Kate Chaney's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
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 today to welcome the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill and the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander...
I rise today to welcome the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill and the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill. These bills mark a significant step towards doing what successive governments have failed to do: listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, act on what we hear and build the structural accountability needed to ensure that they are not left behind. The government committed, two years ago, to establishing a legislated independent national commissioner, and I'm pleased to see this promise being honoured. I particularly welcome that the bill establishes the commission as a separate statutory agency, with the commissioner recognised as an independent statutory officer. Independence is not symbolic; it's essential. It means the commissioner can speak hard truths, hold government to account and advocate for the safety and rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people without fear or favour. Unfortunately, we have a long history of mostly well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective and sometimes damaging policy, and we need independent voices that can call this out. The power to require individuals or government agencies to provide information or documents, backed by civil penalties for noncompliance, is critical. Without this, systemic issues may remain hidden behind bureaucratic barriers. This is the first national role solely focused on First Nations children and young people. The commissioner will be able to hear directly from children, young people and their families, ensuring that their voices are reflected in advice to government and in the design of programs and services. This should never have been revolutionary, but it has the potential to be transformative. From my experience working in various roles attempting to address Indigenous disadvantage, I've learned that the only path to success is listening and co-developing, centring the experience of people affected by policy in the design and development of that policy. I also welcome the bill's clarity on the rights, safety, development and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and that they must be understood in a manner that's consistent with their cultures and their communities. The commission is resourced with $33 million across the forward estimates and more than $9 million ongoing. Proper resourcing is what allows intent to translate into outcomes. It means research, education programs, community engagement and public advocacy can be done well and in partnership with communities. I also welcome the commissioner's capacity to prepare and table reports directly to the parliament. This will help to provide a vital lever for sustained scrutiny and action, ensuring the commission's findings, systemic issues and recommendations are placed squarely before the parliament rather than filtered through government agencies. I note, importantly, that this bill has been shaped by significant input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives and that it's been welcomed by both SNAICC and the Australian Human Rights Commission. These are strong signs, but I want to be clear: a strong commission does not guarantee a strong government response. We've seen too many reports and too many recommendations left to gather dust, including 55 reports from parliamentary committees commissioned by this government and not responded to within the required timeframe. That's a lot of work sitting on the shelf. Given the disproportionate disadvantage faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, especially the overrepresentation of young people in out-of-home care and youth detention, this commission will only succeed if its findings drive government action. So today I welcome these bills but I also put the government on notice: independence, powers and resources mean nothing unless matched by the courage to act. This commission gives us the chance to shift the trajectory for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. My hope is that we seize it—that we listen and we act—and that this commission's reports are not just tabled in this parliament but taken seriously, implemented and responded to with the urgency and respect that First Nations children deserve.
Palestine Action Group: Protest | Questions without Notice | House debates
I'm seeking a ruling on whether the member for Flynn is breaching standing order 90 by saying, 'Rip her apart.' Government members interjecting—
Economy | Private Members' Business | House debates
Last week the Reserve Bank raised the official cash rate from 3.6 to 3.85 per cent in response to rising inflation. Raising interest rates makes borrowing money more expensive, so businesses and...
Last week the Reserve Bank raised the official cash rate from 3.6 to 3.85 per cent in response to rising inflation. Raising interest rates makes borrowing money more expensive, so businesses and households spend less. This is a blunt instrument that the RBA uses to cool the economy. This is bad news for many Australians, because higher interest rates directly increase the cost of living, particularly for households with mortgages, small businesses carrying debt and rents whose landlords have to pass on their increased mortgage costs. For millions of people it means higher repayments, less disposable income and tougher decisions about everyday spending. Raising interest rates works largely by hurting poorer and more vulnerable households first. Wealthier households without mortgages or living on savings can continue spending, while those already living on the edge are forced to cut back on spending, which is ultimately how higher rates slow the economy. Annual inflation is now at 3.8 per cent, above the RBA's formal target range of two to three per cent. Inflation matters because it erodes our standard of living, particularly for households whose incomes don't keep pace with prices. Right now, there's ongoing political debate about what has caused the recent inflation pressures. The Treasurer points to strong private sector demand—that is, households and businesses spending more. The opposition points to high levels of public or government spending. In reality, both played a role, and finger pointing does little to solve the problem for your average Australian. What matters now is what we do about it, and it's time for some serious ambition on economic reform. The government can put downward pressure on inflation in a few different ways. One response is reducing government spending. Spending is at its highest level since 1988 other than during the pandemic, and the government needs to reinstate fiscal rules and make ministers and departments more accountable for the blowouts in budget measures. Another approach is improving the efficiency of government spending. Government should be focused on delivering government services more efficiently so we get better bang for our buck and there's an opportunity to do this