Julian Leeser's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Cost of Living, Berowra Electorate: Infrastructure, Australia Post | Grievance Debate | House debates
As we enter the year 2026 and students go back to school and parents return to work, one thing is constantly discussed with me across my electorate and that is how much harder life has got under...
As we enter the year 2026 and students go back to school and parents return to work, one thing is constantly discussed with me across my electorate and that is how much harder life has got under this Labor government and how much more expensive it is. As we know, when Labor spends, you pay. Across my electorate, families are working harder just to afford the basic essentials as costs go up and up under this government. Insurance costs are up 38 per cent, energy bills are up 38 per cent, rent is up 22 per cent and health is up 18 per cent. In my shadow portfolio, education, the cost since Labor came to government is up 17 per cent. It's up 5.4 per cent this year, well above the broader inflation figure of 3.8 per cent. Child care is up 11.2 per cent. Grocery prices across the board are up 16 per cent. These figures are shocking and they have real impacts on families and family budgets. A local in Waitara recently wrote to me saying their apartment strata fees have more than doubled in two years. Their council charges and water and electricity costs have gone up as well. What we're seeing now in my electorate is families having to make very difficult decisions as the school year starts and the club sport year starts. Do they buy their child school shoes or do they register them at the local sporting club to play a winter sport? This is Berowra. This isn't one of the most economically strong areas of our country, nor is it one of the most economically challenged areas. It is a Middle Australian area. If families are struggling in my community, they're struggling so much more in other places. Not only has Labor's management of the economy made people's lives more difficult; Labor's failure to properly invest in infrastructure is also having a very deleterious effect on people in my community. New Line Road is the worst bottleneck in my community. It connects Pennant Hills and Pennant Hills Road through Cherrybrook up to Dural and up and out to the semi-rural part of my electorate. For 50 years, people have been waiting for New Line Road to be widened. My in-laws built their dream home there in the early 1980s and were told that the widening of New Line Road was some six months away. Well, people are still waiting today. When I first became the member for Berowra, I secured $10 million for the planning for the widening of the road. New Line Road is a state road, but sometimes when the federal government puts money on the table it pushes the state into action—and, indeed, it did. The state government matched that money. This was a Liberal state government. Then, in its last budget, the Perrottet government, with Matt Kean as Treasurer, committed $77 million for the widening of New Line Road between Hastings Road and Purchase Road, the main bottleneck. But, when the Minns government came to office, they shelved the project. They shelved the project that our community has been waiting half a century to bring about. We're fed up with it. It's why I've started a petition to put pressure on the Minns government—and the Albanese government, if the Minns government won't find the funds—to widen this very important road and improve the bottleneck. It's so important that New Line Road is widened, particularly as the state government has announced plans to insert an extra 9,500 dwellings around the Cherrybrook metro. How can you put more dwellings around a metro where the road infrastructure already is not keeping up? It's vital that before a sod is turned in Cherrybrook for the metro redevelopment that important infrastructure upgrades, like the widening of New Line Road, occur. Otherwise, the quality of life of people in our community will just continue to decline. People have waited long enough. It's time for action. We are going to continue to put the pressure, as I have done right across my last decade in parliament, on the state government to do its job and the Albanese government to back them in to fund the important widening of this road that not only affects the suburbs I mentioned but is a bottleneck for people in Kenthurst and Annangrove and the suburbs in the neighbouring electorates, which are undergoing their own redevelopments and their own increases in density and population. There is nothing wrong with building more homes. I obviously support the idea of more Australians buying a home in my community, but we cannot build more homes when the infrastructure for existing homes is already failing. New Line Road's widening is a must, and I urge everyone to sign my petition and to amplify the voice of our community to ensure that the Minns government and the Albanese government hear what we need to do to improve the situation across those suburbs. At the redistribution just before the last election, I was privileged to begin representing the suburb of Epping. Most of the suburb of Epping is in the Berowra electorate. Epping is a wonderful and diverse part of the community. It has a very significant Chinese Australian community. It is a community that has gone from single-dwelling houses to 20-storey apartment towers. Again, the infrastructure in Epping has not kept up with the growth in population there. The Epping train station is now a major train station. It has the metro, it has the northern line, and it has the express line going from Newcastle through to the city. It is a major transport hub. It is a hub for major businesses near Macquarie Park. It is a hub for people going to Macquarie University. It has a town centre that is really struggling. It's struggling because people cannot get a park. They cannot get a park to go to Coles. They cannot get a park to see the doctor or the optometrist, to take their kids to tutoring or to go to one of the restaurants there. It's affecting the business community. It's affecting the quality of life. At the end of last year I doorknocked around Epping, and, again and again, the issue of more parking for Epping around the station was one that was raised with me. It's all very well to build more of these towers across Epping, but there's no point building the towers if nobody can actually shop at Coles there and if nobody can see the doctor. It just diminishes the quality of life. The state government has this bizarre policy when they allow people to develop new dwellings that you don't have to provide a carpark for every bedroom you've got there. If you had to provide a carpark for every bedroom you've got, you wouldn't have as many problems in relation to parking, but we don't. So we need the parking situation addressed, and I call on people in my community to sign the petition to get more public parking in Epping so we can make Epping and its town centre workable and liveable again for the residents and those people who need to visit Epping. I want to turn to the issue of the Australia Post decision to close the post office at Pennant Hills. This has been a body blow to the Pennant Hills community. There are an increasingly large number of older Australians in Pennant Hills who've moved into the retirement villages around those areas. There are people who shop at the excellent Pennant Hills shops there with the IGA, Harris Farm and a range of speciality shops. There are an increasing number of businesses in Pennant Hills, including Excelsia University College, which opened up at the beginning of this year. McDonald's headquarters in Thornleigh used to have, as its post box, the Pennant Hills post office, but when Australia Post decided to dispense with a post office in Pennant Hills, it's really left that community bereft, and my office knows it as well because we used that post office to service our constituents. This is now a real matter of which business in Pennant Hills are suffering. We know that Pennant Hills is due for redevelopment. I welcome a redevelopment of Pennant Hills. But all of these things are factors that Australia Post should be taking into account in determining whether to maintain services or not. Australia Post will not even provide for a licensed post office. We've written to the CEO. We launched a petition, which now has over 1,200 signatures, which I gave to the Minister for Communications, yet there's been no action on restoring postal services to Australia Post. I've put in a freedom-of-information application to find out not only what the status of decisions about the future of the Pennant Hills post office is but what Australia Post's plan to close post offices in other parts of my electorate and indeed other parts of Australia is, because I believe Australia Post has a secret plan to close post offices right across the country that they're not coming clean about with Australians. We need to expose this, because today it's Pennant Hills. Tomorrow it'll be other communities. Australia Post services are absolutely vital. They're particularly vital for older Australians, they're particularly vital for the civility of our society, and they're particularly vital for people who are trying to access services. So I put Australia Post and its well-paid CEO and its well-paid board on notice that we in the Berowra community will not stomach the closure of any more post offices, and we intend to expose Australia Post's plan, right across the country, to close post offices and diminish the services that Australians want. Unfortunately, life under the Albanese government has got harder, whether it is because of the cost of living, the reduction of services or the imposition of a lower standard of living because of a failure to invest in important infrastructure.
National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise on a point of order. I'd ask that you direct the speaker to speak on the bill before the House not about headlines that are irrelevant to the matters before the House today. None of these...
I rise on a point of order. I'd ask that you direct the speaker to speak on the bill before the House not about headlines that are irrelevant to the matters before the House today. None of these matters have to do with the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People, and I'd encourage her to focus on the matters relating to the bill.
Berowra Electorate: Swim Clubs | Statements by Members | House debates
The Royal Life Saving Society of Australia has released some pretty disturbing statistics: one in four Australian adults can't swim and 40 per cent of children graduate primary school without...
The Royal Life Saving Society of Australia has released some pretty disturbing statistics: one in four Australian adults can't swim and 40 per cent of children graduate primary school without being able to swim. In Hornsby in my electorate, we have the Hornsby aquatic centre, which offers great learn-to-swim classes, but it also takes care of Australians who want to learn to race and be part of the competitive nature of Australian swimming. We've got two very important swim clubs. I recently visited the Berowra RSL Sub-Branch Youth Swimming Club. It's been going since 1959, and it races every Sunday. I want to thank and acknowledge the president, Dean Burgess, and the executive, Kiri Burgess, Corrie Hassan and Hayley Matthews, for their leadership of the committee. I also want to acknowledge the wider committee: Kristy Livy, David Duncan, Ian Thompson, James Keevy, Claire Dewar and Ashleigh Robinson. At the Hornsby Swim Club, which has been going for 63 years and meets on Friday nights, I want to acknowledge President Bec Sheppherd and the committee of Lachlan Hinds, Lachlan West, Barbara Judson, Susan Martin-Blake, David Grant, Rachel Gibbons, Alan Hitchens and Margaret Gruca-Dziok. These are two very important clubs with very important committees who volunteer their time to create safe and welcoming spaces and have built the sort of club cultures that keeps people turning up for both clubs. With over 250 members, from little kids through to swimmers in their 70s, this is creating a very important racing culture and learn-to-swim culture in our community. Let me encourage everybody to get on down to the Hornsby aquatic centre.
Education | Private Members' Business | House debates
This motion is full of self-congratulation and not about improving education. The reality is we are looking at an education system today under increasing pressure. Families, teachers and...
