David Coleman's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Budget | Statements by Members | House debates
This Treasurer has delivered a disastrous, appalling, embarrassing budget. There are massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Here are the numbers: $28 billion deficit, $42 billion deficit,...
This Treasurer has delivered a disastrous, appalling, embarrassing budget. There are massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Here are the numbers: $28 billion deficit, $42 billion deficit, $36 billion deficit and $37 billion deficit. It goes not only for the four years but for the entire decade. The National Australia Bank said this morning, 'There seems to be no attempt to start to return to budget balance any time in the next decade.' That is an admission of defeat, and it is shameful. We also know about the collapse in living standards, which are the worst in the OECD. If you've got a mortgage, your family is $50,000 worse off under this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. We know that this Prime Minister said 97 times that electricity would come down by $275. What's actually happened is that it's gone up by up to $1,300 per family. It's not funny. It's actually a very big problem for Australian families. You won't say $275 after the election—you said it 97 times before. I'd also say that Labor has lost control of the immigration system, which was reflected again in last night's budget figures. Once again, the numbers have been revised up; 1.8 million people over five years. That puts pressure on infrastructure. It puts pressure on housing. Immigration is a very good thing, but it needs to be managed, and it is not being managed on that side. The final insult is the $5 tax cut, which is a small cup of coffee at best. It's a disgrace. (Time expired)
Banks Electorate: Community Services | Constituency Statements | House debates
Milperra Lions Soccer Club was formed back in 1958, and, during that time, it has become an absolutely essential part of the Milperra community. It was great to meet at the clubhouse recently...
Milperra Lions Soccer Club was formed back in 1958, and, during that time, it has become an absolutely essential part of the Milperra community. It was great to meet at the clubhouse recently with their president, Brad Tonks; Billy Peters; Sean Barnes; Helen Lansley; and Daniela Morrison, amongst others, and really talk about the aspirations of the club. There are a couple of important issues. Gordon Parker Reserve has major problems with drainage where water pools on the field. It doesn't go away and that needs to be fixed. They also need waterproofing for the clubhouse itself. So there are a couple of really important issues that need to be addressed for the Milperra Lions Soccer Club, and I'm very determined to assist the club with those. I thank the club for taking the time for those meetings. Anne Farah Hill is the incredibly energetic CEO of Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre. She's been in the job for quite a while. She does a fantastic job, and right now there's a big issue at the Kingsgrove Community Aid Centre where the bocce court for the Italian seniors group, which was put there recently by the council, basically doesn't work for the game because it is overgrown. It is not a smooth surface, and it makes it very difficult to play bocce, which is the whole purpose of the court being put there in the first place. Georges River Council needs to actually step up and fix this. It's good that the council took action to put the bocce court there, but they now need to make sure it is actually playable. The council needs to step forward on that. Recently, St Mark's Anglican Church in South Hurstville merged with Blakehurst Anglican Church. They are both very proud and longstanding religious communities in my electorate. It was good to speak recently with the minister, Ross Ryan, to hear about his plans for the new merged church. St Mark's, which has always been in my electorate, has had a very active role in terms of the community groups that run from the church; the Anzac Day service, which is run every year; the childcare centre, which is run from St Mark's; and so many other things that the church is involved in. It was great to meet with Minister Ryan, and I look forward to seeing that merger continue in the future. Kogarah Historical Society meets at Carss Park, in a new part of my electorate. It was great to recently meet with the president, Gill Whan, and many other members of the society. There's an incredibly rich and proud history at Carss Park, and the cottage has been preserved largely just as it was back in the 19th century. It was great to learn about that, to see all the artefacts at the museum and to talk to those fantastic volunteers at the Kogarah Historical Society.
Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024. This is the second bill to come before this parliament in the wake of the horrific attack on a Services Australia...
I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024. This is the second bill to come before this parliament in the wake of the horrific attack on a Services Australia employee who was just doing her job. No Australian should be attacked at work. So, when former Victoria police chief Graham Ashton made recommendations following a review of security arrangements at Services Australia and indeed in all Commonwealth agencies, we took them very seriously. That is why we backed the amendments to the Criminal Code, which expanded the criminal offences for assaulting a Commonwealth frontline worker, and is why we are supporting this bill today, which implements a recommendation from the Ashton review. In essence, what this bill does is create a scheme for Commonwealth workplace protection orders. These orders are similar to the apprehended and personal violence order schemes that are commonplace in states and territories. These orders will apply in Commonwealth workplaces or to protect Commonwealth workers. This means the orders can apply to a workplace such as an electorate office or a Services Australia centre. It also means that the orders can cover Commonwealth workers so that they are protected in the car park, on the way home and at other times out of normal working hours. The term 'Commonwealth worker' is very broad and includes contractors, security guards, volunteers and persons employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. This means the bill would apply to protect Services Australia employees, electorate office staff and Australian Federal Police among others. The scheme allows a court to direct a person not to attend a particular Commonwealth workplace, not to go near an affected workplace and to comply with other conditions as appropriate. Only a court can make such an order, and it must be cancelled if the grounds for the order cease to exist. Broadly, a court is able to make such an order if satisfied that a person has engaged in personal violence or made threats of personal violence and there is a real risk the person will engage in further violence if the order is not made. The scheme does not require a worker to apply for an order themselves. Applications are made by the relevant agency through an authorised person. This addresses a known gap in the law whereby, under current arrangements, Commonwealth workers who needed to apply for a protection order may need to do so in their own name. Like other schemes, a person does not commit an offence simply because an order is made against them. However, contravening an order is punishable by up to two years jail or 120 penalty units, which is currently just under $40,000 or both. These penalties are appropriate. We understand from the government that the burden on the state and territory court system is expected to be minimal. The Attorney-General's Department has noted: Although the existing financial impact of violence and aggression toward Commonwealth workers has not been quantified, some impact on service delivery and resourcing is evident. They go on to note: Costs associated with administering the Bill may be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in more serious workplace-related violent offending and the costs for law enforcement agencies and courts of dealing with that more serious offending. The court focus, however, is on the safety of the Australian men and women whose work benefits the Australian public. The coalition will of course adopt its normal practice of subjecting the bill to ordinary scrutiny to ensure there are no unintended consequences. It is a practice we cannot afford to depart from lightly. Far too often under this Attorney-General we have discovered errors or mistakes which have real adverse consequences for Australia. So we will subject this bill to appropriate scrutiny. But we understand the intent of the legislation and, subject to the results of that inquiry, we will cautiously support it. Debate adjourned.
Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is a bill which sadly is necessary because of the repeated failures of the Albanese government to prevent the sadly...
I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is a bill which sadly is necessary because of the repeated failures of the Albanese government to prevent the sadly predictable spread of antisemitism. Attacks on Jewish Australians are attacks on every Australian. To attack people because they profess the Jewish faith or have Jewish ancestry is to repudiate the Australian way of life. We are a country that prides itself on treating people equally whatever their faith or background. It's a core national value, and a stain of antisemitism is a direct rejection of that value. The initial spark for the antisemitic attacks that we are seeing across the country came, of course, with the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel by the terrorist group Hamas. Make no mistake: the October 7 attack was the single greatest loss of Jewish lives on any day since the Holocaust. October 7 was a day of murder, torture, kidnapping and brutal sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas against Jews in Israel. The cruelty was deliberate. The horrors do not bear repeating in this chamber, but there is no doubt that they were designed with the purpose of maximising pain and sorrow amongst Jewish people. It is both desperately sad and utterly predictable that, on learning of those horrific attacks on Jewish people in their own homeland, malicious actors here in Australia would draw inspiration. Those bad actors here in Australia rejoiced in the day that was marked by the murder, torture, sexual assault and kidnapping of Israelis. In the words of one hate preacher, October 7 was 'a day of courage, a day of pride, a day of victory.' It was obvious that they would see those attacks as giving licence to spread the same, vile antisemitic hate here—to target Jewish Australians, to spread fear, to use our streets and university campuses to call for the destruction of the Jewish state, to spread old antisemitic tropes, often hiding behind the weak academic pretence that somehow what they were doing was anti-Israeli, not antisemitic, and to target businesses, homes, cars and synagogues. The attempts to spread antisemitism in this country after October 7 were, as I said, desperately sad and utterly predictable. This is where the government's failings first came to the fore. In this country, tone is set at the top. The tone for the national response is set by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister could and should have made clear through his actions from the very beginning that those who sought to spread antisemitic attacks here would feel the full force of the law. He could and should have been very clear from the very beginning about the scale of the horror inflicted by Hamas and that Australia would stand with its long-term friend and ally, Israel. He could and should have used our laws and our police forces to clamp down on those who sought to weaponise the Hamas attacks for their own purposes here at home. But what did we get instead? First, we saw inaction. For months and months, we had Labor ministers who couldn't acknowledge domestic antisemitism without also mentioning other forms of discrimination. There are many forms of discrimination, and all of them are unacceptable, but it was clear after October 7 that we were seeing a crisis in antisemitism in this nation. We, as a country, saw a 700 per cent rise in antisemitic incidents in a period of months. On that night of infamy at the Sydney Opera House, October 9, we had angry mobs standing outside the Opera House, chanting hateful messages towards Jewish Australians. We had shops being vandalised, Jewish students being harassed and roaming gangs in places like Caulfield hunting for Jews. At a time when we're responding to an unprecedented wave of antisemitism here in our country, when we are seeing armed guards outside Jewish schools, it is, of course, appropriate to focus on antisemitism. But the Prime Minister did not do that. We saw a rolling failure to take decisive action at home. Antisemitic displays were not prosecuted. Antisemitic protests were not stopped. Antisemitic sentiment was allowed to fester. We have criminal laws that are meant to deal with these things; they were not used. The AFP was not given clear direction or focus by a prime minister demanding results. Protests in our streets, in which antisemitic displays abounded, were permitted to drag on for months and months and months. Universities were permitted to be used as encampments that served as a hotbed of antisemitic action. Jewish students were harassed because of who they were. Our human rights institutions and federal government institutions were not given focus or direction. They were not called to account when they abandoned the Jew community. The Prime Minister's response was drowsy, weak and disinterested. We've also seen this government and this Prime Minister abandon Israel on the international stage. In the wake of October 7, the instinct of this government was not to stand with Israel, which had just been the target of a horrific atrocity. Later we saw a series of votes in the United Nations in which Australia reversed a longstanding bipartisan position on Israel, a bipartisan position that existed for more than 20 years. But we know what happened. For sordid, tawdry, domestic political reasons, the government abandoned Israel—for its perceived political gain. It said that it no longer supported the basic fundamental point that recognition of a Palestinian state can only come through negotiation between all the parties, which of course must include Israel. The Prime Minister and foreign minister betrayed our values because they were worried about a political fight with the Greens. They were more interested in the Labor vote in Brunswick than in doing the right thing in our votes at the United Nations. Let's not pretend for one minute that Labor's votes at the UN were about principle or about human rights. They were not. They were about trying to save a few seats by targeting a few hundred thousand votes in inner-city electorates. Of course, Hamas's evil actions on October 7 were designed to move nations away from Israel. Now, that did not work in the United States, under President Biden, but it did work in Australia, under Anthony Albanese. The consequences of this government's indifference to domestic antisemitism have been stark. I've already mentioned the months of protests in our capital cities and the occupation of our universities. We've seen Jewish Australians doxxed for nothing more than being part of a WhatsApp group. We've seen shops owned by Jewish Australians targeted. We've seen Jewish students and academics harassed. We've seen buildings graffitied with hateful, antisemitic material, including the Southern Sydney Synagogue in Allawah, just outside my electorate. We've seen cars torched. We've seen the attempted arson of the Newtown Synagogue in Sydney, the burning of a daycare centre in Maroubra, the terrorist firebombing of the Addas synagogue