with our climate and industry policy. In the absence of a market based carbon price, support for decarbonisation relies on ad hoc subsidies and grant programs that often lack transparency, encourage rent seeking and fail to drive economy-wide adjustment. A carbon price combined with targeted industry policies such as R&D incentives and workforce transition support would provide a far more efficient framework, replacing piecemeal interventions with clear economy-wide signals. The most important way to address inflation sustainably is lifting productivity, or working out how to make more goods and services with fewer resources. With high productivity, increased spending leads to more output. With low productivity, it leads to higher prices. It's like the speed limit on the economy. Productivity is also the main driver of rising living standards over generations. We live better than people did a century ago not because we work harder but because we produce far more with the same amount of effort. As Paul Krugman famously said, 'Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it's almost everything.' That's why it's concerning that the RBA has downgraded its medium term productivity growth assumption to just 0.7 per cent per year. In the nineties and the early 2000s, growth above two per cent was common and supported rising wages and living standards. Today, a lower productivity ceiling weighs directly on incomes and opportunity. Improving productivity is difficult, but we've had a productivity roundtable that's not yet delivered results, and the Productivity Commission released a five-year report in 2023 that included recommendations on how to improve productivity in education, migration, workplace relations, technology, business dynamism, the Public Service and decarbonisation. These remain good ideas. Reducing unnecessary regulation is an example that's critical. A typical small business must comply with thousands of pages of federal, state and local rules. Regulations are easy to add but hard to remove, and, over time, they accumulate. Our complicated workplace relations regime is a prime example of this. In the construction industry, productivity has gone down over the last 30 years. The government should be ambitiously simplifying our workplace relations system to improve productivity. Ambitious tax reform also matters. Australia relies heavily on taxing labour income even as the working age population shrinks. Shifting the tax base away from penalising work and investment would support productivity and long-term fiscal sustainability. Australia's inflation challenge cannot be solved by interest rates alone. Only by expanding the economy's productive capacity can we stabilise inflation. (Time expired)
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) and (9) to (24), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 5, page 4 (line...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) and (9) to (24), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 5, page 4 (line 5), omit "the", substitute "a". (3) Clause 5, page 4 (line 8), omit "the", substitute "a". (4) Clause 9, page 8 (line 10), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) 3 Commissioners. (5) Clause 11, page 8 (line 27), omit "if requested by the Minister". (6) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 2), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) to prepare reports, and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister, the Research Minister and the Science Minister, in relation to research and research training in higher education system and its interactions with the broader research and development system; (7) Clause 11, page 9 (line 4), omit "if requested by the Minister". (9) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 14), after subparagraph (d)(ii), insert: (iia) the funding of research and research training; and (10) Clause 20, page 13 (lines 9 to 12), omit the clause, substitute: 20 Commissioner There are to be 3 Commissioners. (11) Heading to clause 21, page 13 (line 13), omit " the Commissioner ", substitute " a Commissioner ". (12) Clause 22, page 14 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The Secretary and the ATEC must enter into an enforceable agreement specifying minimum staffing levels and standards. (13) Clause 41, page 27 (after line 17), after paragraph (d), insert: (da) the funding of research and research training, including indirect costs of research grants and support for research students; (14) Clause 41, page 28 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add: Work initiated by the ATEC (4) Within the scope of the ATEC's work plan specified in section 45, the ATEC may initiate its own research and analysis and publish reports, advice and recommendations in relation to the items listed in subsections (1) and (2). (15) Clause 42, page 29 (after line 18), after paragraph (d), insert: (da) the contribution of higher education in progress towards any research, development, innovation or science priorities and targets set by the Commonwealth; (16) Clause 42, page 30 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (6) To avoid doubt, a report is not prepared at the request of the Minister. (17) Heading to clause 58, page 41 (line 1), omit " the Commissioner ", substitute " Commissioners ". (18) Clause 58, page 41 (line 3), omit "The Commissioner", substitute "A Commissioner". (19) Clause 58, page 41 (line 7), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a Commissioner". (20) Clause 58, page 41 (line 23), omit "The Commissioner", substitute "A Commissioner". (21) Clause 59, page 42 (line 1), omit subparagraph (a)(i), substitute: (i) higher education (including research and research training); (22) Clause 61, page 44 (lines 2 to 11), omit the clause, substitute: 61 Remuneration (1) An ATEC Commissioner is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, an ATEC Commissioner is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the remuneration that is prescribed by the regulations. (2) An ATEC Commissioner is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations. (3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of ATEC Commissioner. Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of an ATEC Commissioner will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 . (4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)). (23) Heading to clause 69, page 47 (line 12), omit " Ministerial agreement ", substitute " Consultation with Minister ". (24) Clause 69, page 47 (lines 15 and 16), omit "seek and obtain the agreement of the Minister", substitute "consult with the Minister". Having consulted with universities and considered the 62 submissions to the committee inquiry, I've drafted these amendments to achieve three key outcomes. The first outcome would be to provide ATEC with autonomy and independence, as recommended by the Australian Universities Accord—final report and a wide range of stakeholders. ATEC should have the ability to initiate and publish advice and recommendations on its own initiative rather than solely at the request of the minister, which is how it's currently drafted. Without this independence and autonomy, ATEC won't be able to provide long-term well-evidenced policy advice. Much of the most important policy reforms may not be politically palatable, like reforming the failed job-ready graduates scheme. Without this independence and autonomy, ATEC will not have the opportunity to regularly advise on these issues. As drafted, it appears that ATEC will effectively be an extension of the department, providing advice on the request of the minister. ATEC only has one opportunity a year to provide advice that's not requested by the minister, in the State of the tertiary education system report, and that's not enough. My amendments would allow ATEC to initiate its own research and advisory functions, allow ATEC to publish reports with ministerial consultation, rather than ministerial agreement, and clarify that the State of the tertiary education system report can be prepared and published without the request of the minister. Further, ATEC should have some level of control and certainty over staffing arrangements. As drafted, staffing would be almost exclusively controlled by the department. This means that the department could, if it so wished, limit ATEC staff and effectively drain it of resources. One of these amendments would require ATEC and the department to enter into an enforceable agreement that would specify minimum staffing levels and standards, providing a level of certainty to ATEC. The second outcome I'm trying to achieve with my amendments is to increase the number of commissioners. As drafted, there's significant concern that three commissioners will be insufficient to provide expertise across a diverse range of fields and areas, such as higher education, VET, tertiary education governance and administration, stakeholder consultation and engagement, regional Australia, research and research training, equity and access, and learning and teaching. The universities accord final report, for example, recommended seven commissioners. My amendments would increase the number of commissioners from three to five, remedying this issue. The third intended outcome of these amendments is to make explicit the role of ATEC as a steward of the research sector. This, too, was recommended by the final report of the universities accord and a number of key stakeholders. Research is essential to Australia's long-term productivity, economic strength and international competitiveness, and the higher education sector plays a major role in Australia's research output. My amendments would allow ATEC to prepare reports and advice in relation to research and research training and ensure that the commissioners collectively possess experience in research and research training. I'll also be supporting an amendment to be moved by the member for Kooyong in relation to student contributions. One of ATEC's functions is to provide advice on the efficient cost and value of higher education courses and programs. However, as drafted, ATEC could only consider Commonwealth contributions, not student contributions. In other words, when assessing how much courses cost, ATEC wouldn't even consider how much students are paying. Both Commonwealth and student contributions must be considered in analysing the cost, value and efficiency of higher education courses and programs, and the member for Kooyong's amendment will ensure student contributions will be considered as well. I understand from the government that it will not support these amendments because it doesn't want to pre-empt the outcomes of a committee inquiry. We in the House also do not want to pre-empt the inquiry, but, unfortunately, the government gives us no choice, as it would prefer to push the bill through the House before the committee reports. While I do not believe this bill should pass as drafted, I think there's an opportunity to introduce amendments to build an impactful and effective ATEC. I want to acknowledge the genuine engagement of the minister with my office and with the sector more broadly and his passion for implementing the universities accord and building a flourishing higher education sector. I thank the minister for his comments in the House and for saying that he'll consider my amendments alongside the Senate inquiry report. I will not divide the House on these amendments. If the bill comes back to the House in an improved form in line with the accord recommendations and taking these amendments into account, I'll reconsider supporting it at that stage. I commend these amendments to the House.
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
by leave—To continue my remarks on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 from the last sitting day, I also want to address the issue of international...
by leave—To continue my remarks on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 from the last sitting day, I also want to address the issue of international student caps. This bill provides ATEC with the function to allocate international student caps for different universities and providers at the request of the minister. As I understand it from discussions with the minister's office, further legislation is required to provide the minister with the power to set enforceable caps for international students at individual universities and providers before ATEC can use this function. So this bill paves the way for future legislation that will allow for enforceable international student caps. The government tried to introduce this power in 2024. I strongly opposed it at the time, and the bill failed to pass. I continue to oppose hard caps as a policy tool. Hard caps are often sold as a housing solution. They are not. Housing supply and structural reform are the real solutions for the housing crisis. International student caps risk damaging Australia's international reputation, undermining a major export industry and destabilising university funding without delivering meaningful relief for our cost-of-living problems. But if the government insists on moving in that direction then it is better that international student caps are set by an expert steward working with universities individually rather than by blunt command and control ministerial settings. For now, though, I maintain that setting hard caps is the wrong answer. I won't make an amendment to remove this role for ATEC, because it's not a bad insurance policy in case future laws are passed to give the minister that power. The accord makes a powerful case for ATEC, and I agree with that case in principle. But I will not support a bill that creates an ATEC that's not independent, not adequately constituted and not equipped to do the job it was created to do. If ATEC is not meaningfully different from the department, if it cannot initiate and publish robust advice, if it cannot build its own capability and if it cannot credibly steward the system over time, then it will not solve the problems that the accord identified. That's why I oppose this bill as drafted. I will move amendments to make ATEC independent, capable and fit for purpose, and if the government is serious about delivering the accord's vision then it should accept them.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I support an Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, in principle. The universities...