This motion is full of self-congratulation and not about improving education. The reality is we are looking at an education system today under increasing pressure. Families, teachers and principals tell me the reality they're living with every day: standards are slipping, classrooms are harder to manage, teacher workloads are exploding and too many Australians are being left behind. This is a central failure of the Albanese government in education: announcements and slogans, amidst declining outcomes. It's what I hear every day from parents, and it's what's reflected in the data. Children increasingly can't read confidently at the age they're supposed to. Foundational learning's not being prioritised in the curriculum. STEM subjects are being increasingly taught by teachers who don't specialise in areas like maths and physics. Teachers are, unfortunately, increasingly having to be focused on behavioural management, distracting them from teaching. This motion is about intergovernmental school funding. It's not about education outcomes. And, when you look at those outcomes, too many Australian students are going backwards. The statistics are terrible. Roughly one in three Australian school students are not mastering the reading skills they need. For a child to have a successful education, that starts with the ability to read; without it, they struggle to comprehend other areas of the curriculum and cannot fully participate in the opportunities that school is meant to provide. A University of South Australia study of students aged 11 to 14 found that the share who never read for fun jumped from 11 per cent in 2019 to 53 per cent in 2022. That's an extraordinary collapse in recreational reading in just a few years. If children aren't reading, they're not building vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and the background knowledge that makes every other subject easier. This motion doesn't talk about that. It also doesn't talk about an issue that's ignored far too often, and that's boys' education. The data is clear and consistent. Boys trail girls in every NAPLAN literacy assessment—reading, writing, spelling, grammar, punctuation—in every age group. Average achievement for boys falls short of girls' in every NAPLAN domain except numeracy. Boys are twice as likely to score the lowest performance bands in literacy. And this isn't a boys-versus-girls argument. We want every child to succeed. In the last two decades, we've made extraordinary strides in the education of women and girls, and those achievements must be celebrated. But there is clear data and a growing sense that the education system is letting too many of our boys fall behind. And we need to do better. The most recent NAPLAN tests show that, by year 9, in writing, there's a 35-point gap between boys and girls—roughly one to two years of learning. That's an educational deficit that compounds year after year, and we see the consequences later in schooling pathways. The ABS reports that, in 2024, the year 10 to 12 apparent retention rate was 83½ per cent for women but only 76.4 per cent for male students. This motion doesn't talk about that—and it's a shame, because, rather than giving the government a pat on the back, we should be asking how we can lift these outcomes. Do we need more explicit teaching, a better and more knowledge-rich curriculum, better classroom management, less focus on screens in the early years? This motion also speaks about teacher shortages. We all hear it from principals and parents, and we see it in hard-to-staff regions and subjects. When you look further into this, though, there's a second serious problem, and that's an expertise shortage, particularly in maths and science. The fastest-growing jobs in Australia need a strong grounding in maths and science, but the most recent data shows that almost 40 per cent of maths teachers and technology teachers were teaching out of field. Let me say that again: more than a third of those teaching maths aren't maths teachers. Subject knowledge matters. To teach advanced maths, you need strong maths expertise. To teach physics, you need to be able to confidently understand physics. I'm not having a crack at those teachers who are working out of field; that's not a problem they've created. But it's disappointing that, rather than talking about these issues, the government wants the parliament just to give it a pat on the back. Let me turn to another concern parents raise with me regularly: schools and classrooms drifting away from education and into activism. Let me be clear. Classrooms must be a place of learning. Teachers hold a position of authority, and the teachers I know do a magnificent job. Parents send their kids to school to learn reading, writing, maths, science and all the other subjects; they don't send their kids to school to learn politics. Let's keep politics out of the classroom. Bluey is about dads and their kids, and it shouldn't be hijacked by pro-Hamas activists to be used in school as a propaganda tool aimed at children. The priorities right now should be obvious. Teach the fundamentals well. Teach them explicitly. And ensure every student has the chance to succeed. Finally, the government wants Australians to applaud its investment. But families are under pressure and costs are going up. Education costs rose 5.4 per cent in the last year and, over Labor's term in office, they rose 17 per cent. This motion doesn't recognise this. If funding goes up while outcomes go down, that's not success. If disruptions rise while learning slips, that's not reform.
Iran: Human Rights | Private Members' Business | House debates
As the member for Berowra I am delighted to represent the fourth-largest Persian community in the country. Persian Australians are wonderful people, with an ancient civilisation and a modern...
As the member for Berowra I am delighted to represent the fourth-largest Persian community in the country. Persian Australians are wonderful people, with an ancient civilisation and a modern liberal outlook. There are nearly 100,000 Persians in Australia, and they contribute to every aspect of my community, from the P&Cs to the sports clubs to the doctors and nurses at Hornsby Hospital. They're engineers, IT professionals, artists and small-business owners. They moved here to create a better life for themselves and they work every day to contribute to our country and our community. I know that so many of them are here because for the past half century the Iranian regime has made their lives in Iran a living hell—a criminal regime that abuses women and minorities, a criminal regime noted for its abuse of human rights at home and its export of terror abroad, a criminal regime whose long arm follows people and intimidates them even in this country. I've been calling out Iran for a decade for its human rights violations against its own people—women, the Baha'i and other minorities—and for its terrorist proxies around the world. My proudest moment in the six years I served on the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was when we listed in full Iran's proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. In February 2023, following the murder of Mahsa Amini, I called for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. At that time, as shadow Attorney-General, I offered the coalition's support for any measures to help the government list the IRGC. When I hosted Senator Claire Chandler at a forum with the Persian community in my constituency in 2023—and Senator Chandler did a terrific report on human rights abuses in Iran—people told me they were afraid to come because of the long arm of the embassy and the IRGC in our own country. In October 2023 I called for diplomatic relations against Iran to be suspended, even as Labor luminaries like Bob Carr were having happy snaps with the ambassador. Our government's Middle East policy has been a shambles. Australia has spent too much of the past four years berating Israel rather than standing up to Iran, when they were warned by the Persian community and the Jewish community about the danger Iran poses to Australia. It took two regime-coordinated attacks on our own soil—at Lewis' Continental Kitchen and the Adass Israel Synagogue—for this government to be dragged kicking and screaming to take action. Australia should be leading global efforts to bring the Iranian regime to justice, but the Albanese government has never acted with strength or urgency. Today in Iran protests have spread across hundreds of cities and towns. Millions of ordinary people have found the courage to stand up and demand change. Many more have been murdered, arrested, tortured or left carrying trauma which will last a lifetime. More than 30,000 people have been murdered. I want to talk about just a few of these people: Sholeh Sotoudeh, a mother of two young children, from Langarud, who was pregnant with her third child when she was killed when forces opened fire on a crowd she was in; Ziba Dastjerdi, 33, who was shot and killed in front of her eight-year-old daughter at a protest at Nishapur; and 40-year-old Soran Feyzizadeh, who died because of torture he was subjected to while being held following his arrest on 7 January—reports say his body was barely recognisable due to the extent of injuries caused by repeated blows. And there is 15-year-old Taha Safari, one of the youngest victims of the protestors, who was detained by authorities, his body handed to his family three days later, and 28-year-old Negin Ghadimi, shot with live ammunition, cleaving her body from her stomach; unable to get to the hospital, she died in the arms of her father. We hear of widespread sexual violence, including against children. An Iranian-born journalist said in recent days, 'No women's bodies are turning up, and that's because, according to eyewitness accounts, they're raped, their uteruses are removed, their scalps ripped off along with their hair, and their bodies covered in cigarette burns.' This is a regime of pure evil. And we know Iran has Australia in its sights. Radical Islamist extremism should have no place in this country. It's time we looked the Ayatollah in the eye and said, 'Enough.' I want the world to know that we stand with the Persian people. I honour all those who speak up and who want Iran to live out its destiny as a free democratic nation, not a pariah state under a brutal criminal dictatorship. I want an Iran where the Iranian people freely choose their future, far from the jackboot of a police state. I want an Iran where women have the same rights and freedoms they enjoy in Australia. I want an Iran where women and girls can go about their lives without fear, where they can dress as they choose, pursue an education, build careers and shape their futures. I want an Iran where children go to school to learn and grow and are not subjected to political or religious extremism and indoctrination, and where families live their daily lives in peace. To those protesting in Iran I say: you may live under the sword of fear, but you are counted among the champions of liberty. We see you, we hear you, we stand with you and we will not be silent.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the opposition amendment: (1) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for...