in Melbourne and now, extraordinarily, a caravan packed with explosives, apparently targeting Jewish addresses, and a Prime Minister who was in the dark—oblivious. This is an extraordinary failure by a weak prime minister, and it is marking our national character. The laws that we are discussing today are intended to help mitigate some of the government's failures. They strengthen the existing offences in division 80 of the Criminal Code, which should have been used to stop the spark of antisemitism before it became a wildfire. Existing offences in division 80 of the Criminal Code make it an offence to urge violence against individuals on the basis of their race, religion and so on. They make it an offence to urge violence against groups because of their race or religion, among other things, and they make it an offence to advocate terrorism or genocide. For months we've been calling for the existing laws to be used. We in the coalition have been saying that the existing offences should be tested and that those preaching antisemitism should be put before a court. Why didn't that happen? Why weren't those who called for antisemitic violence put before a court almost a year ago, as the coalition suggested? Was it an unwillingness on the part of the government to run test cases, or did they hope that this insidious, evil problem would simply go away? For months we've been saying that, if the existing thresholds are for some reason so high that we cannot even run a test case, let's review them. Why didn't that happen back then? Was it drowsy disinterest from the Prime Minister once more? Regardless, the changes made by these laws as introduced are welcome. As soon as they were put before this chamber, it became clear that there were some simple, straightforward steps the government was proposing to take. Because these laws lower the threshold for criminality for those who urge violence against individuals or groups, instead of needing to prove that the person intended that violence occur, police now only need to prove that the person was reckless as to whether the violence would occur. This is a welcome change. These laws as currently drafted remove the good-faith defence for those urging violence. This, too, is a welcome move. After all, you can't urge someone to engage in acts of violence in good faith. The new provisions expand the offences that relate to the urging of violence so that they cover a broader range of personal characteristics on the basis of which a person or group is targeted. That is uncontroversial. These laws introduce new offences for threatening force or violence that are closely related to but distinct from urging violence. This is also uncontroversial. This bill was introduced in the last sitting week of September 2024. Given the urgency, the coalition wrote to the government before parliament resumed in October, offering to pass the bill as written. The government did not take up that offer. So, instead, we engaged constructively in the committee process and in the community, working to a timetable of the government's choosing. We examined the bill carefully, and, when the committee reported back after the end of the 2024 sitting year as the government requested, we recommended that the bill be passed. But we also said that, in the process, it should be made stronger and should cover attacks against places of worship. We plan to move those amendments, and I hope the government supports them. They're simple, straightforward amendments which will add two new offences to the Criminal Code: firstly, urging force, violence or damage against places of worship; and, secondly, threatening force, violence or damage against places of worship. These two new offences follow the model set by Labor's own drafting as closely as possible but are specifically designed to deal with those who urge or threaten attacks on places of worship. The need for those provisions is blatantly clear in light of the Adass synagogue terrorist attack and, apparently, the targets of the Sydney caravan plot. Unfortunately, however, this bill is not enough. The bitter truth is that we're now reaping the harvest of an awful summer of antisemitism. The government must do more. It must focus on operational issues. It's one thing to pass a law; it is another to enforce it. The government must set conditions for our police forces to find, arrest and actually commence prosecutions in the courts against those who have organised attacks on Jewish communities. But we must go further. This government needs to send a clear message by changing the law to impose mandatory minimum jail time for terrorism offences and for the display of terrorist symbols like the Hizballah and Hamas flags. There should be no doubt in the mind of any paid thug or antisemite that, if they hope to plan or participate in a terrorist attack, they will spend years in jail—where they belong. There should be no doubt that Australia will not tolerate the glorification of listed terrorist organisations that hate Australia and everything it stands for. Those who wave the flags of these organisations, glorifying them for the general public and legitimising their antisemitic hatred, do not belong on our streets. These measures are strong, but they're necessary. Because the failures of this Prime Minister have let the antisemitism genie out of the bottle, it falls to all of us to get it back in. I thank the House. Debate adjourned.
Middle East: Occupied Palestinian Territories | Statements by Members | House debates
For tawdry domestic political reasons, the government has trashed two decades of bipartisanship on policy towards the recognition of a Palestinian state. This is shameful. For more than 20 years,...
For tawdry domestic political reasons, the government has trashed two decades of bipartisanship on policy towards the recognition of a Palestinian state. This is shameful. For more than 20 years, Australia has held the bipartisan position that recognition of a Palestinian state can only come as a consequence of negotiations to resolve the many complex issues involved—issues such as borders, rights of return and security guarantees. We have stood side by side with the United States on this issue across coalition and Labor governments and Democrat and Republican administrations, and we've done that because it is plainly the right thing to do. The United States maintained that longstanding position under former president Biden. But Labor has walked away from that and now says that recognition of a Palestinian state can come before any of the many unresolved issues are addressed. Why? It's simple. It's because Minister Wong is worried about the Labor vote against the Greens in electorates like Wills, Griffith and Brisbane. This isn't about human rights, diplomacy or high principles of international relations; it is about a sordid attempt to grab votes in a few key seats. That tells you everything you need to know about the Albanese government.
Antisemitism is the world's most ancient hatred, dating back thousands of years, and history is incredibly clear: if you allow antisemitism to gain even the smallest foothold in your society, you...