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I support an Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, in principle. The universities accord's final report makes a compelling case that our tertiary education system has lacked long-term stewardship, coordinated planning and a strong evidence base. It's a system that's too important to run on chaotic political and short-term policy. But here's the problem: this bill does not establish the ATEC the accord recommended. It establishes a body called ATEC, but it doesn't give it the independence, the authority or the capability that would justify setting it up at all. In its current form, it risks becoming a lightly rebranded branch of the department—additional bureaucracy for no reason—constrained, dependent and unable to do the hard, long-term work the accord envisaged. I support ATEC in theory, but I oppose this legislation as drafted. I'm not alone. My position has been shaped by consultation with higher education experts and university groups, and by close reading of the submissions made to the Senate committee inquiry. There's a consistent message across many of them: yes to an ATEC in concept, but no to an ATEC that cannot act independently, cannot publish freely and cannot build its own capability. In other words, if ATEC is not meaningfully different from the department then why bother? I'll be moving amendments to attempt to fix these defects, and if the government will not accept these essential changes then I'm unlikely to support this bill in its current form. Firstly, why do we need an ATEC at all? The universities accord's final report is blunt about the nature of the challenge. It says: Our tertiary education system lacks the coordinated, future-focused and evidence-based, decision-making capacity necessary for Australia's future success. This must change. This is not a theoretical complaint. The accord documents a pattern of policy drift, fragmentation and failure, not because universities are incapable but because the system has lacked an enduring steward with the remit and capability to plan across electoral cycles. Let me give some specific examples of fragmented and short-term policy that the accord identifies that a future ATEC would help deal with if designed properly. First is the failed Job-Ready Graduates scheme. The accord says plainly that this needs to be replaced. The central premise—using price signals to shift student course choices—has failed. It left some students facing extremely high contributions and debts that don't reflect their future earning potential, and it shifted the funding burden further onto students and away from government. At the same time, it reduced funding available to universities to deliver disciplines critical to future jobs and innovation, including science, engineering and mathematics. This is what short-term, politically driven policy looks like: a major reform implemented with insufficient evidence and follow-through, producing outcomes that undermine national objectives. A second example is a funding model that no longer delivers for Australians. The accord identifies that the current funding arrangements are limiting enrolments of students from underrepresented backgrounds, and are not able to support growth in the tertiary sector in order to meet our nation's skill needs. These examples point to the need for long-term, evidence based stewardship of the tertiary education system focused on outcomes for students and for Australia. This is why ATEC matters. But if ATEC is to solve these problems, it must be built as the accord envisaged—independent, expert and able to work across electoral cycles, not constrained to speak only when invited and not prevented from publishing uncomfortable truths. Let's look at what the bill actually does. It establishes ATEC as the steward of the higher education system. It will be led by three commissioners—a chief commissioner, a First Nations commissioner and a part-time commissioner—appointed by the minister and collectively expected to bring balanced experience across higher education, VET, governance, engagement and regional Australia. ATEC's functions include: negotiating mission based compacts with universities and tertiary education providers; consulting widely across the tertiary system; and providing advice and recommendations to Commonwealth and state and territory ministers about the tertiary education system on request of the minister. These mission based compacts between the ATEC and higher education providers are the main mechanism for sustained engagement with the sector. They allow each provider to show how its unique mission aligns with national, state and local priorities, and they set a limited but meaningful set of performance objectives agreed collaboratively. The ATEC will take a good-faith, proportionate approach, supporting improvements, varying terms where needed and only escalating if performance remains below expectations. There are some good parts of this. The most positive outcome of this bill is that it recognises that the ATEC is needed in principle. It accepts the accord's logic. But the accord did not call for another advisory unit inside the machinery of the department; it called for a steward that could provide robust advice, support evidence based decision making and planning, and work across political cycles with a long time horizon. If the bill doesn't deliver that then it fails its own justification. Now I want to talk about the amendments that were moved. I oppose the bill as drafted because it doesn't create the ATEC that Australia needs. Firstly, we need to provide the ATEC with autonomy and independence. The ATEC should have the ability to initiate and publish advice and recommendations on its own initiative, rather than solely at the request of the minister. Without this independence, there seems little point in creating a new organisation that largely duplicates the department's work. If it can only speak when asked and can only publish when approved then it's not an independent steward; it's an adviser on a leash, and this matters because the hardest issues in higher education reform are often politically inconvenient. Job-ready Graduates is a clear example. Operational autonomy matters too. Currently, the department controls the ATEC's staffing and contractor engagement, which could undermine the ATEC's capacity to build expertise and undertake independent analysis. That's not the design of an independent steward. This issue has been raised by a huge number of stakeholders, including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the Regional Universities Network, Science and Technology Australia, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne. As a result, I'll move amendments to: firstly, omit the requirement that the ATEC may only prepare reports and provide advice at the request of the minister, and ensure the ATEC can initiate and publish reports and advice itself; secondly, require the ATEC and the department to enter into an enforceable agreement that will specify minimum staffing levels and standards. The second area of reform is around the number of commissioners. As drafted, there's significant concern that three commissioners will not have the expertise across a diverse range of fields and areas such as higher education, VET, tertiary education, governance and administration, stakeholder consultation, engagement, regional Australia and other important areas as well, including research, equity and access, and learning and teaching. As such, I will move amendments to introduce two additional part-time commissioners to bring the total number of commissioners to five. Again, this change is backed by a number of stakeholders: the Group of Eight, Regional Universities Network, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne. Thirdly, I'm going to introduce an explicit focus on research and research training. Research is central to Australia's economic strength, innovative capacity and international competitiveness. The accord identifies that our research system is under strain. We have low national R&D investment, weak innovation outputs, inadequate research training stipends and a need for a pathway to fund more of the full economic costs of research. The accord also explicitly calls for the ATEC to be a steward of the research sector yet the bill doesn't make the ATEC's research stewardship role explicit in the functions and advice framework. This is a serious omission. And, again, it's a problem raised by a large number of stakeholders. So I'll move amendments to allow the ATEC to prepare reports and advice in relation to research and research training to ensure the commissioners collectively possess experience in research and research training. The fourth area of amendments would allow the ATEC to consider student contributions. As it stands, the ATEC can provide advice on the efficiency and cost of higher education programs but it can only consider the cost of courses and programs borne by the Commonwealth not borne by students. You can't meaningfully talk about course costs and funding sustainability if you only look at the Commonwealth side of the ledger. Students pay a significant share and they need to be considered as well, so I'll move an amendment to allow the ATEC to consider student contribution amounts as well as Commonwealth contribution amounts. I also want to address the issue of international student caps. This bill provides the ATEC with the function to allocate international student caps for different universities and providers at the request of the minister. As I understand it from discussions with the minister's office, further legislation is required to provide the minister with the power to set enforceable caps for international students before ATEC can use this function, so this bill paves the way for future legislation that will allow those student caps. The government tried to introduce this power in—
Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence | Statements | House debates
The suspected murders of Leon and Otis Clune and the suicide of their parents in Mosman Park in my electorate have sent shockwaves throughout our community. It brings profound sadness but also...