I move the opposition amendment: (1) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to: (a) develop a world-class tertiary education sector that drives excellence in teaching and learning; and (b) deliver world-leading research and scholarship, particularly in strategic areas of national significance; and (c) improve productivity by developing a highly skilled, adaptable and productive workforce; and (d) establish close links between tertiary education providers, industry and business to strengthen student outcomes and support innovation across the economy; and (e) deliver positive student experiences across the tertiary education sector; and (f) promote competition and innovation across the tertiary education sector; and (g) support Australian values, including equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and Western liberal democratic traditions; and (h) drive efficiency across the sector to provide value for money for students and the Australian taxpayer; and (i) reduce regulatory burdens on the tertiary education sector where practicable. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, if we're going to have a legislated objective for tertiary education in Australia, it can't be the version that's currently in the legislation. It's worth revisiting what that objective actually does, because it has to be said that it will be an iron rod that gives guidance to the new regulator. What does the objective say? The legislation says this: (1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to: (a) promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy; and (b) drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability. Then, if that weren't clear enough, the legislation goes on to say: (2) In performing functions or exercising powers, the ATEC and the ATEC Commissioners must have regard to the National Tertiary Education Objective. It's explicit. This is a requirement of this new legislation. It guarantees that, in circumstances where it would otherwise be irrelevant, the ATEC must be thinking about social development—whatever that means—and environmental sustainability. Let me just digress for a minute to explain why this is the case. As the minister knows and as I know and as everyone else in this place knows, it's a basic principle of administrative law that, in making a decision, a body like ATEC must have regard to relevant considerations and must not have regard to irrelevant considerations. Failing to do this means your decision is liable to be overturned on judicial review. If you're a regulator making the decision, it's a matter that's relevant. You must take it into account. And, if it's not relevant, you must not take it into account. That's common sense, and it's also the current law. So when you pass a provision like section 13 as it's currently drafted, you make sure that deeply political but otherwise irrelevant considerations like social development and environmental sustainability must affect every decision ATEC makes. You're opening yourself up to every green lawfare activist who wants to challenge a decision about a provider in the courts because it doesn't adequately deal with climate change or the latest progressive social trend. You can imagine how, when ATEC goes to enter into a mission based compact with the University of Sydney or University of Melbourne, an issue motivated protest group might be interested in challenging you. Well, this objective is their green light. It guarantees that those considerations will be taken into account where they are otherwise irrelevant, and it makes it just that little bit easier to challenge an ATEC decision on activist grounds. That, in and of itself, is bad enough. Worse than that, I think the objective misses the obvious. It fails to set things that are and should be relevant to decisions about tertiary education in this country—things like teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition and innovation across the sector, Australian values, efficiency, value for money both for the taxpayer and the student, and the reduction of regulatory burdens. Those are the things that the regulator should be taking into account when making every decision about our tertiary sector. Those are the things that you'd expect and hope to see. As I said before, it's not just me saying this, and it's not just the Liberal Party. Even bodies like the NTEU—no great ally of the Liberal Party—have said this. They say: The NTEU believes that this objective does not adequately address the character, nature and purpose of higher education; it makes no reference, for example, to the importance of critical inquiry, academic discovery and discourse, institutional independence or even to academic freedom. Instead, the objectives seek to define tertiary education as part of broader Government policy and could apply to virtually any sector. It's very strange when the coalition and the NTEU find agreement on something, but when they do, I think it should be a red flag that says, 'Perhaps the objective is not right as it is.' It's not an excuse to say that this objective was the recommendation of the Universities Accord. That shouldn't bind governments. It's for governments to consider the recommendation, to weigh up the justifications, pros, cons and implications. In deciding to write it into legislation, this is an active policy decision by the government. Once it's in the legislation, it's there; they own it. As I've said, the national tertiary education objective, as drafted, is not fit to proceed. Amending it should be a necessary but not sufficient consideration for legislating anything like an ATEC. So this amendment changes it. It's a simple and straightforward amendment, and I'd like to think it's uncontroversial. It says that the objective of tertiary education in Australia is exactly what you'd expect it to be: teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition, innovation, efficiency, value for money and support for Australian values. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wentworth, who has improved this by the addition of what now reads as paragraph (d) in the amendment that we've put forward, and I thank her for the contribution that she's made. If the government does not support this amendment, they'll be sending a very clear message. They'll be prioritising misplaced pride over substance. They'll be voting against teaching, against learning, against research and against support for Australian values. (Extension of time granted, on the motion of Mr Leeser) Instead, what we would like to see them do is support the amendment. I noted in the minister's comments that he wasn't going to support the amendments of the crossbench, but perhaps he will support the very fine amendment here proposed by the opposition with the assistance of the member for Wentworth. We want to see a national tertiary education objective, if it is to be legislated, that Australians would readily recognise as being an appropriate national tertiary education objective, and that's what this amendment is designed to do. I commend the amendment to the House.
Roth, Mr Stanley Barry, AM | Statements by Members | House debates
I want to acknowledge the passing of a great Australian, Stanley Roth. Stanley was a husband, father, lawyer, businessman, philanthropist and tzadik—a righteous man. He was a patriotic...
I want to acknowledge the passing of a great Australian, Stanley Roth. Stanley was a husband, father, lawyer, businessman, philanthropist and tzadik—a righteous man. He was a patriotic Australian, a proud Jew and a committed Zionist. I'm proud to call Stanley a friend and mentor. Stanley was a huge figure in the Australian Jewish community. His leadership of communal organisations was extraordinary, and to work with him was to get a masterclass in organisational leadership. A typical request from Stanley might start: 'I happily acknowledge this might not be the first fundraising request you've ever received from me. Please stay with me at least one more time, as this one is just as vital, if not even more so than the others.' When Stanley got involved in something, his passion turbocharged it, whether it was the United Israel Appeal, Moriah College, the Jewish Museum, AIJAC, St Vincent's Hospital, the Heart Foundation or Inala school in my electorate. He was generous and passionate because he looked at this country, which had been so good to his family, and he wanted to give back. In the last couple of years, he became very concerned about the direction of our country and the long-term survival of the Jewish community in Australia, and he wanted to do everything he could to address it. Stanley was direct, he was funny, he was passionate and he was proud. I miss his regular emails with his direct, plain-speaking advice, often on how I could do my job better. To his family—to Charmaine, to Ilana, to Danielle and to Michael and to his brother, John, and his family—I say: may Stanley's memory be a blessing.
Jonceski, Mr Ljupco (Luch) | Condolences | House debates
It's an honour to follow Minister King in her contribution and the member for McPherson, who not only worked with Luch as a parliamentarian but as an attendant as well. There have been so many...
It's an honour to follow Minister King in her contribution and the member for McPherson, who not only worked with Luch as a parliamentarian but as an attendant as well. There have been so many beautiful speeches made in this debate, and I agree with the minister that Luch is the sort of person that we would have had a series of speeches for had he lived to retire; he'd have had a particular retirement farewell speech. Luch is one of those people that is so vital to the character of an institution like this. One of the things that he didn't do towards the end, because I think the parliament had dispensed with it, was this. In the first two terms that I was here in my 10 years of service, Luch would greet you at the airport on a Sunday evening. Like a barista knowing your coffee order, he would remember what time your car was going to pick you up and where it was going to pick you up the next morning. He brought a great smile, and, after a flight that could sometimes be unpleasant, he was a wonderful person greeting you and bringing the good humour that he brought to all of the work that he did. My office is opposite Zoe McKenzie's, the member for Flinders's, and in her office window she had a beautiful picture of her and Luch, when the parliament resumed in January for those important sittings to deal with the aftermath of Bondi, and I said, 'That's a beautiful picture of you and Luch in your office window.' And then she told me that Luch had passed, and, like so many, we just couldn't believe it—that somebody who's been so vital to this place, who's been so important for the good humour of this place, had. Some days in politics you have days where the highs are very high, and other days you have days where the lows are very low, and Luch was always there to inspire, to welcome, to greet—to just remind you, with his good humour and good nature, of the importance of the service role that you're giving here. To those of us in partisan politics, it's often hard to imagine what it must take—an idea that the member for McPherson knows well—to be engaged in an impartial position in this House. So many of us join our political parties because we feel so passionately about our democracy and about issues to do with our democracy, or we stand for parliament—as you do, Deputy Speaker Sharkie—as a crossbencher, because you have a set of values that you want to impart onto the parliament. But our attendants don't do that, and the staff that work in the parliament don't do that; they are here as servants of our democracy, and they take a dispassionate view. And Luch was such a great ambassador for the parliament. He was such a great ambassador for the idea of service. I will never forget, when I was on the back bench, sometimes you'd only just need to wave at Luch and he knew exactly what you wanted, whether it was a water or the big lectern or the small lectern, and there were other days where perhaps the only thing you did, in terms of walking into the House, was walk in just to get your name marked off and see him. But his service, his decency, his remarkable connection with people right across the parliament and right across the building is something that is very much worthy of celebration. To his family, who will have been shocked at his untimely passing, as we all are: I hope they take comfort from the fact that so many people from across the parliament who've served here for many years are paying tribute to this wonderful man who really touched so many people's lives. I wish I'd had the opportunity to say to Luch how much he mattered to me, as he mattered to so many of the colleagues here. To his family and to all those who knew him: may his memory be a blessing.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and...