Antisemitism is the world's most ancient hatred, dating back thousands of years, and history is incredibly clear: if you allow antisemitism to gain even the smallest foothold in your society, you are no longer safe; your society is no longer safe. It is an evil that is always there below the surface and, at the first sign of it coming above the surface, it must be repressed. History could not be clearer on that point. We face a crisis today of antisemitism in Australia, and we have to think about how we got here and how we can ensure that the crisis is curtailed and that we never, ever get into this position again. On 9 October 2023, that night of infamy at the Sydney Opera House, we were all shocked by what we saw. We'd seen nothing like that in our lifetimes—the most despicable sentiments towards Australians of Jewish faith. What should have happened then is that we should have come together as a nation, led by our Prime Minister, and put in place a clear national strategy and plan to deal with antisemitism. But, unfortunately, that did not happen. It should have been the top of the Prime Minister's priority list after we saw that evil of 9 October. It didn't happen. In November of 2023, the next month, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister and basically said, 'We need to significantly escalate our focus on stopping antisemitism in this country. We need to have a National Cabinet meeting, make this a national priority and really lead on this right now.' Again, the Prime Minister did not take up that offer and, in fact, did not even respond to the letter. It's really important that we talk about these things, because this is a democracy, and the way democracies can progress is by learning from their mistakes, and it is self-evident that, from the beginning of this antisemitism crisis up to this day, immense mistakes have been made. We need to learn from that. We need to learn from the ongoing failure to address antisemitic acts as they arose in our community. We saw antisemitic displays not prosecuted. We saw antisemitic protests allowed to continue week after week, with no consequences for the people who held up those shameful signs and made those shameful statements. Horrendously, we saw Australian students of Jewish faith afraid to go to university because of who they were—in Australia in 2024. That should never, ever happen in this country, but it did. Then we saw these acts escalated. We've seen horrendous acts of graffiti on synagogues around the country—on the Southern Sydney Synagogue in Allawah, just outside my electorate, and so many others around the country, like the synagogue in Newtown—and on the childcare centre at Maroubra. Most shockingly, of course, there was the attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne. All of these things have happened in our country. What should have happened is that, back on 9 October, when we saw the face of antisemitism in Australia at the Sydney Opera House, our Prime Minister should have led the nation in a response. He didn't do that. That was wrong, and we need to be frank about it. We now need to take action on things like mandatory sentencing for people who commit acts of terror. It sounds straightforward. We should do that. We need to have mandatory sentencing in relation to symbols of an antisemitic nature. We all need to move forward to address this antisemitism crisis in Australia and take steps to ensure that we never, ever again end up in this situation in our great nation.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 | Statements by Members | House debates
On Sunday a very sad and sorry 18-month saga came to an end with the government's formal abandonment of its shocking misinformation bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting...
On Sunday a very sad and sorry 18-month saga came to an end with the government's formal abandonment of its shocking misinformation bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. This was one of the worst bills ever put forward by any government of Australia. This was a shocking attack on free speech from a government that wanted to censor the honestly held opinions of Australians. This government wanted to exempt some people, like academics, from its misinformation bill, but not everyday Australians. The minister went all the way to Brussels to talk about how important this misinformation bill was, to give a speech to European Union bureaucrats. But what about the impact on ordinary Australians? The minister wanted to be able to—believe it or not—personally order misinformation investigations and personally order misinformation hearings here in one of the greatest democracies on earth—an absolute disgrace. The bill included politics and referendums expressly, and it united just about everyone against it, from the Human Rights Commission to civil liberties groups to the Catholic Bishops Conference to the Shia Muslim community to the Anglican Church to Victorian Bar to Professor Anne Twomey. An extraordinary group of people united against the bill, and they were united because it was a shocking attack on free speech. It was a humiliating backdown. This bill must never be brought back in any form by this government.
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The coalition will be supporting the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. Back in June, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, stood up in Sydney and committed the...
The coalition will be supporting the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. Back in June, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, stood up in Sydney and committed the coalition to implementing an age limit of 16 for social media in Australia within 100 days of the election of a future coalition government. He did that because he believes passionately in protecting Australian children from harm. He has done that all his career, whether as a police officer, as the Minister for Home Affairs or in so many other roles in this place. When you think about it, what is more important than protecting children from harm? It is one of our very highest responsibilities in this place. I'll come to the specifics of the bill in a moment, but first I want to note at the outset that the coalition has negotiated two significant improvements to this bill with the government. These have been agreed with the government and will be presented in the final version of the bill to be presented in the Senate. Firstly, the legislation will include a specific provision that nothing in the bill allows a social media company to compel the provision of digital ID or government issued identity documents such as passports or drivers licences. This is an important addition and further strengthens the privacy provisions in the legislation. Secondly, the government has agreed to a coalition request to provide the minister with a clear power to specify steps that are not required to be taken by social media companies to comply with the legislation. While the eSafety Commissioner will be responsible for formulating guidelines on what constitutes 'reasonable steps' under the bill, the minister may that direct that specific actions are not required in order for the platforms to satisfy that 'reasonable steps' test. This is also an important addition as it allows the minister to ensure enforcement of the legislation is always appropriate and proportionate. These are both significant, and we look forward to their inclusion in the final bill to be presented to the Senate. Now, I come to the bill and the issue at its core. It's been my view for a long time that the protection of children from social media is one of the defining issues of our era. Every parent worries about this. We worry about what our kids are seeing. We worry about what they're exposed to on platforms like Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram. And we're right to worry about them. The data is clear: the mental health of Australian children, especially girls, has deteriorated badly in the past decade. For instance, self-harm hospitalisations by girls aged 10 to 14 have increased by more than 300 per cent over the past decade. Leading psychologist Dr Simon Wilksch, a strong supporter of setting an age limit of 16 for social media, said that the 200 per cent increase in 10- to 14-year-olds experiencing an eating disorder over the last 12 years strongly overlaps with the rapid growth in social media use by children. And it was the US Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, who made the important point that the mental health crisis among young people is an emergency, and social media has emerged as an important contributor. I want to come back to some of the families that have spoken out passionately on this issue. Some people say that the precise correlation between the rise of social media and the rise of the mental health crisis amongst Australians is just a coincidence. That argument should be treated with the absolute contempt that it deserves. We would expect social media platforms to make that argument, and I'll come back to them. But, in my view, it is shameful some of the so-called experts, lobbyists and other groups make that same argument too. They should have the courage to make that argument to some of the courageous parents that many of us have met, people like Wayne Holdsworth, who lost his son, Mac; people like Mat and Kelly O'Brien, who lost their daughter, Charlotte; people like Robb Evans, who lost his daughter, Liv. I have been privileged to meet with many parents over the past months, and, when we come together today to vote for this legislation, they're who we are fighting for. We're fighting for every child who has been devastated by social media, we're fighting for the children who are still too young to have experienced these toxic environments and we're fighting for the children who are yet to come. The key provision in this legislation is a requirement on social media companies to take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users. I want to say