The suspected murders of Leon and Otis Clune and the suicide of their parents in Mosman Park in my electorate have sent shockwaves throughout our community. It brings profound sadness but also anger, frustration and unfortunately some division. At the centre of this tragedy were two children whose lives were precious. They deserved safety, opportunity and the chance to grow into their futures. For young people living with disability who are, like all young people, forming a view of themselves, this is a terrifying story. To them, I say: this is an extremely rare event and there is no justification for it. Your life is precious. Your worth is inherent, unquestionable and equal. For families of people living with disability, this event may stir up anger, memories of your hardest moments or fears for the future. It's clear this tragedy has reopened conversations about how our society sees disabled people, how we support families and how we can prevent anyone from feeling alone or without options. The coronial inquest investigation is currently underway to determine the facts. This is likely to be followed by a coronial inquest so we can examine the broader circumstances that led to this crime. As we mourn the loss of this family, we must stand together, acknowledge the pain caused to so many in our community by this devastating event and recommit to protecting every precious life.
Disability Support Pension | Constituency Statements | House debates
Australians living with disability deserve dignity, independence and fairness. The current partner income test for the disability support pension undermines these fundamental human rights. The...
Australians living with disability deserve dignity, independence and fairness. The current partner income test for the disability support pension undermines these fundamental human rights. The DSP exists to recognise that disability can limit a person's capacity to work and earn an income. Yet, for tens of thousands of Australians, that support is reduced or removed altogether simply because they're in a relationship. This policy punishes people for having a supportive relationship and actively discourages autonomy. According to Department of Social Services data from August 2025, about 155,000 Australians receiving the DSP are partnered. Of these, 18 per cent report that their partner has an income. In many cases, these earnings are modest yet still significantly reduce or entirely cancel a person's pension. The same doesn't apply to parents' income when an adult with disability receives the DSP while living in their parents' home. Under current eligibility rules, a couple living together can earn just $380 in combined income per fortnight before the DSP begins to be reduced. Every additional dollar reduces the DSP further. This policy assumes that couples can simply pool their resources and that a partner can and should financially support a person with disability who cannot access the workforce. My constituents have told me about the impact of this policy on their ability to live with dignity and autonomy. I recently met Taylor and her partner, who were flatmates before beginning a de facto relationship. When they began their relationship, Taylor reported the change to Centrelink. As a result, her DSP was reduced to a nominal amount while Taylor's partner completed his PhD and undertook part-time work. Taylor no longer receives any DSP now that her partner has started working full time. Taylor and her partner would like to save for a home and start a family, but they say these goals are unachievable in their current financial circumstances. Another woman in my electorate told me her husband is an early career researcher whose income reduces her DSP to just $160 a fortnight. She has no financial autonomy. Her husband pays for everything, and she described feeling 'expensive to maintain'. She told me the experience is humiliating and deeply disempowering. Another constituent explained that qualifying for the DSP was an already exhausting and degrading process that results in a woefully inadequate payment once a partner's income is assessed. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates the cost of removing the partner income test would be approximately $250 million per year. This reform would benefit about 34,000 partnered DSP recipients who currently receive only a partial payment or none at all. In the context of the federal budget, this would be a reasonable and just investment. It would restore autonomy, reduce financial stress and recognise people with disability as individuals, not dependants.
Labor Government | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is for the Prime Minister. Since you came to office in 2022, parliamentary committees have prepared 78 reports and hundreds of recommendations on policy areas ranging from domestic...
My question is for the Prime Minister. Since you came to office in 2022, parliamentary committees have prepared 78 reports and hundreds of recommendations on policy areas ranging from domestic violence to plastic pollution to gambling harm. Your government has only responded to four of these within the required six-month window. Fifty-seven reports haven't received any response at all. Why is the government consistently failing to respond to important committee recommendations? Why set up these inquiries if they're not going to go anywhere?
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. At its heart, this bill aims to improve access to health care and reduce costs by extending...