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These are the bills which establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, known as ATEC. Let me say at the very outset that these bills are very troubling. They establish a new regulator for an overregulated sector. They fail to articulate a clear vision for tertiary education in Australia but, at the same time, they tie it to inappropriate objectives. They don't deal properly with the independent or vocational and technical education centres and their links with universities. They are replete with problems of a technical or operational nature, and they've been criticised across the board. It's a turgid technocrats' policy that entrenches more bureaucracy. Labor loves to write its own hagiographies and they love to talk about education. When they go to write the next chapter of their own history, I fear these bills will be an unfortunate footnote. They are, to put it bluntly, not what Australia needs right now. I want to start at the top with the policy objective. The Universities Accord started with the point that the roadmap for Australian universities needs to start with a vision and a shared objective. That's unobjectionable as a statement of general principle. Of course, if you're going to embark on reform, you should have a sense of where you're going. But the accord process then made two extraordinary leaps. First, it produced an objective for the tertiary education sector as a whole. I pause here to make this critical point. The higher education sector is more than just about our public universities. In fact, public universities make up only around 20 per cent of the higher education providers in Australia, and the tertiary education sector, which includes both higher and vocational education, is broader still. There are 4.86 million student enrolments in the independent sector. In our tertiary sector, more than 71 per cent of the enrolments are not in the public universities. But having just completed a consultation centred on the needs and demands of Australia's public universities, the accord set an objective for the remaining 71 per cent of tertiary students who arguably weren't adequately accounted for. This was the first extraordinary leap. The second was to seek to define that objective in a way that seems completely divorced from the needs and purpose of our higher education sector and, worse still, to try and entrench it in legislation. The Universities Accord proposed a national tertiary education objective, and that's the objective which has found its way into the bill in section 13. And it's not just the objective of our tertiary education sector as a whole. It is an objective that ATEC will be required by law to take into account in the performance of every function and the exercise of every power. It's the iron rod that will guide this new regulator. So what does the objective say? The legislation says: … the National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to: a. promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy; and b. drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability. It's quite extraordinary. The words 'teaching', 'learning' and 'research' simply do not appear. There's nothing in there about the quality of our institutions. There's no consideration given to the way in which our tertiary system can align with or support our national interest. There's no reference to student experience. There's nothing about fostering dynamism, competition, innovation or efficiency. In fact, there's nothing at all which sets out the things you'd ordinarily expect in a statement setting expectations of an educational institution or a critical sector of our economy. But according to this government, this is the unifying objective or vision that's meant to shape our higher education sector out to the 2050s and an objective it wants to set down in law. Let me be clear. This government's national tertiary education objective says nothing about tertiary education, and why on earth not? If you were to stop the average woman or man in the street and ask, 'What do you think should be the objective of our tertiary education system?' they'd probably say something about teaching students or doing research or the other things you generally associate with education. These considerations simply do not make their way into the definition in this bill. That omission is bad enough in its own right. It is what the government has included that really makes the stick in the craw. Instead of talking about teaching, learning and research, the government says that our ATEC should be governed by vague and inappropriate references to 'social development and environmental sustainability'. What does social development even mean? It's an extraordinarily loaded term that goes to fundamental beliefs about the way our society should be shaped and the direction it should take in the future. It is a deeply, deeply political idea. It is the core focus of this parliament, the function of this place, to debate and contest the way our society should develop with ultimate accountability to the voters who ask us to represent them here. This is an undefined and heavily contested and entirely inappropriate function to confer on a bureaucratic body entrenched by law in the Department of Education. Take, for instance, the ATEC's role in providing for domestic and international student allocations. Does driving social development affect those processes? Those are questions for the parliament and the people, not the ATEC. And why, regardless of the decision or the topic, is environmental sustainability shoehorned into the ATEC decision-making processes? It's a naked attempt to introduce cultural and political considerations into the decisions about our tertiary education sector. If environmental sustainability is relevant to the performance of ATEC's functions, it will be taken into account. That's basic administrative law principle. And if it's not relevant, it should not be taken into account. That is common sense. But under this bill, regardless of context, the ATEC is required to have regard to environmental sustainability. Quite simply, that is not the appropriate focus of our higher education sector. It means that this is a bill about ideology, not improvement. To those opposite who say, 'Well, all we've done is adopt a recommendation of the Universities Accord,' I say that's not good enough. Governments accept and reject recommendations all the time. They're expected to have the intellectual curiosity to engage with those recommendations. They're expected to weigh consequences. They're expected to look carefully at proposals that are put to them and make decisions in light of the interests of all Australians and the electors who choose them to be in this place. Once it's in legislation, you own it; it's your policy. It's not just me making these criticisms. The National Tertiary Education Union has slammed this ham-fisted attempt to ram more ideology into our universities and tertiary providers. It said: The NTEU believes that this objective does not adequately address the character, nature and purpose of higher education; it makes no reference, for example, to the importance of critical inquiry, academic discovery and discourse, institutional independence or even to academic freedom. Instead, the objectives seek to define tertiary education as part of broader Government policy and could apply to virtually any sector. Deputy Speaker, you know that, when a member of the Liberal Party is quoting the National Tertiary Education Union in its criticism of a Labor bill, the bill is in real trouble. Deakin University, in a submission that included a detailed paper from its Vice-Chancellor, Professor Iain Martin, about the social licence of universities, emphasised the need for universities to maintain their social licence and to consider the way they are seen by the public at large. He said, 'Either through action or inaction, we are readily accused of being politicised; the playthings of left-wing, inner-urban cultural elites, who possess social and economic capital.' He specifically described education, teaching and learning as the 'core responsibility' of university and specifically argues for excellence. It's a point well made and one the government has missed. In setting its legislative objective for the entirety of the tertiary education sector, this government has missed the mark. The point of our tertiary education sector is not social development and environmental sustainability. It's education. It's learning. It's teaching. It's research. It's a dynamic, vibrant, competitive sector. It's support for our values and alignment with our national interests. If we are going to have a national tertiary education objective set out in legislation, it cannot be the one set out in clause 13. I want to say something about the second major flaw of this bill, which is that no serious commentator has looked at our tertiary education sector and concluded that it needs yet another regulator. Perversely, though, that is exactly the situation which this government has now found itself in. In a submission to the universities governance inquiry last year, the existing regulator, TEQSA, specifically highlighted the complex governance and regulatory environment in which our institutions operate. It listed 13 different bodies which exercised some kind of oversight, influence or control of our universities. And that number rises to 14 once TEQSA itself is included. As Western Sydney University said, Australia's universities now operate under more than 300 pieces of legislation and regulation, a system it describes as a 'Frankenstein system'. This bill adds to that system. Submissions to the inquiry have made absolutely clear that the ATEC will be a regulator in all but name. Describing ATEC's function as 'stewardship' is not an answer. Stakeholders have specifically rejected the government's denials through Senate estimates that ATEC will be a regulator, saying that attempts to do so rely on an overly technical definition of the term. I go further. it's disingenuous to say that ATEC will not be a regulator. It will exert policy influence. It will shape resource allocations. It will have the power to enter into compacts with universities, suspend them where it decides to do so and replace them with standard-form agreements. That is a suite of powers that is clearly designed and intended to regulate behaviour within a very important sector of our economy. It will operate alongside but distinct from the Department of Education, which oversees general education policy; the Department of Home Affairs, which governs international student intakes; the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, which has responsibility for skills and the VET portfolio; TEQSA, which is the specific higher education regulator; ASQA, which regulates the remainder of the tertiary sector; the National Student Ombudsman; the Australian Research Council; the National Health and Medical Research Council; Jobs and Skills Australia; state and territory regulatory bodies and designated state authorities; professional accreditation bodies; and all of the other bodies which exercise oversight, influence, control or otherwise shape the tertiary education environment. ATEC is a new regulator, and no disinterested observer would look at the constellation of higher education and VET regulatory and governance bodies and say, 'What we really need right now is yet another regulator.' Let me move to issues of duplication, cost and lack of harmonisation. These issues of excessive regulatory burden raise the related issues of duplication and cost, because, as has become clear in Senate estimates, the department, as a department of state, will retain policy oversight over all matters within its policy remit, including higher education. Inevitably, with all of the regulators, there will be overlap and there will be duplication. Translated, that means there will be cost to taxpayers. But there's a broader problem, because the $54 million that's allocated to ATEC does not create a single additional student place. It does not improve student experience. It does not add value for those who make sacrifices to attend universities. The $54 million could be allocated to fund $1 million research grants for each one of Australia's universities, with more than $10 million left over. And when it comes to harmonisation between higher and vocational education, these bills don't achieve what they're meant to do. ATEC is intended, in part, to reduce the barriers between VET and higher education, to allow students to move back and forth between the two freely. However, the ATEC legislation appears to be focused on Australia's 43 universities, largely ignoring the 166-odd non-university higher education providers and the 3,700 tertiary education businesses. It is unclear how the ATEC can achieve harmonisation and mobility across the whole of the higher education sector in these circumstances. And at a time when interest rates are rising as a result of Labor's poor economic management, which has seen education costs balloon by 5.4 per cent—higher than the core inflation rate—there's no justification for yet more government expenditure which doesn't add to productivity or reduce the cost of education for Australians. Yet again—when Labor spends, you pay. But the criticism of the bills doesn't stop there. Extraordinarily, there seems to have been incredible disquiet about this bill even among the very institutions that championed ATEC in the first place. Universities Australia has said: As currently drafted, the Bill does not deliver on the Australian Universities Accord's … aspirations for an independent body to design and drive the longer-term reform agenda for Australia's tertiary system. Independent Tertiary Education Council of Australia said: ITECA supports reform aimed at improving the long-term clarity and cohesiveness of Australia's tertiary education system. However, the ATEC Bill as currently drafted, does not align with the stated ambition of creating an integrated and equitable tertiary framework. The ATEC Bill suffers from drafting that is based on there being no clear needs case for the tertiary system, especially the more than 4.8 million students and over 3,700 tertiary education businesses that will have little or zero engagement with this new bureaucratic fancy. It seems clear that the ATEC Bill before the Committee is not at a stage where it is ready for consideration by the parliament and the Commission is not ready to be established. It is far preferable to ensure that an agency of this importance is ready, and its enabling legislation is not compromised by eagerness for speed. ITECA strongly urges the Committee to deeply consider the need for this Commission, as its core functions can, and in many cases already are being undertaken by existing agencies of the Commonwealth. Independent Higher Education Australia said this: The Bills establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission … as the central system "steward" for Australia's tertiary education sector. It is in fact a regulator in all but name. … in practice, ATEC's functions, including allocation of domestic and international places, establishment and oversight/monitoring of compacts and influence on the Threshold Standards, give it a regulatory role. … Without [expertise in the independent sector], there is a real risk that ATEC's work will default to a public-university-centric view of the tertiary system, overlooking the contributions, challenges and operating environments of independent providers. This would undermine the Commission's ability to function as a genuine system steward and would diminish the accuracy, balance and relevance of its advice to Government. Deakin University, having described itself as a firm supporter of ATEC, said: However, though supportive of an ATEC, and already engaged with the interim body in a productive and meaningful manner, Deakin holds several concerns regarding the proposed legislation. We posit