this is a very similar provision to what we see in similar legislation in the United States, in states like Florida and Utah and Louisiana. Those states use terms like 'reasonable steps' or 'reasonable endeavours' and then empower a regulator to oversee the process. It's the right structure. And it's the right structure because it requires social media companies to actually do something to remove underage children from their platforms, as opposed to what most of them do now, which is nothing. If they don't take reasonable steps under the legislation they can be fined up to $50 million, so this will get their attention and will require them to take action. We know they can do it now. One of the reasons we know is because TikTok has told the Australian parliament that it can do it now and does do it now. TikTok gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry—this is a very important point—of this place saying that in 2023 they removed 76 million underage users from their platforms, including one million in Australia. They did that without requiring any provision of documents by adults or any digital ID or any of these sorts of things that they're seeking to talk about now. They did that by using their technology. These are the most sophisticated technology companies in the world, except when it comes to protecting children. Meta is worth A$2 trillion. Imagine if they got $1,000 every time they identified an underage child. Do you think they'd get pretty good at it? I do. And we know from TikTok's own testimony that they can do it now and they do do it now. But the industry does not want to be placed under any obligation to do this, and we know why. Because it's going to cost them a lot of money. The reason it will cost them a lot of money is because there are a lot of underage kids who shouldn't be on these platforms and these platforms are able to monetise those underage kids by selling advertising to those accounts. It's somewhat ironic that I find myself having such a strong view on this and pursuing this issue, as we have for such a long time. I spent my whole career in technology. Before I was elected to parliament, I was head of digital for Nine Entertainment Co. I've worked in many digital businesses over the years. Digital has been overwhelmingly a positive thing for our country. Ninety-nine per cent of the digital revolution has been a good thing. But this one per cent is an evil, dark part of the internet that we have to take on head-on, and this legislation helps move in that direction. The companies are going to say, 'It's all very complicated and it's all very hard,' and of course they would say that, because they're trying to defend their position. But once this law is in place, their incentive is to make this process as smooth as possible, and that's what they'll do. That's what we've seen TikTok has already been doing. To briefly go back to the amendment, there's a lot of discussion about privacy. On another bill, the misinformation bill, you'd be aware, Deputy Speaker Vasta, the coalition passionately opposed that bill. I think I could fairly say that I led that fight on behalf of the coalition. We were very pleased when that bill was withdrawn. It was an appalling piece of legislation that would have compromised the free speech of Australians. This bill is not that. This bill is about saying, 'We don't want young kids in unsafe environments.' For decades we've had rules about classifications for movies and TV shows. Presumably nobody is suggesting we should allow children to attend X-rated movies. I don't see anyone putting their hand up and saying, 'It's a terrible restraint on the rights of children that a 10-year-old can't attend an X-rated movie.' We're not saying that, because it would be absurd and ridiculous. In my view, it is equally absurd and ridiculous to say that these digital platforms should have no requirement to identify and remove underage children who should not be in those environments. That's what we have to tackle with this legislation. Imagine if we went back 15 years and said: 'Look, here's what we're going to do. We're going to create this thing called social media and we're basically going to allow any child on Earth to enter into that environment. We're going to have adults in there. It's going to be anonymous if you want it to be. You will be able to provide that child with any information, images or videos in that environment. You will be able to bully that child, harass that child or provide material to that child that is entirely inappropriate for them at that stage of their life development.' Imagine if we went back and said we were going to do that. Imagine if there was a bill in this parliament that said, 'Let's do that.' We would have said: 'That's outrageous. You can't do that.' But that's what's happened. So what we need here is the intellectual clarity and strength to see through that and to act upon it. This legislation is not perfect. Nothing in this space will be perfect. People can talk about each case and ask, 'Could someone do this?' or 'Could someone do that?' or 'Could it be evaded in this circumstance or that?' Those things will happen. But they happen with every rule or regulation we put in place. We have an alcohol rule for kids under 18, but we don't say, 'Some kids are going to drink under age, so let's just not have a rule.' We don't say, 'Some people are going to speed, so let's just have no speed limits.' It is an argument that, frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense. But the tech platforms are very smart and very sophisticated and they will continue to pursue that. I want to thank a few people. Until recently, I was just an occasional listener of Nova 96.9. I want to thank Michael 'Wippa' Wipfli, Rob Galluzzo and the whole 36 Months campaign. They have acted with incredible integrity, passion and drive. They have had a significant influence on this national debate, and they can be very proud of what they have achieved. I want to thank Jane Rowan from Eating Disorders Families Australia, a courageous person speaking up for the rights of children in this space. I also want to thank some courageous academics, Dr Danielle Einstein of Macquarie University and Dr Simon Wilksch of Flinders University, who have spoken with exceptional passion on this issue. Dr Wilksch and Dr Einstein have called a spade a spade. Dr Wilksch organised a letter signed by more than 100 of Australia's top mental health professionals and professionals dealing with eating disorders that basically said: 'Enough. We've got enough research. We've got enough experience. We've got enough of a record of the horrendous data that we're seeing. Enough. It's time to act. Put in place an age limit of 16 for social media. It won't be perfect, but it will be infinitely more perfect than what we've got now.' Dr Simon Wilksch is worthy of immense respect for his work. Equally, Dr Danielle Einstein of Macquarie University has very much lived up to her name. She has shown immense ability to marshal the research in this area, to demonstrate the appalling statistics that we are seeing on the mental health of Australian girls and kids more broadly and to say, 'The time for action is now.' So I want to thank Dr Einstein and Dr Wilksch. I also want to thank Dany Elachi and the Heads Up Alliance in Sydney. They have done a lot of work in this area, speaking up for parents and saying, 'We need action.' They did something very similar on the mobile phone ban in New South Wales, which has been very successful and the Minns government deserve credit for that. They have also spoken out very clearly on this issue as well. They are concerned that this legislation doesn't go far enough. I respect those concerns. I deeply appreciate all of their work and believe they should be honoured for the efforts that they have made in helping to put in place this national debate and to create this legislation. I want to thank the government. We have obviously had a lot of discussions about this issue. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has supported this move and that this legislation has come forward. But, most of all, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition. You might say that I would do that as he is my boss, after all, but this is a leader with guts. This is a leader who says what he believes and takes action. He knows, like I think almost all Australian parents know, that what's going on right now in social media is utterly unacceptable. Small measures and incremental steps are not enough. We need to take a stand and say we're going to impose age limits. Knowing that there will be immense opposition from the digital platforms, that not everyone would agree and that the digital platforms would seek to weaponise this debate, he did it anyway. That is a mark of his leadership, and it's very consistent with everything he's done throughout his career in standing up, fighting for children, protecting them and giving Australian families comfort that this parliament is on their side and is going to work very, very hard to protect them and do everything it can. I thank the Prime Minister for his involvement in putting forward this legislation as well. In closing, this is a significant piece of legislation. The coalition has negotiated some very important protections on privacy. They strengthen privacy protections. They ensure that no platform can compel the provision of digital ID, drivers' licences, passports or anything like that. That's not what this is about. This is not about political communication in Australia; it's about protecting our kids. It won't be perfect, but it will be infinitely more perfect than what we have now. When this legislation passes, I believe we can all be very satisfied that we've done something meaningful, real and that will help Australian families. It shows us united in standing up against the tech platforms who for too long have shown no regard for the mental health of Australian children. We need to stand up to that and put in place this legislation to help support that effort.