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. At its heart, this bill aims to improve access to health care and reduce costs by extending prescribing rights under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to authorised nurse practitioners. These changes recognise the essential role nurse practitioners already play across our health system, and I support the objective of improving accessible, affordable care. In a country as vast and decentralised as Australia, geography too often dictates health outcomes. In rural, regional and remote areas, the closest GP may be hours away. For older Australians, people living with disability, First Nations communities and vulnerable people, the barriers to safe, timely and affordable care can be even higher. When a nurse practitioner is already providing frontline care, it's both logical and safe to allow them to prescribe medicines within a clearly defined scope. While I support the intention of this bill, the success of these reforms will depend entirely on how the detail is implemented. Several stakeholders have highlighted that key elements, including approval conditions and scope of prescribing, are being left for future ministerial determinations. This means we're being asked to legislate a framework without yet seeing the guardrails that will govern it, and we're doing so before the Senate committee has delivered its report. This is not an ideal position for the parliament to be in and risks leaving questions unanswered for practitioners, patients and the broader health system. There are two areas in particular that I want to highlight. First, the scope of medicines available for prescribing must be sensible and safe. This reform should focus on routine, low-risk and clinically appropriate medicines, not those that carry higher risks of dependency or misuse. Schedule 8 medicines, in particular, should fall outside this expanded authority. Our goal here is to improve access, not to create unintended consequences for patients or the health system. Doctors are best placed to make decisions about these schedule 8 medicines, which are used for severe pain or conditions like ADHD and include opioids such as morphine, stimulants such as dexamphetamine, cannabis and certain benzodiazepines. Our goal here is to appropriately improve access. Second, the definition of 'authorised health practitioner' must be precise. Nurse practitioners play an invaluable role, but it should be absolutely clear that they will continue to practise within a collaborative, medically supported model of primary care. This is how high-quality care already functions and the regulations should reflect this reality. Ambiguity helps no-one, not practitioners, not regulators and not patients. These are not objections to the reform; they are a request for safeguards to ensure it delivers what it promises—better access without compromising safety or fragmenting care. This bill has the potential to move us meaningfully towards a more equitable health system but only if the detail is done well. I urge the government to engage openly with the findings of the Senate committee, once available, and to ensure the regulations are transparent, evidence based and clear. Australians deserve a health system that's accessible, safe and equitable. This bill can contribute to that goal if we get the implementation of it right, and I'll continue to engage constructively with the government to ensure that that happens.
I move: That the House: (1) condemns the attempted bombing on January 26 in Boorloo (Perth) that targeted First Peoples and their supporters; (2) notes that the Western Australia Joint Counter...
I move: That the House: (1) condemns the attempted bombing on January 26 in Boorloo (Perth) that targeted First Peoples and their supporters; (2) notes that the Western Australia Joint Counter Terrorism Team, consisting of the Western Australia Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, is investigating the incident as a potential terrorist act; (3) acknowledges the serious harm this has caused and expresses its solidarity with all those impacted by this event; (4) further notes that an attack against First Nations people is an attack against all Australians; (5) notes that for many First Nations people, January 26 is a day of mourning and that an attack on this day, at an Invasion Day rally, represents a serious escalation of racial violence against First Peoples; (6) further condemns all acts of violence and racism against First Peoples, and stands in solidarity with First Peoples against rising racism and hate directed at them; (7) affirms that this Parliament's recent condemnation of racially motivated hatred unambiguously includes racism directed at First Peoples; (8) further notes that the Federal Government has a duty to equally protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence; (9) further acknowledges that First Peoples in Australia continue to face entrenched racism, racially-motivated hate and threats of violence, and that any instance of this is unacceptable and must be addressed; and (10) calls for governments to continue to take urgent action to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against First Peoples. I thank the House for allocating this time in the parliamentary schedule to discuss this motion, and I thank Senator Thorpe for preparing the words of this motion. This is the first sitting day since the incident at Forrest Place occurred, and it is so important that we acknowledge it, reflect on it and offer support to those affected. On 26 January, a peaceful Invasion Day rally in the heart of Perth was violently targeted in what police are now treating as a potential terrorist act. A homemade explosive device, a bomb, was thrown into a crowd of people—families, young people, elders, community leaders—who were simply exercising their democratic right to gather, listen and be heard. We now know that only luck prevented a mass casualty tragedy. An attack on a peaceful protest strikes at the core of our democracy. Our system depends on people being able to express views, including uncomfortable ones, without fear of violence or intimidation. This is not a privilege; it's a cornerstone of our democracy. Any act intended to frighten people away from participating in public debate is an act that threatens the health of our civic culture. We must also recognise the particular context of this event. This rally was attended predominantly by First Nations people and those who stand in solidarity with them. First Nations communities continue to face systemic racism and marginalisation which shapes how this incident is understood and felt. Violence does not occur in a vacuum. It lands differently on communities already carrying the weight of intergenerational trauma and ongoing inequity. Jim Morrison, Noongar elder and head of Yokai, reminded me today that not long ago Aboriginal people were not allowed to gather in the city of Perth. They were not permitted past Newcastle Street. That context makes it even more important that we fiercely protect the right of First Nations people to gather and protest in our streets. At a time when the strength of our social fabric is being tested in so many ways, maintaining social cohesion has never been more important. Acts like this don't just harm individuals; they undermine people's sense of belonging and safety. When a marginalised group is targeted, the ripple effect extends far beyond those who are physically present. People begin to question whether they feel safe participating in public life, in gathering, in advocating or even just in being visible. After an attack like this, it is so important that the parliament sends a clear message that attacks on First Nations people, as with attacks on any Australians, will not be tolerated and will be pursued with the full force of the law. For many Australians, particularly First Nations people, 26 January is not a day of celebration but a day of reflection, grief and remembrance. It's a reminder of dispossession and the enduring impacts of colonisation. That a violent act occurred during a peaceful gathering on that difficult day only heightened the sense of distress. Last week I spoke with a constituent who attended the rally. He shared with me the confusion and fear that swept through the crowd. He explained how profoundly vulnerable they felt. They were doing something entirely lawful and peaceful, yet suddenly they felt like targets. They did not understand why they were being asked to move, and the traumatic history of relations between Aboriginal people and police made them fearful and suspicious. Many in my community have also expressed concern about the limited mainstream visibility of the incident and the dismissal of racism as a factor. When a serious act of violence that appears to have targeted a racial group receives minimal national attention, it raises legitimate questions about consistency in how we perceive threats, how we categorise them and how we respond. Australians want to trust that violence is condemned wherever it occurs and whoever the victims are. That consistency is essential to building and maintaining social cohesion. I welcome the joint investigation by WA police, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and I urge those involved in the investigation to act with urgency. Their coordinated effort is vital to ensure the full circumstances of this shocking incident are understood and that appropriate charges are pursued using the full range of federal and state offences that apply. But as important as law enforcement is, our response cannot stop there. We must consider what this incident means for social cohesion in Australia. Cohesion is not something we can take for granted. It requires leadership that brings people together, that encourages understanding and shared purpose and that resists attempts to inflame or divide. Violence aimed at supressing participation has no place in our democracy, and neither does indifference. We have a responsibility to acknowledge harm and to stand with all communities who feel targeted or unsafe. We also have a responsibility to commit ourselves to a more cohesive future, one where differences are aired respectfully and where all Australians feel they can participate freely in our shared civic life. For these reasons, I commend to the House the motion to condemn the attempted bombing, to acknowledge the serious harm that this has caused, to stand in solidarity with the First Nations people affected by this attack and to condemn all acts of violence and racism against First Nations people and all people.