that addressing these concerns, which range from a lack of clarity to missed opportunities to truly achieve the ambitions of establishing such a function, should be a priority. The Tasmanian government, in diplomatic language, fired a warning shot about the introduction of unnecessary and duplicative compliance mechanisms. Referring to such mechanisms, it said: These mechanisms should be demonstrably necessary and proportionate, avoid administrative burden and ensure that reporting requirements contribute directly to improved educational and research outcomes. Integration with existing data collections and reporting platforms is essential to minimise duplication. Compliance obligations should, at their core, add value for students by generating actionable insights that improve equity, participation, and completion rates, rather than diverting resources from teaching and support services. Science and Technology Australia, the peak body for the nation's science and technology sector, said: Science & Technology Australia is concerned that while the Bill states the proposed Australian Tertiary Education Commission's … powers will extend to university research and research training … there is insufficient clarity in the proposed legislation and no evidence of sufficient capability or resourcing built into the ATEC to properly support university research. In short, ATEC does not support Australia's national research agenda. Regional Development Australia picks up on the failure of the legislation to address the needs of regional communities. Under the heading 'Concerning gaps for regional communities', it says: The Bill and its settings make welcome progress towards access equity for cohorts who are currently underserved, particularly at an individual student level. However, at a structural level there remains a risk that these settings may entrench or amplify existing inequities affecting regional institutions and communities, with implications for their capacity to contribute to the nation's long-term prosperity. That's extraordinary. And it's not just bodies who are impacted by the change that have criticised the bill. Dr Ant Bagshaw, a senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of Higher Education in Melbourne, broadly supports the diagnosis that Australia needs a system steward in its higher education sector, but he said this: The Senate should recommend that ATEC not be established in its current form, and that the Department of Education be legislatively required to discharge the stewardship role with strengthened transparency, consultation and capability. … … … … system stewardship is not the same as creating a new agency. Professor of higher education policy at Monash University Andrew Norton, one of Australia's leading public policymakers and commentators on higher education, asked, in the first question in his submission, whether an Australian tertiary education commission should be created at all. He said this: The government's policies imply a belief that a more bureaucratic approach will improve higher education outcomes. Even if we accept this assumption, it is not clear that ATEC will improve matters significantly compared to current Department of Education arrangements. His principal recommendation is simple—that the bills should be rejected—and the criticism he gives is devastating. Before dissecting the legislation in detail, he says this: The following chapters— in the submission— identify numerous flaws in the ATEC proposal. They include recommendations to improve the bills, should they have in-principle parliamentary support. But the ATEC bills should be rejected. They would narrow higher education's purposes. As they stand, they offer universities nothing but additional government control and bureaucracy. Due to ATEC's design flaws, we can have little confidence that it will improve on the current policy framework. Professor Mark Warburton, a highly influential academic, a respected public servant and a former adviser to the Australian government during the Hawke and Keating years, said this: The Government has announced its "three important structural reforms that are central to setting the tertiary education system up for the future". These are the ATEC, Managed Growth Funding and Needs-based Funding. It has not provided adequate detail on how any of these proposals will advance the objectives the Government has set for them. In his second reading speech for this Bill, the Minister declared: the ATEC is the Accord. … It is a national project and it needs a steward that is there for the long haul. … To get the sector to work more like a system. … And to help drive real and lasting reform. Unfortunately, the direction of change for the system is articulated only in the most broad and high-level terms: Warburton goes on to say: There is no satisfactory detail on how ATEC is going to achieve any of these things. Given the magnitude of ambition for ATEC, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for some detail on precisely what changes it will be making in the short term, how it will go about making those changes and what leverage it will have to enforce those changes. Many of the claims made about the Government's response to the Accord are inflated … This person was a higher-education adviser during the Hawke and Keating governments. He goes on: In Higher Education Attainment Under the New Managed Growth Funding System it's one of his papers— I show how both the claimed expansion associated with Fee-free Uni Ready places and the claimed additional funding provided in the 2024-25 MYEFO changes are overstated. I provide evidence that planned government funding will most likely result in lower higher education attainment in the 2030s, than in 2021. … In his Second Reading Speech, the Minister stated of ATEC that "Its operations will be transparent". The Bill does not provide for this. It's pretty damning criticism. Many others criticise the ATEC's perceived lack of independence and its failure to deliver on what was originally conceived of when ATEC supporters first pitched the idea to government. The list of critics is extraordinary. Unions, government bodies, universities, independent providers, experts—all of these are saying that the ATEC legislation currently before this parliament is not fit to pass. Before I go further, let me be clear. There is a committee process that is underway right now in the other place. We respect the committee process, and I hope it is an extensive committee process. There were 60 different submissions made to that committee—powerful, insightful and careful analysis from across the sector. We need to hear from those witnesses, and the committee will fail in its duty if we do not hear from them. If the government doesn't call the witnesses I've mentioned today, it will fail, because the Australian public deserves to hear from the authors to understand where this legislation is good and where it is not. They deserve to hear from the experts in the field and those with a stake—witnesses like Professor Mark Warburton, a highly respected academic from the University of Melbourne who wrote a penetrating and insightful analysis that deserves recognition and careful consideration, and bodies like the Independent Tertiary Education Council of Australia and Independent Higher Education Australia. They have the most skin in this game when it comes to this legislation, because tertiary education is more than just our universities. As IHEA said, Australia's higher education system consists not only of public universities but of a broad range of independent higher education providers, including private universities, university colleges and both not-for-profit and for-profit non-university higher education providers, or NUHEPs, and the range of providers is much broader once VET is added. ITECA covers both, and it points out that the independent sector accounts for 77 per cent of all higher education institutions in Australia and 92 per cent of registered training organisations. Of course we should be hearing from those types of bodies. Doing otherwise is a disservice to the parliamentary committee, and it's a disservice to the Australian people, who expect us to properly scrutinise legislation. So I hope that this committee in the Senate has the opportunity to properly scrutinise the legislation, to ask questions of expert witnesses and to understand from bodies who operate in the field how this bill will affect them in a practical way, and I hope that the government would support me in showing this basic respect for stakeholders and the parliamentary process in having a proper inquiry. Let me finish by saying this. There are bigger questions about our tertiary sector that need to be solved and where, in the last couple of years, government policy has not made any real inroads. How long can we continue with one third of our universities struggling? Does the current balance between vocational and higher education really suit Australia's long-term needs? What is the process and methodology that should be adopted for international student intakes? How do we deal with low volume, expensive but strategically important skill sets and capabilities that are taught in our universities but which are expensive to maintain? How do we maintain the presence of those regional campuses that feed activity and meet the needs of communities outside the big cities? How do we provide and promote competition and dynamism between the public and independent sector? What is the long-term trajectory of Australia's standing on the international stage, given the growth of its campuses in South-East Asia, China and in our region more broadly and their ability to offer comparable quality at a lower price point? Are our universities losing their social licence? What is the impact of AI, which right now can develop and sequence information almost to a university level and almost for free turn it into a package or a podcast that I can use to educate myself? What does that mean for our sector? What steps do we as a nation need to take right now in terms of our policy settings and longer term development to best position ourselves to train and educate future generations? These are big questions, and they should be answered by the Australian Department of Education as the minister's principal policy adviser. Otherwise, what's the department doing? It doesn't run any schools. It doesn't run any childcare centres. It doesn't run any vocational or higher education institutions. If it's not answering these questions, what is it doing? Regardless, none of these questions are answered by these bills. Those opposite will say that the purpose of ATEC is to answer them. That's not a good answer. It doesn't explain why the department can't or won't do it, and it doesn't explain what the department will do going forward. It doesn't even explain why the sector needs yet another regulator. In any event, the gap between answering those questions and the options put forward in this bill is just too wide. Even if you support ATEC in principle, this legislation is too problematic. So, in summing up, let me say this. If forced to vote on this legislation before the committee completes its inquiry, the Liberal Party will oppose this legislation. That is the holding position. We will join the very large chorus of stakeholders and interested parties saying these bills are not fit to pass, and we will continue working on those bigger questions in the interests of all Australians. In closing, I thank the House and move the amendment as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes with concern that: (a) Australia's tertiary education sector is significantly over-regulated; (b) providers report to multiple competing and overlapping bodies; and (c) some providers are required by law to deal with more than 300 different pieces of legislation and regulation; (2) affirms that the objective of tertiary education in Australia must focus on teaching, learning and research, and should otherwise be aimed at promoting a dynamic and innovative sector that provides a positive student experience, delivers value for money, improves Australia's productivity and supports Australian values; (3) further notes widespread concern among the tertiary sector and expert stakeholders about the drafting of this legislation; and (4) calls for this legislation to be the subject of proper and thorough scrutiny".
Australia Day Awards and Honours | Constituency Statements | House debates
I want to acknowledge the local recipients from the Berowra electorate in the Australia Day Honours List. Jan Childs was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her contribution to the...
I want to acknowledge the local recipients from the Berowra electorate in the Australia Day Honours List. Jan Childs was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her contribution to the community of Berowra. Her contribution showed sustained, hands-on work for many years, particularly through the Berowra Rotary Club—which she led in the annual arts and crafts exhibition that celebrates local creativity and raises funds for good causes—and amazing contributions through girl-guiding through the Trefoil Guild and Girl Guides in Berowra, leaving a lasting mark on our community. Tony Morgan, whom I know through his work with the church communities in Hornsby, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service in insurance. His career is a rare combination of technical excellence, professional leadership and a commitment to developing the next generation. He spent decades helping individuals and businesses recover after some of the worst days they'll face. Within the Australian and New Zealand Institute of Insurance and Finance he made an extraordinary contribution to professional standards and education, including long-term development of the diploma of loss adjusting. Tom Parker is a legendary greenskeeper. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to sport. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— The legendary Tom Parker is not a household name, but he is someone from whose work we have all benefited. Tom Parker was, for 20 years, the head curator at the Sydney Cricket Ground. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for helping maintain one of the most iconic sporting venues in the world. That stewardship requires knowledge, judgement and an uncompromising commitment to standards, and that's what Tom always provides. I know his family, especially his wife, Teresa, and his son, Jack, would be taking a full measure of pride in his award. The late Stuart Pittendrigh was recognised for service to horticulture and landscape architecture. He was a leader in his field for decades, combining his contributions to the Institute of Landscape Architects and the Institute of Horticulture, and was widely respected for the authority he brought to projects, professional standards and education. His work also touched major public spaces, including Barangaroo. Marilyn Chilvers was awarded the Public Service Medal for outstanding public service to New South Wales in data research and analysis. Ms Chilvers's careers shows what it looks like when public service combines rigour with purpose, using evidence to provide outcomes and improve those outcomes, strengthen evaluation and help government better understand what works. Her work in human services outcomes and data linkage has helped inform investment decisions and improve service delivery for vulnerable people across our state. Finally, RAAF Air Commodore Kaarin Kooij gets the CSC and Bar for her outstanding devotion to duty as Director General of the Joint Transition Authority. Transitioning from military service is a major life change, affecting not only the veteran but the family as well, and Air Commodore Kooij's work is focused on building a more responsive and integrated transition system. I want to congratulate all these people who were honoured in the Australia Day honours list and encourage Australians to nominate their fellow Australians for similar recognition.