Cybersafety | Questions without Notice | House debates
on indulgenceI rise in support of the remarks of the Minister for Communications. This issue of the safety of Australian children online on social media is one of the defining issues of our era....
on indulgenceI rise in support of the remarks of the Minister for Communications. This issue of the safety of Australian children online on social media is one of the defining issues of our era. It is of titanic significance to our community. What we have seen in recent years, in the impacts on the mental health of Australian children of social media, has been absolutely appalling. The social media companies for too long have abrogated their responsibility to care about Australian children. When we look at the data on the mental health of Australian children, especially girls, we see devastating impacts. We welcome this legislation being put forward. The Leader of the Opposition committed the coalition to a very similar policy back in June, and we look forward to working constructively on this legislation, with a view to seeing it pass through the parliament next week.
Cybersafety | Statements by Members | House debates
The Leader of the Opposition committed the coalition to a social media age limit of 16 back in June. It should have happened then, but we're pleased it is finally happening now. This issue is...
The Leader of the Opposition committed the coalition to a social media age limit of 16 back in June. It should have happened then, but we're pleased it is finally happening now. This issue is urgent. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we need to pass legislation by next week. The impact of social media on children is one of the defining issues of our era. Parents lie awake at night, worrying about what their kids are being exposed to on Snapchat or TikTok or Instagram. And they are right to worry. We've seen very disturbing mental health trends for Australian children, especially girls, over the past decade. Social media is playing a major role in that devastation. We welcome the fact that Snapchat is now included in the legislation. Snapchat has brought despair, and sometimes tragedy, to many Australian families. We'll work in good faith with the government to finalise this legislation. In particular, we want to ensure that very robust privacy protections are in place. We want to ensure that social media companies must start right now to implement these laws. There is no time to waste. In June, the Leader of the Opposition made a crucial commitment that sparked a national debate. Next week, we can conclude that debate by all standing together in this place to protect Australian children.
National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I want to speak about section 43A of this bill, which seeks to say that the NBN must always stay in public ownership. It is a completely farcical piece of legislation that this government is...
I want to speak about section 43A of this bill, which seeks to say that the NBN must always stay in public ownership. It is a completely farcical piece of legislation that this government is seeking to put before the parliament. It contrasts this section—and indeed the whole bill—with many, many statements by members of the Labor Party about the NBN over a period going back some 14 years, when the government introduced the legislation in relation to the ownership of the NBN. You know who actually introduced the legislation that this government is seeking to overturn? It was the member for Grayndler, the Prime Minister, who stood at the dispatch box over there and made a number of statements about the bill, which this section 43(a) seeks to overturn. He said the bill: … sets out arrangements for the eventual sale of the Commonwealth's stake in the company once the NBN rollout is complete, including provisions for independent and parliamentary reviews prior to any privatisation, and for the parliament to have the final say on the sale. What the Prime Minister—the member for Grayndler back then—said was that this legislation sets out processes in relation to NBN ownership. The minister for communications of the day put out a press release saying 'government committed to sale of NBN Co'. This section 43(a) seeks to overturn those arrangements. Frankly, section 43(a) of this bill needs to be called out for the pathetic and sad stunt that it is. What matters with the NBN is the fact that, under this government, it is crashing to earth in a very bad way for Australian taxpayers. We saw the minister say last year, when huge price rises were approved for the NBN, that this was 'great news for consumers'. There were price rises of up to 14 per cent from October of last year to June this year. That was across just eight or nine months and affected six million Australians. We have seen people leave the NBN—and why are they leaving the NBN? It is because, under this government, the service is bad. The NBN satellite business is absolutely collapsing. It has lost tens of thousands of customers under this government. Does the government actually do something to focus on the success of the NBN and make sure it provides good products to Australians? No. The government's main interest in the NBN is the occasional hi-vis photo opportunity, but you don't make the NBN better for Australians by standing on the side of the road in a hi-vis vest. You just don't. But that is what this government is doing, and to say that price rises are great news for consumers is extraordinary. We've also seen in the brownfields business of the NBN, which is the core NBN homes—this is existing homes. Guess how many Australians have abandoned the NBN's brownfields product under this government. One hundred thousand. And why are they leaving? They're leaving because prices are going up and up and because the service is poor. You know what else is happening for taxpayers under this government and the NBN? The cash losses continue to increase. In the last financial year, we saw Australian taxpayers have a cash loss of $1.4 billion, up $300 million on the previous year. NBN is losing heaps of cash, losing lots of customers and raising prices. It's a very bad situation. Logically, what should you be doing? You should be focusing on getting the NBN back on track so it actually provides good services for Australians and Australians don't continue to leave at such an extraordinary rate. But the government instead is trying to create a silly faux debate about the ownership of the NBN in contrast to its own legislation and its own public statements about this issue, which had always contemplated circumstances in which its ownership arrangements could potentially change down the track. What we need is maturity. We don't need silly, lame, pathetic, childish stunts. We need maturity about the NBN. We need a focus on getting the NBN back on track. We need a government that can actually successfully lead the NBN. We don't need this silly legislation.