I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Member for Curtin immediately moving a motion relating to the Boorloo (Perth)...
I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Member for Curtin immediately moving a motion relating to the Boorloo (Perth) bombing attack; (2) debate on the motion continuing immediately; (3) no amendment to the motion being permitted; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 15 (after line 14), at the end of section 114A.4, add: Decision reviewable by ART (6) A decision by the AFP Minister under this section is reviewable by the...
I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 15 (after line 14), at the end of section 114A.4, add: Decision reviewable by ART (6) A decision by the AFP Minister under this section is reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This amendment introduces a provision to ensure that the AFP minister's decision regarding hate groups is reviewable on its merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This bill introduces a significant power for the AFP minister which needs safeguards against misuse or mistake. We have to make laws for bad governments, not assuming that we will have good governments, and, when we look overseas, we can see authoritarian figures are rising. Banning organisations is a typical strategy of authoritarian figures, and frequently associated with democratic backsliding, so we need to ensure that a power like this has sufficient safeguards. Some safeguards do exist—the agreement of the Attorney-General and judicial review of the AFP minister's decision about whether the proper process was followed—but it explicitly exempts the application of procedural fairness, so there is no right to be heard. If someone believes that their group has been wrongly designated a hate group, this amendment would give them the ability to seek an ART review of that decision on its merits.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Like everyone else, I'm disappointed by the short timeframes provided to engage and consult on complex and important legislation. This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism...
Like everyone else, I'm disappointed by the short timeframes provided to engage and consult on complex and important legislation. This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, was introduced an hour ago. The committee inquiry was way too short, with the report only tabled today, and this bill will be passed tonight with debate curtailed. This makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. In the time available, I've looked at whether the bill would do four things: address the unacceptable normalisation of antisemitism, reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks, deal fairly with the rise of hatred and violence against all groups, and strike an appropriate balance with important freedoms. Firstly, on the normalisation of antisemitism, this bill is a step forward. In the year to September 2024, antisemitic incidents increased by more than 300 per cent. This is not who we are, and it's important that the law shows that antisemitism is unacceptable in Australia. No matter what you think about the actions of a foreign government on the other side of the world, demonising someone for their race or culture in Australia is not okay. This bill tries to send this message by making racial hatred an aggravating factor in sentencing in a number of Commonwealth crimes, by increasing penalties for existing offences about promoting violence, by creating more serious offences for preachers and spiritual leaders and for people trying to radicalise children under 18, and by making it easier for the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel or refuse visas for people intent on spreading racial hatred. Bigger penalties will not stamp out antisemitism. In fact, no change to the law can, although the vilification laws that have been removed from this bill would have been a good addition and went no further than the current WA law does. But, even without them, this bill does send the message. Secondly, will the bill reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks? Possibly to a small extent. We will never be completely safe from terrorism, but we can address the means and the motivation. The gun reform laws passed this morning are an improvement, limiting the means. Dealing with antisemitism is also an improvement to address motivation. The bill also aims to deal with the groups that organise and facilitate hate and violence by allowing the minister to list organisations as hate groups if they prepare, plan or advocate for hate crimes related to race or national or ethnic origin. It will be a criminal offence to be associated with such a group. But these are limited steps forward, and they come at a cost. Criminalising organisations is a big step. Thirdly is protection for other groups. This bill does little to ensure that we make Australia safe for other at-risk groups. Many of the new provisions relate to race, national or ethnic origin, which won't address Islamophobia or threats to the LGBTQIA community. This is why I strongly support the amendment that will be put forward by the member for Wentworth to expand protections to other protected groups defined by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, disability and religion. If we're going to deal with the fraying of social cohesion, we should be protecting all groups from those who seek to spread hatred. It makes no sense to have different levels of protection for different groups. Fourthly, does it strike an appropriate balance against important freedoms? The speed with which we've had to review these laws and the lack of time for serious public consultation means there is some risk here of unintended consequences. For example, I can see that there could be circumstances in which the minister wants to act quickly, but criminalising organisations with the right to be heard specifically exempted and no merits review is a significant power that could be misused in the future. With the democratic backsliding we're seeing in the US at the moment, it's not too hard to imagine. That's why I'll be proposing an amendment to ensure that a decision made to list a group as a hate group is subject to a merits review. In conclusion, the process of passing this bill is very poor. But, despite it not extending protections to other groups and lacking some important safeguards, I will be supporting it because it sends a message to arrest the normalisation of antisemitism, and it may reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks by criminalising the structures that could support these attacks. Building social cohesion will require more than a change of law, but this is a start. Importantly, I'm glad to hear that an amendment will be agreed to in the Senate for a two-year review of this rushed legislation. I will drop my proposed amendment to this effect, to ensure this review, because it will happen in the Senate. It's essential that we review the impact and adequacy of this bill after the conclusion of the royal commission. Thank you.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
In the eight years I lived at Bondi Beach, I loved the mix of people that you would see on your average Friday night: surfers; city girls catching up in bars; blokes doing laps of the strip in...