Sydney Youth Musical Theatre | Statements by Members | House debates
The Berowra electorate is home to some extraordinary young performing talent, and that talent will be on display at the Sydney Youth Musical Theatre's production of 9-5, which will be running...
The Berowra electorate is home to some extraordinary young performing talent, and that talent will be on display at the Sydney Youth Musical Theatre's production of 9-5, which will be running from 7-15 February at the Glenn Street Theatre. The SYMT's production will have lots of Dolly Parton's wonderful and famous songs. SYMT provides not only a place for entertainment for people but also a very important training ground for young artists and musicians. People go on to study at NIDA, WAAPA, the VCA and become recipients the Helpmann and Rob Guest awards. Some of the people involved in this production include director Adam Haynes, music director Jono Simpson, choreographer Caitlin Dennis, assistant director Lachie Donlevy and assistant choreographer Bella Speranza. The incredible president of the SYMT and production manager is Chrissy Stimson. The cast includes Erin Pacholke, Danijela Novakovic, Jessica Bate, Nathanael Sherlock, Liz Grant, Aiden Hall, Sascha Masjuk, Eliza Pascoe, Hayley Mathie, Chloe Gardener, Harry Little, Karl Willison and Alex White. I got the privilege of seeing some of the rehearsals over the summer, and I encourage everyone in the electorate—indeed, everyone in the parliament—to buy a ticket to see this fantastic production by some outstanding young Australian musicians, actors and performers in the Sydney Youth Musical Theatre's production of 9-5.
International Relations: Australia and Iran | Questions without Notice | House debates
on indulgence—Can I associate the coalition with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Iranian regime is a criminal regime that commits human rights abuses against its own people,...
on indulgence—Can I associate the coalition with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Iranian regime is a criminal regime that commits human rights abuses against its own people, as we have been seeing, and they export terror and violence abroad, as we have suffered in our own country. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the government in the condemnation of the Iranian regime, in the support for those people seeking to change the regime and with the Persian community in this country.
Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion | Questions without Notice | House debates
On relevance: my question was not about the other things the Prime Minister was doing but about why he argued against a royal commission.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if a Commonwealth royal commission is such a good idea, why did you spend 25 days arguing against it?
Antisemitism | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns has said sorry to the Jewish community for his handling of the antisemitism crisis that led to the...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns has said sorry to the Jewish community for his handling of the antisemitism crisis that led to the murder of 15 people at Bondi. The Jewish community wants to hear their Prime Minister say sorry. For the third time: why won't you say sorry too?
Point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance: the Prime Minister wasn't asked about the history of antisemitism in Australia; he was asked whether he apologised for his government's failures to do...
Point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance: the Prime Minister wasn't asked about the history of antisemitism in Australia; he was asked whether he apologised for his government's failures to do enough to deal with the antisemitism.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Yesterday I stood here and said that the Bondi terrorist attack represented a moment of choice—a choice about the type of country we are and the type of people we want to be, a choice about...
Yesterday I stood here and said that the Bondi terrorist attack represented a moment of choice—a choice about the type of country we are and the type of people we want to be, a choice about whether we stay in the political cul-de-sac that we've been in for over 800 days or, instead, tackle the sources and causes of antisemitism in this country, a choice about whether to continue to treat antisemitism as just another political issue or to treat it as the moral and cultural problem it is, a choice made by people in this place about whether to drag heels or to deal with the issue with priority, alacrity and zealous determination, a choice by each member of this place about whether to change. The sad reality is that if we don't change then Bondi won't have changed anything. Until recently Australia had an exceptional and unique story to tell about its Jewish community. Jews have been part of the story of Australia since the First Fleet. Australia came to be seen as a unique place good to the Jews. In turn, Jewish Australians have contributed to their country—famous names, like Monash, Isaacs, Lowy and Jessica Fox, and everyday people, with acts of service and gratitude that come from people living lives of peace and security. The grief from Bondi is twofold: it's not just the innocence lost, the families broken and the children scared and afraid; it's also the loss of the precious truth that Australia is good to Jews and the bitter sense that Bondi was predictable—we were warned. There were 800 days of warning signs between October 7 and 14 December, starting on 8 October in Sydney with the public rally where the day of kidnapping, murder, rape and torture of Jews was called 'a day of pride' and 'a day of victory', and exemplified in the occupation of the opera house the next day with chants of 'gas the Jews'; in the incidents where people drove around Melbourne looking for Jews to kill; in the countless acts of graffiti in our capital cities calling for Jews to be gassed and murdered; in the encampments at our universities where Jewish students and staff were harassed; in the endless week-after-week protests in our cities calling for the destruction of Israel and occupying our landmarks; in the sophistry and lies of the academic and intellectual class, who justified abuse by saying that it wasn't antisemitism but anti-Zionism and that they weren't enabling antisemitism but just arguing for peace; in the doxxing and deplatforming of Jewish artists and creatives; in the smashing of Jewish shops and businesses; in the physical assaults on identifiably Jewish people; in the firebombing of cars; in the attacks on the synagogues at East Melbourne, Caulfield, Perth, Hobart, Newtown and Allawah; and, of course, in the firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue. The Jewish community has seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. It ends in murder at Bondi after 800 days of failure. Antisemitism is an old hatred that wears different masks. First it was about religion. Then it was about race. Now it is about the Jewish state. But the hatred is always the same, and the result is always the same. And now that hatred has come here, to our country. The government has been warned about these things by its own antisemitism envoy, whose report was untouched for six months. We know that antisemitism is found in three groups—among Neo-Nazis who revel in the atrocities of the Holocaust, in the radical Islamists who take pride in October 7, and in the cultural left who foster and enable breeding grounds for hatred in our writers festivals, in artistic circles, on university campuses and in the so-called progressive organisations usually pretending to be about Zionism but mixed in with platitudes about human rights. As I said, Bondi represents a moment of choice, and the choice the Liberal Party makes this morning, as we have always done, is to stand with the Jewish community and law-abiding Australians. It's the choice to be constructive, to pass this legislation as a step in the right direction. That's the choice the Liberal Party has made. But the choice for the government of the day does not end today. The choice for the Albanese government is in the implementation. The test for the government is how it uses these new laws. It must expel or jail hate preachers. It must list Hizb ut-Tahrir and its prayer halls. It must protect our borders from radical Islamists and the insidious propagandists who use Jews as a way of attacking Australia. It's a choice that doesn't end with these laws. The government must root out antisemitism from our schools, from academia and the universities, from the arts, from the trade union movement and from its own political base. Unless we do that, Bondi will not be the end of the story; it will be the midpoint of a story that gets so much worse.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Today we gather to remember the victims, to support the injured, to comfort the mourners and to praise the heroes. We gather to reflect on the choices before us as a country. As a...