My question is to the Minister for Communications. Australian parents were shocked to hear the Minister for Communications state, on 14 November, that Snapchat could be exempt from the...
My question is to the Minister for Communications. Australian parents were shocked to hear the Minister for Communications state, on 14 November, that Snapchat could be exempt from the government's social media age limit legislation. Snapchat has wreaked havoc on Australian families, often with devastating consequences. Will the Albanese government reversed course and guarantee that Snapchat will be included in the law?
Gambling | Questions without Notice | House debates
It's on relevance. The question was very clear. It was: when will the government make a decision on gambling reform? The minister should be asked to address that question.
My question is to the Minister for Communications. The government has been sitting on its hands for 498 days since the former member for Dunkley, the late Peta Murphy, handed down her report on...
My question is to the Minister for Communications. The government has been sitting on its hands for 498 days since the former member for Dunkley, the late Peta Murphy, handed down her report on the harm caused by online gambling. Around the time of her passing, the Prime Minister said of Ms Murphy that she 'led the charge on reducing the harm caused by online gambling'. When will this government make a decision in relation to online gambling reforms, a decision very much on the minds of the Australian people?
36 Months | Statements by Members | House debates
Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition and I met with representatives of the 36 Months campaign, which is doing extraordinary work in advocating for the protection of children from social...
Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition and I met with representatives of the 36 Months campaign, which is doing extraordinary work in advocating for the protection of children from social media and have been advocating for a long time for the age of 16 to be imposed as a limit. We met with Matthew and Kelly O'Brien, the parents of Charlotte, who was tragically lost to suicide, and also with Robb Evans, the father of Liv, who was also tragically lost to suicide. The strength of these parents in the most unimaginable of circumstances is something that is extraordinary, and their advocacy is the definition of 'powerful'. I also want to acknowledge Rob Galluzzo and Michael 'Wippa' Wipfli, who have set the agenda through their 36 Months campaign in an incredibly impressive fashion and used their ability to reach the community in an extremely impressive way. In June the coalition committed to legislating for a minimum age of 16 for social media. We welcome the government taking on that position today. We don't want there to be exemptions in this legislation for companies like Instagram or TikTok or Snapchat—that must not happen—and we want to work to get this legislation not only introduced this year but passed this year to protect Australian families.
Housing | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
Does anyone believe that, though?
Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the amendment. Debate adjourned.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Banks Electorate: Community Events | Constituency Statements | House debates
On 27 September I attended the annual awards presentation of the St George Basketball Association. As always, it was a fantastic night. I really want to thank Ray Barbi, Val Stoddart, Anna...
On 27 September I attended the annual awards presentation of the St George Basketball Association. As always, it was a fantastic night. I really want to thank Ray Barbi, Val Stoddart, Anna Pazanin and everyone who makes St George Basketball Association such a fundamental part of our community. Ray Barbi works harder than anyone in our community for his organisation. He is deeply committed to the St George Basketball Association, and it's wonderful to see the association flourishing. They need more facilities, and they need better facilities. Ray and the association will continue to campaign for that. I want to congratulate all the people who were acknowledged on the night, the winners of the Banks outstanding sporting achievement awards and everyone else who was there. Thank you, St George Basketball Association, for everything you do. Nan Tien Temple in Berkeley near Wollongong is an extremely important part of our community. On 22 September, I attended its 30th anniversary celebrations. I was joined by other members of the parliament, including the Assistant Treasurer. I want to thank Venerable Abbess Manko and all of the other venerables who were there for everything that Nan Tien does for our community not only through its spiritual guidance but also through the Nan Tien Institute, which was opened about 10 years ago. It is a higher education institution of high reputation. Thank you, Nan Tien, and thank you to BLIA, Buddha's Light International Australia, for all the great work that you do in our community. Also on 22 September I attended the Connells Point market day. Thank you to Patrick Wedes who conceived of this idea for a market day last year. This year was the second year. The first year was great, and the second was even better. There were heaps of people there enjoying all the different activities. There were 37 stalls. The SES was there. You could learn to sail. There were lots of free events for children, and there were lots of local small businesses there. It was a fantastic day with beautiful sunshine. Connells Point was seen to advantage on the day. Patrick, thank you for having that idea, thank you for making it happen and thank you for bringing it to our local community. Penshurst is a beautiful place, and it is fantastic that it now has Project Penshurst 2222 to stand up for it. Nicky Parras and everyone who's involved in Project Penshurst are passionate about making the suburb the best it can be. They have a wonderful idea about creating a park in the disused land next to the railway station. That's a great idea. The state government should support it. They have lots of other important ideas about improving the streetscape of Penshurst, improving the roads and increasing community safety. So to Nicky and the whole team at Project Penshurst 2222, it's great to be able to support you. Thank you for everything you do.
National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Very happy to do that, Deputy Speaker. So this proposal, as I say, is the sort of thing you put forward when you're completely out of ideas. The government's proposal is to change the 2010 law...
