound decisions about their care. Understanding the level of support that is provided by their private health insurer is also vital in determining their likely out-of-pocket costs. This bill will provide consumers with the opportunity to plan for upfront costs.”
“It will also provide clarity on individual medical practitioner fees and out-of-pocket costs. This bill also protects consumers by prohibiting phoenixing, closing a loophole that allowed private health insurers to discontinue a product and reintroduce an identical one at a higher price or with reduced value without ministerial oversight. Schedule 1 of the bill aims to enhance consumer transparency by requiring clearer information on expected medical fees and likely out-of-pocket costs for private health. An increasing number of Australians are not taking up referrals from their general practitioner to see a specialist due to cost. In fact, data says that in 2024 almost nine per cent of people delayed or missed specialist care. That's over 800,000 people, and the decision was made because of costs. That's simply not good enough.”
“Many insurers often combine hospital and general cover, but most private health insurers let you know you can choose your own surgeon or other specialists and have treatment in a private hospital or as a private patient in a public hospital. Insurers can tell you what they'll pay for and how much you'll pay. This will help Australians choose a level of cover that suits their needs and their budget. But often costs can be hidden, leaving us consumers vulnerable to exorbitant specialist fees. So the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill will help transparency in the private insurance area. It will enable Australians to make informed decisions about their health care and their private health insurance.”
“For decades, private health insurance has continued to operate alongside Medicare as a complement, providing additional cover for services and amenities not covered or reimbursed by Medicare. That's because this Labor government and many Labor governments before us have recognised the importance of a strong and accessible public healthcare system, but Medicare can't do it all. Private health insurance aims to fill gaps, and, for many, it's about minimising the time you have to sit on a public hospital waiting list. There are two types of private health insurance: hospital cover for things like accommodation and theatre fees, and general treatment for services like maybe dental, maybe physio.”
“The ideology was to support private funding and the provision of health care and that the government's role was to provide a safety net reserved for the disadvantaged, which saw means testing reintroduced and rebates payable for medical services reduced. After the 1984 election, the re-elected Labor government restored the publicly funded universal scheme under its new name, Medicare—the green and gold card that we all know so well. It was to provide free access to all public hospitals without means testing. Medicare is a proud Labor legacy. Access to affordable healthcare was not just the right thing to do; it was the fair thing to do, and it was an investment in Australians and in Australia.”
“Going back to 1972, Labor was elected and promised a universal, compulsory national health insurance scheme, and that was to replace voluntary arrangements. Despite this being met with fierce opposition from the coalition, the AMA and private health insurers, the policy was eventually legislated and Medibank was born. In 1975, the newly elected coalition government gradually dismantled the scheme until it was eventually abolished in 1981. This was despite an election commitment to maintain Medibank. Various reports show that the Fraser years reduced people's access to the universal scheme and encouraged private health insurance membership, promoting the role of private care as a substitute for a public system for those who could afford to pay.”
“We all know that it's Labor that's the party that delivers better, affordable and quality healthcare to Australians. We established Medicare in 1984, and, under the Albanese Labor government, we've delivered expansions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including $25 scripts. We've rolled out urgent care clinics across the country, including one in my electorate of Kelvin Grove. We've delivered a landmark women's health package, which means more choice, lower costs and better healthcare for women. Australians know that they can always trust the Labor government to deliver accessible and affordable healthcare. There is no doubt that our system is one of the best in the world, but its trajectory has waxed and waned, reflecting the values of the party in power.”
“Our landmark secure jobs, better pay bills and closing loophole reforms laid the foundations for a strong and efficient industrial relations system, and this bill builds on that. This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring our workplace relations framework supports cooperative and productive workplaces, the kinds of workplaces that work for businesses, for workers and for our economy. Labor is the party of workers. We're proud of that. The Australian Labor Party was born out of the labour movement. We will always stand up for working people, and I commend this bill to the House.”
“One such tripartite body is the National Construction Industry Forum, which provides advice to the Australian government on matters relating to building and construction, a big part of our economy at the moment. The bill makes minor updates to the ministerial memberships of the NCIF and allows travel allowances for non-ministerial members to be determined in line with Remuneration Tribunal determinations. It also confirms that Road Transport Advisory Group members are eligible to receive travel allowances consistent with other consultative bodies and clarifies that ATAG members, including the chair and the subcommittee members, are not otherwise entitled to remuneration or additional allowances.”
“They've been there a long time, and they will not be solved overnight, but the government is taking decisive action. Mr Mark Irving KC has made significant progress in improving the culture of the construction industry and addressing criminality and corruption with the CFMEU, and this bill provides the administrator with an appropriate timeframe to prepare and submit the required biennial financial report to the minister under the Fair Work Act. Lastly, the government has strongly supported cooperative and productive approaches to workplace relations, including through tripartite arrangements that bring together employers, workers and government.”