Today we gather to remember the victims, to support the injured, to comfort the mourners and to praise the heroes. We gather to reflect on the choices before us as a country. As a sixth-generation Jewish Australian I have always felt an overwhelming sense of gratitude for what this country has given my community. Jewish and Australian stories are deeply intertwined. My grandfather Sam served in the Australian Army in World War II. He was taken as a prisoner to the Thai-Burma railway. In that terrible place he drew strength from the freedom of the Australia he loved. Every week, no matter where the Australians held camp, Jewish services were held. Even in the horrors of the Changi prison camp, a place was consecrated as a synagogue. It's why, when my first child, my son whom I love, was born, I wrote: I want James to understand the particular perspective that comes from being a Jewish Australian, a religious minority that never numbered more than one per cent of this country, in a land which almost uniquely in human history has been good to the Jewish people. That same concept was so beautifully encapsulated by the wonderful words of the Deputy Prime Minister earlier today. There's much I grieve for today: the innocence lost at Bondi, the survivors of Bondi and the things they cannot unsee, the synagogues torched, the Jewish artists doxxed and frozen out, the university students harassed, the small businesses shut down—all of this pains me. But it is the loss of the truth that Australian is good to Jewish people that crushes me. The loss of this idea is felt by every Jewish Australian, particularly when we see our children confused and scared about what is happening in this country. Bondi alone did not do this, but it has been accelerating in the 800 days between the Hamas attack on Israel and the Bondi attack—800 days of failure across our national life. The feeling in the Jewish community right now is visceral. It's of disappointment, of anger and of betrayal. The Holocaust survivor Eddie Jaku at the end of World War II left Europe for Australia because he couldn't resolve the question: where were my neighbours? Increasingly, Jewish Australians are asking the question: where are our leaders? Today is not about day-to-day politics; it's about the type of country we want and the type of people we are. The sad reality is, if we don't change, then Bondi won't have changed anything. Bondi represents a moment of choice: will we stay in the political cul-de-sac we've been in for over 800 days, or will we tackle the sources and causes of antisemitism in this country; will our leaders continue to treat antisemitism and violence against Jews as a political problem to manage, rather than the moral and cultural problem that it is; and will our leaders drag their heels or deal with the issues with priority, alacrity and zealous determination? If we are to change, it starts with tackling the three groups where antisemitism has taken hold. The first group where Jew hate is festering is violent neo-Nazi groups. They move in small cells which must be disbanded. They're best tackled with more funding and stronger powers for our security services. The second group is the radical Islamists. They are a danger to our Australian community, and they are a danger to Muslim Australians. In my community the Persian community have for years stood against the mullahs of Iran and all their extremism, and I honour them. We must shut down the hate preachers and their extremist prayer halls. We must proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir—in fact it should have been done years ago—we must jail and expel the vile propagandists and their violence and we must be vigilant about those who seek to come here. The third group where antisemitism is rife in the cultural left. It's in the writers festivals that celebrate people who say their mission is to make Jews feel culturally unsafe. It is in the theatres where keffiyehs are donned and Jews are catcalled. It's in the universities where Jewish students are harassed and Jewish academics are deplatformed. It's in the conferences where Jews are silenced, shut down, humiliated and called 'mutt' and where the term Zionist is used as an insult. In all these places we have witnessed failure of moral leadership, we have seen antisemitism excused with the word 'but' and we have seen hatred framed as artistic expression. It would be tempting to conclude with something poetic or sacred—a call, as it were, to give us hope. I can't do that today, but I will finish with a warning. We cannot continue the 800 days of neglect. Bondi will either be the crescendo to a bad chapter in our history or the midpoint to a story that gets worse. Without change—without political change, without cultural change and without a reprioritisation of antisemitism as the foundational threat to this country—what we have seen will get worse. It's naive to think parliament could sit for two days and then move on as if that's enough to deal with this issue. If we have to, we need to deal with antisemitism every day this parliament sits to get the job done, until we restore an Australia that is good to the Jewish people and free and fair for all. Our times require leadership and goodwill. If we show it—if we work for it—then we can reclaim the Australia we remember and love and, in so doing, provide some comfort for all those who have lost so much. That is the choice before us today.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the...
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) the Coalition has been an unwavering supporter of the Australian screen industry for decades, and is responsible for: (a) establishing the producer offset, the location offset, the digital and visual effect production offset—which have underpinned support for the sector for almost two decades; (b) introducing the location incentive, which attracted billions of dollars of investment into Australia in the film industry; (c) providing in excess of $100 million in financial supports to the Australian screen production industry throughout the Covid pandemic; and (d) first proposing an Australian content guarantee for streamers in February 2022; and (2) after almost four years of inaction, the Government has asked that this Bill be passed in just four sitting days, having taken the industry by surprise and despite significant concerns about potential unintended consequences". This amendment relates to prominence, with 'prominence' meaning that Australian content is actually accessible to those who wish to watch it. It means it's easily found, visible and discoverable so that viewers can effortlessly choose Australian content if they want to. I've spoken to people in the sector and I know that this is a real issue for them. In the old days, prominence was built into the content requirement. Prominence and local content were a package deal. You couldn't have one without the other. The subscription video-on-demand model breaks that link. Just because you commission an Australian show doesn't mean it will be easily found. No-one wants that outcome. Streamers don't want that outcome. Streamers say they don't do this; the commercial imperative is otherwise. Overwhelmingly, the streamers I've spoken to say that they do the right thing. They say that, if they're going to invest in a show, they want to give it the appropriate prominence so that it's seen and successful. They want a show that will come up on the carousel when you log on to Netflix or Amazon Prime as a selection that you can easily choose, and that's great. As I said earlier, no-one has a crystal ball. We don't know how the market will change in coming years. We don't know what the market impacts of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video on Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, will be. We don't know how the market will change. We don't know what new players in the market will do with their catalogues. We can't guarantee that the Australian content that will be commissioned when this bill passes will actually be easy to find for ordinary Australian families. That's why I'm moving this amendment today. This is about futureproofing the bill. It's a simple, light-touch regulatory model. It simply gives the minister a power—a power which frankly I hope the minister never needs to use. But the mechanism is straightforward. The amendment says: The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe requirements relating to the prominence and accessibility of eligible Australian content on major SVOD services if the Minister is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is appropriate to make the instrument to ensure eligible Australian content is readily accessible to Australian users. If you listen carefully, you'll hear the safeguard's built into that mechanism. It has a clear purpose. It requires reasonable grounds. It includes an obligation to consult with the major streamers who'll be subject to the requirement. It says that the instrument will be disallowable. That means parliament has oversight. The amendment says that the instrument is time-bound. It can only last three years. But there's a clear power to amend or remake it. There's a requirement to comply, which is enforceable by civil penalty provisions, along the same lines as the civil penalty provisions that apply to prominence for television. There is also a requirement to review the prominence framework. I say to the minister: pass this amendment. Pass this amendment and vote for the prominence of Australian content. Don't vote against prominence for Australian content. Why not have a mechanism to give the minister the ability to deal with the prominence of Australian content on streaming services as a safeguard to futureproof this bill? Why not make this bill deal with more than just reporting an investment and do better as a cultural policy? After all, it's in the interests of all Australians that they can easily find Australian stories. It's in the interests of the Australian screen production industry that their stories are easily found. The ramifications of this type of measure are far-reaching. They affect the screen production industry, which we support. We want Australian content to be prominent and discoverable in an on-demand world. But there will be other industries in the cultural sector that will also take note. It's in their interests too. So, again, I say to the minister: don't vote against the prominence of Australian content. This is a simple measure, with the wellbeing of the Australian screen industry at its heart. It's not a restrictive legislative formal obligation. It's a flexible, light-touch approach that leaves the platforms with the flexibility to determine the best way to give prominence to our stories, with a safeguard if necessary. The prominence and discoverability of Australian content should be front and centre together in this discussion. They are natural partners. I commend the amendment to the House.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, a very important and long-overdue...
I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, a very important and long-overdue bill. I move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: the Coalition has been an unwavering supporter of the Australian screen industry for decades, and is responsible for: establishing the producer offset, the location offset, and the digital and visual effect production offset, which have underpinned support for the sector for almost two decades; introducing the location incentive, which attracted billions of dollars of investment into Australia in the film industry; providing in excess of $100 million in financial supports to the Australian screen production industry throughout the COVID-19 pandemic; and first proposing an Australian content guarantee for streamers in February 2022; and after almost four years of inaction, the Government has asked that this bill be passed in just four sitting days, having taken the industry by surprise and despite significant concerns about potential unintended consequences". Speaker, I want to start by directing my comments, through you, not just to those in the chamber, those in the gallery or those who are reading the Hansard for posterity but to the Australian screen industry—the producers, writers, actors, directors, camera men and women, sound engineers, postproduction specialists, set decorators, storyboard artists, costume designers, hairstylists, editors, musicians, animators, drivers, caterers, agents, publicists and everyone else who derives their living and their entertainment from the Australian screen industry. I want to say that we back you. The coalition supports you. We want your industry not just to survive but to thrive. The coalition is the party of small business, and we know that hundreds upon hundreds of small businesses work in and around the screen industry here in Australia. We want the Australian people to hear and see Australian stories on Australian screens. This is the cultural argument. It's about forging a unique national identity. It's about pride in our country. The coalition is the party that has never taken a step back from the pride in our country and in our identity as Australians, whether that is the ancient and living Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, our British foundations and the institutions and structures that guarantee the freedom and equality we enjoy today or our multicultural character, a triumph that has brought to this land the gifts and culture of people from all around the globe. These are the three great strands of our history, these are the markers that make our place in the world unique and these are the stories that should be seen and heard by Australians. That means that we support the Australian screen industry. We back Australian content. We back the screen industry. We want the Australian screen production industry to be supported, and we don't accept that they should wear the financial hit that the government has built into the legislation if it is not rammed through in the next couple of days. Support for the screen industry in this country is in the coalition's DNA. This is an area where we have an enviable track record going back more than 50 years. In the sixties and seventies, it was the coalition under John Gorton who established the Australian Film Development Corporation, and Gough Whitlam followed in the coalition's lead with the National Film and Television School. In the 1980s, it was the coalition under Malcolm Fraser who made a 150 per cent tax concession on the investment risk for Australian made film and television production. That incentive was whittled away under Hawke and Keating. In 2007, it was the coalition under John Howard that first introduced the Australian Screen Production Incentive. This was the birth of the producer offset, the location offset and the post, digital and visual effects production offset. When Peter Costello introduced that measure, he described its purpose as being to build stable and sustainable production companies aiming to increase private investor