Very happy to do that, Deputy Speaker. So this proposal, as I say, is the sort of thing you put forward when you're completely out of ideas. The government's proposal is to change the 2010 law related to the ownership of the NBN. Of course, that's law that came into place when Labor were in power, so this is Labor law that they are seeking to change. The Prime Minister back then, of course, was a cabinet minister—he was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport—and Leader of the House, and it's his law that he's now seeking to change. He's now saying that he seeks urgently to change it, despite not acting on so many other areas of policy. We haven't been briefed on this law as yet, Deputy Speaker. That's going to happen, I believe, later today, so we'll respond in the usual way once we've reviewed the legislation. But what this is about is an attempt to distract from the catastrophic failures of this government relating to many things, including the NBN. When we look at the NBN we see we have the quite extraordinary situation whereby the government has cheered on price rises for the NBN that have absolutely smashed Australian consumers. We saw the extraordinary situation earlier this year whereby six million families were hit by this government with massive NBN price rises. They were hit first in November 2023 and again in July 2024. The government may welcome those price rises. In fact, they do welcome the price rises, because the Minister for Communications infamously described the decision that led to those price rises as 'great news for consumers'. It's in the press release, so it's very hard to unwind now. The minister described as 'great news for consumers' price rises of 14 per cent for people who use NBN products. Do you know what else, Deputy Speaker? The people who have suffered the greatest price rises under this government are the people who are on the lowest cost, most affordable plans, the people who can afford those price rises the least. What we saw back in November 2023 was an initial price increase. Then we saw, in July of 2024, another price increase. So, in total, there have been price increases of 11 to 14 per cent in just eight months under this government. The bottom line is: how are people supposed to pay for them? How are they supposed to find the money for those additional NBN price rises? But that's what they have to do, because under this government that is what has happened. This government should apologise for those price rises and for enthusiastically welcoming those price rises and describing them as great news for customers. That is just one of many things that are going so terribly wrong when it comes to the NBN. Under this government, we have seen a collapse in the satellite business of the NBN. People are literally running away from the NBN product because it is so bad. That is what is happening, Deputy Speaker. When this government came into power there were about 120,000 people who subscribed to the NBN satellite product. Now the number is down below 85,000 people. The NBN has seen a massive loss of customers. At the same time, Starlink, the competitive satellite product, which had virtually no customers two years ago, now has 270,000 customers. What is the government's response? It's to convene a roundtable of academics to discuss the issue, because this is a government and this is a minister that never met a roundtable they didn't like. The atmosphere of indecision, malaise and failure to take action to stand up for Australian consumers is on very proud display when it comes to the NBN. We're also seeing a further deterioration in the financial position of NBN. In the last 12 months, NBN's cash outflow was negative $1.4 billion, $300 million worse than the negative $1.1 billion result in the previous financial year under this government. So things are getting worse and worse. The prices are going up. Satellite customers are leaving. Do you know who else is leaving the NBN, Deputy Speaker Claydon? It's people who live in existing homes—what they call brownfields customers. People who live in normal homes are leaving the NBN. One of the big reasons they're leaving the NBN is that prices have gone up by so much under this government, and this is happening in the middle of the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis. So it's not only the NBN prices that are going up; everything's going up. Since the election, people have seen the cost of health go up by more than 10 per cent, the cost of education by more than 11 per cent, the cost of food by more than 12 per cent and the cost of electricity by 14 per cent. Housing's gone up by 13 per cent. Rents have gone up by 16 per cent. Financial products and insurance have gone up by 17 per cent. Gas has gone up by 33 per cent. Fruit and vegetable prices have seen their highest rise since December 2022. So what the government should be doing is urgently bringing forward measures to address the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are dealing with at the moment. But do they do that? No, they don't. They don't do that. They don't bring forward something to address that issue. They bring forward something to address an issue related to the ownership of NBN, despite basically never having spoken about the issue in parliament in the entire two years that the government has been in position. It is an extraordinary failure. If you look at the communications portfolio, it is notable that the government seeks to bring on a debate about this issue, but what about the media bargaining code? What about the fact that Australian media companies have been absolutely smashed by Meta's withdrawal from paying for the intellectual property of Australian media? On 1 March, 7½ months ago, the Minister for Communications said that she and her colleague the Assistant Treasurer had made their expectations clear to the media companies—that this was just unacceptable and that the government would be taking firm action. That was 7½ months ago. What's happened since? Nothing, except—I'll tell you what has happened—large-scale job losses in the media industry. We've seen very substantial job losses. The minister might not think that's important, but I do. I do think it's important. We've seen very substantial job losses at Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment, Associated Press and News Corp, and those groups have all made it very clear that a key part of the reason for those job losses is Meta's refusal to pay under the news media bargaining code administered by this minister. So does the minister bring a proposal to this government to actually solve the problem? No. The government doesn't do anything on that issue, which is so fundamental to the Australian media sector. Despite the clear powers that exist in the news media bargaining code, the government does absolutely nothing about that but seeks to artificially bring on a debate about the ownership of NBN, despite never talking about the issue in two years. It's kind of sad, transparent and pathetic as a political tactic. That's why Australians have worked this government out, and they've worked this Prime Minister out. They've worked out that he doesn't stand for anything, that he's weak, that he's indecisive and that he's presiding over a cost-of-living crisis that is smashing the average Australian family, as well as record insolvencies. So, the human cost of this government's inaction is very disturbing. That's what the government should be trying to address. But the government is instead putting on a confected display to seek to have a debate about the ownership of the NBN, despite the fact that, back in 2021, the government said that the NBN would be kept in public hands. This is not an issue that is new, not an issue that is urgent but an issue that is designed simply to bring forward a political debate. But that's not going to prevail, because people are smarter than that. People have seen through this government. They know that this government is desperate. They know that this government is weak, that it's indecisive, that it's presiding over some of the worst cost-of-living conditions Australians have ever seen. And rather than respond to that, rather than bring forward something to deal with these measures, the government does this. You have to ask the Minister for Communications: why doesn't the minister bring forward anything about gambling advertising? Government members interjecting— It's a very serious question. Why doesn't the Minister for Communications address this issue? I mean, she can't say she's not aware it's an issue of public concern. She can't say it's not an issue that worries Australians. And she can't say it's an issue that she's not had plenty of time to address. But she can't bring forward anything on that. She brings forward a piece of legislation that is not urgent in order to simply have a confected political debate. We'll review that legislation once we've been briefed on it, but what we will never, ever do is behave in the fashion of this government in presiding over a shocking cost-of-living crisis, of being weak and indecisive, of failing the Australian people and of putting politics before the substance of assisting Australians. That's something we will never do. This government should and must be held to account for its shocking failures.