interest in the industry. These three measures are the legacies of the Howard era, and, again, Labor has followed the coalition's lead. Indeed, in 2020, the Office of Impact Analysis estimated that, as at 30 June that year, the Australian Screen Production Incentive had produced $2.9 billion to support the Australian screen industry since its introduction. It's a coalition policy that has been the backbone and linchpin of government support to the screen industry over the last two decades. It was the coalition that provided critical support to the Australian screen industry throughout the difficulty years of the COVID pandemic, including more than $100 million through the modernising Australian screen content and the Temporary Interruption Fund measures. In 2018, it was the coalition that introduced the location incentive program with funding of $140 million, which was expanded by $400 million in 2020. Analysis in February 2022 by the Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research made clear that that measure stood to generate more than $4.3 billion in production, with economic, employment and skills in the metropolitan and regional areas through to 2026-27. In February 2020, it was the coalition that first proposed an Australian content guarantee, a vision of Paul Fletcher, who was then both the Minister for Communications and the Minister for the Arts, who consulted deeply with industry and designed the light-touch framework to ensure that five per cent of the revenue that streamers derived from the Australian market went into local investment. Paul Fletcher had done the work. He had done the heavy lifting in this policy space. He commissioned the ACMA and Screen Australia paper to develop options for supporting Australian stories on our screens. He distributed the policy papers on streaming services, reporting an investment obligation. He worked alongside industry to develop something effective and functional. Labor was left flatfooted, and, typically, Labor followed the coalition's lead. They followed us by promising an investment obligation in the lead up to the 2022 election. They backgrounded industry and media about the now minister's plans to introduce a 20 per cent investment obligation. But it was a rushed and unworkable response, and it wasn't ready to go. These days, Minister Burke will say that he's been calling out this issue since he was last arts minister in 2013, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't do anything about it. There was no action in the 43rd Parliament. There was no action in 47th Parliament. Indeed, by May 2024, the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications noted in an interim report on the national cultural policy that the government was still considering two different models and was progressing with different drafting. Embarrassingly for Minister Burke, a status update on the issue prepared by the Parliamentary Library records, for posterity, that around this time last year, on 5 November 2024, Minister Burke told the Labor caucus: … that the interaction of any new local content rules with the US free trade deal was a stumbling block. That is the ABC article dated 6 November 2024 entitled 'Federal government quietly shelves plans for local content requirements'. Now, after almost four years of delay, we have this bill—a bill which is a weird combination of being long in the making and rushed in the delivery. It's worth saying a few things about it. What does this bill do? There are two main parts to it. The first is a reporting obligation on major streamers called 'major subscription video on-demand', or SVOD, services. The second is an investment obligation. I'll say that again—a reporting requirement and an investment obligation. As we head into 2026, I invite you to cast your mind back to the policy papers released by Paul Fletcher almost four years ago and the commitment he made in the lead-up to the 2022 election which spoke about a reporting requirement and an investment obligation. That's a tick there for the coalition on the headline issues. Again, they're following the coalition's lead on the broad policy measures. There are some differences of approach, of course, and, with Labor, the devil is always in the detail. There are notification and reporting obligations, which differ depending on the size of the streamer in terms of its subscriber base, and there's a dual-track investment obligation. The default position in the bill is that streamers have an investment obligation that amounts to 10 per cent of the total program expenditure for Australia. There is an option to instead elect for an obligation amounting to 7.5 per cent of revenue derived by the service from Australia in the relevant year. This selection can be made once every three years in advance. In terms of the scale of the difference, we understand that most streamers easily meet that requirement already and that what this bill does is put a floor under the level of investment and provide a steer for future players entering the market. There's a three-year acquittal process for each year's obligation, which the government says helps smooth some of the lumpiness inherent in screen production expenditure. Those are the headline features of the bill. I want to turn to the process now. The way that this has finally come before parliament, with a level of urgency that's entirely within the government's power to control, means there are missed opportunities. My initial concern is that, after almost four years, the government is asking that this bill be passed in three sitting days. I'm doubly concerned that the bill has been drafted in such a way that the Australian screen industry stands to lose if the parliament takes the time to examine the bill. That's because the bill has been drafted so that, unless it is passed by the parliament in this calendar year, the investment obligation will not commence until July and those who support the investment obligation will be made to wait. The risk is that, if parliament doesn't pass the legislation now, the screen production industry stands to lose financially. That's something that we on this side of the House do not accept should be the case. There is no reason to draft the bill in that way. It's a matter that is entirely within control of Minister Burke, both as the responsible minister and as the Leader of the House. Minister Burke writes the sitting calendar for this chamber. He's the Leader of the House. He decides how many days we sit each year. He's the one who decides when the bill is slated for introduction, and, as the minister responsible, he's the one who decides when the investment obligation in this legislation would commence. In other words, the urgency in relation to this bill and the potential financial penalty to the screen industry have been created entirely by this government, and that is a matter of deep concern. If the parliament decides to scrutinise this legislation to ensure it's fit for purpose, Minister Burke has a range of options to ensure that the screen industry is not disadvantaged. He could draft the bill to ensure the obligation commences on the day after royal assent. He can draft transition provisions so that, even if the bill is passed in the first sitting week of next year, the obligation is taken to commence on 1 January. He can even recall the parliament if he wants to, to allow time for a committee hearing. The point is that this is a problem that is entirely within the government's hands to fix. The reason for making these points is not just that the bill may have problems—which are within parliament's power to fix—but that there may also be missed opportunities in this bill to benefit the screen production industry in Australia. We've been told by industry that the government is not prepared to consider amendments to this bill. That's a shame because it's clear that there are questions on all sides which warrant answers. The screen producers association, for instance, has made clear there are both positives and negatives to the bill. A number of streamers have proposed amendments to the scheme that they say would make the scheme more workable, with a view to ensuring there's a sustainable industry in Australia. There are issues that the bill should include but doesn't, which should be ventilated through closer examination. One of those is the issue of a prominence framework for Australian content. In the old days of broadcast media, content requirements and prominence were two sides of the same coin. Prominence means Australian content actually being accessible to watchers—being easily found, being visible and discoverable—so that watchers can effortlessly choose Australian content if they want to. In the old days, this was built into the content requirement. Broadcasters were required to play a certain amount of local content in given timeslots. Anyone who tuned in at a timeslot would see a certain proportion of the Australian content presented to them. Prominence and local content were a package deal—you couldn't have one without the other. The subscription video-on-demand model breaks that link. Just because you commission an Australian show it doesn't mean it will be easily found. In theory, it would be possible for a major streamer to fully acquit its investment obligation under this bill by commissioning a range of Australian content and hiding it in the back catalogue where it wouldn't be seen. Let me be clear, this is not what the streamer say they would do, and I do not say that they will do that. The commercial imperative is obviously otherwise. Overwhelmingly, the streamers that I have spoken to do the right thing. They say that if they are going to invest in Australia, they want to give it appropriate prominence so that it is seen as successful. They want the show to come up on the carousel when you log on to Netflix or Amazon Prime as a selection that you can easily choose from, and that's great. But no-one has a crystal ball. We don't know how the market will change in the coming years. There will be new players coming into the Australian market, and we don't know what their approach will be. We don't know what new pressures will influence the major streamers in the years to come, and we can't guarantee that the Australian content that will be commissioned when this bill finally passes will actually be easy to find by ordinary Australian families. We know that the size of the Australian content catalogue is patchy. For some streamers in the Australian market, it is less than one per cent of their overall catalogue. So if you don't have much Australian content, why doesn't the bill deal with that? Why not have a mechanism to give the minister the power to deal with the prominence of Australian content on streaming services as a safeguard to future-proof this bill? Why not make this bill deal with more than just reporting an investment and do better as a cultural policy? After all, it's in the interests of all Australians to be able to easily find Australian stories, and it's in the Australian screen production industry that their stories are easily found. That's why I am moving a amendment to the bill. It's a very simple amendment, modelled on the light touch but highly effective approach of Paul Fletcher, which is to allow the minister to set requirements for the prominence of Australian content on streaming services. It's not a formal obligation; it's a power to take action in the future. That's why I described it as future proofing a few moments ago. It puts the prominence and discoverability of Australian content front and centre. This is the natural partner of an investment obligation. Why not have a proper inquiry into that type of issue in the context of the bill? I want to turn to other questions about this bill. As we said when the bill was first introduced, we back Australian content, but there are questions about how this measure will work. The first one is the question the minister reportedly described as a stumbling block in his own caucus room when he delayed the bill over a year ago. That question is: does this bill breach the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement? Chapters 10, 11 and 16 of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement deal with electronic commerce, investment and cross-border trade and services. Under John Howard, the coalition had the foresight to include some reservations to those chapters. We included specific carve outs for audio-visual and broadcasting sectors. They are recorded in annexure 2 to the agreement. But the question is whether this bill fits within those carve outs and whether there are broader impacts on our relations with other countries. This is an issue which should be explored in an inquiry. Another question is: is the content requirement appropriate? When this bill passes there will be three different standards for Australian content depending on whether you're a broadcaster, a subscription TV provider or a streamer. What does the introduction of this new third standard mean for the market? How will it affect competition between the players? What impacts does it have on investment in the market? What impacts will it have on pricing when it comes to commissioning new shows? The third question is: does this bill make any difference at all? We're led to believe that most streamers already meet the investment thresholds in the legislation. Will this bill actually change the current state of play, or does it only place a floor under the current investment levels, as the government has said, and shape new players considering entering into the market? A fourth question is: what are the unintended consequences? Do those unintended consequences adversely impact the Australian screen industry? Amongst the focus of the US-based streamers there is, of course, Stan, the only Australian owner streamer, which is an offshoot of Nine, a free-to-air broadcaster. Will this bill hobble Stan's ability to commission local Australian dramas and documentaries? Will it mean that an Australian company could be outbid by global streamers, forcing them to acquire low-quality content or pay inflated prices or both? Will the bill inadvertently put more local content behind pay walls? Will the bill damage local broadcasters, who have local drama and documentary quotas but provide that content for free, by driving up prices in the marketplace. Will this bill do harm to the services and platforms that are the backbone of local production? These are important questions, and important questions that should be ventilated in an inquiry. Let me be clear about the coalition's position. Our position on this bill is simple: we support Australian content, we support the Australian screen industry, and we support Australian content being accessible, visible and easily found on Australian screens. In the ordinary course, this bill would be the subject of an inquiry. We don't accept that the industry should face a potential financial penalty if this parliament conducts such an inquiry. This is an issue within the government's power to correct, and we ask them to do so. I thank the House.