In the eight years I lived at Bondi Beach, I loved the mix of people that you would see on your average Friday night: surfers; city girls catching up in bars; blokes doing laps of the strip in their muscle cars; families of all faiths picnicking on the grass; tourists, fresh off the bus from the airport, feeling the sand between their toes; and Jewish locals walking quietly to shul. It was sometimes rowdy, but it was usually civil. It was the messy promise of multiculturalism and optimism that made me feel proud to be Australian. The horrific antisemitic attack on 14 December was an attempt to break that promise—to frighten and divide us. Just as September 11 was an Islamic extremist attack at the symbolic heart of American capitalism, this was an attack at the symbolic heart of Australian pluralism and inclusion. It was an unspeakable horror to target Jewish Australians on the first night of Hanukkah, while they were celebrating the triumph of light over darkness. It confirmed the worst fears of Jewish Australians, who'd witnessed a rise in antisemitism in recent years, and it will remain a stain on our collective conscience. Today is about remembering and honouring those who lost their lives on that day, as a step towards ensuring it will never happen again. I would like to express the deepest condolences, from myself and my community of Curtin, to the families, friends and communities of the 15 people who were killed that day. Each of their lives tells a story of kindness, connection and courage. They were parents, grandparents, children, brothers, sisters, neighbours and friends who gave to their communities, who built lives here, who loved and who were loved. Today we speak their names and remember them. Boris and Sofia Gurman, married for 34 years, showed incredible bravery on the night, confronting, tackling and disarming one of the attackers, saving countless lives. Rabbi Eli Schlanger, who dedicated his life to community and family, served as a rabbi for 18 years and was head of the Chabad mission in Bondi. Boris Tetleroyd, described by family as a warm, generous and deeply sociable man, was someone who loved conversation, connection and helping others whenever he could. Reuven Morrison's daughter said of him: 'Everyone who knew him knew the incredible man that was just too big for this world—the light that he added, his absolute immense and endless generosity, his sense of humour.' Marika Pogany was a dedicated volunteer and delivered more than 12,000 kosher meals on wheels. Rabbi Yaakov Levitan was a deeply respected member of Sydney's Jewish community and served as secretary of Sydney Beth Din, the rabbinical court. Peter Meagher—'Marzo'—was a retired police detective and deeply valued member of the Randwick rugby club. His family have said: 'He was a cherished brother, husband and uncle whose kindness, generosity and love touched everyone who knew him.' Tibor Weitzen was a beloved grandfather and husband and a cherished member of the Bondi Chabad and Russian Jewish communities. He was killed while trying to shield a family friend. Alexander Kleytman had endured the horrors of the Holocaust as a child. Alex was killed while courageously shielding his wife during the attack. Frenchman Dan Elkayam was beginning to build a future and a family in Australia. His family have said: 'His smile could light up any room. He was pure joy—a beautiful and humble soul.' Adam Smyth was a kind and generous father of four children, caught in the attack with his wife, Katrina. Tania Tretiak was a grandmother attending Hanukkah with her family. She spent her final moments shielding a child from gunfire, displaying unimaginable courage. Ten-year-old Matilda was given the most Australian name her parents could think of after migrating from Ukraine. There is no greater tragedy than a life cut so drastically short. Edith Brutman was described by her family as a woman of integrity who chose humanity every day. She met prejudice with principle and division with service. As we remember these 15 people, we cannot let those who seek to divide us and sow fear win. Instead, we honour the courage and care of so many that day, first responders and bystanders alike, and recognise the Australia we choose to be in these acts. As Rabbi Eli Schlanger's cousin said: The world is a good place, and it's filled with billions of good people. We have to believe that the billions of good acts can dispel the darkness. Faith leaders have asked that we do a mitzvah—an act of kindness—to honour those who we have lost. This act of light in the face of violence is a demonstration that, like Edith Brutman, we can and will choose humanity every day and that we can overcome antisemitism and all hatred and division. May their memories be a blessing.
Valedictory | Statements | House debates
On the last scheduled sitting day of the parliamentary year, I couldn't be prouder of the constructive, positive and accountable way my community and the crossbench have contributed since the...
On the last scheduled sitting day of the parliamentary year, I couldn't be prouder of the constructive, positive and accountable way my community and the crossbench have contributed since the start of the 48th parliament. After eight weeks of parliament, the crossbench is already showing its impact. We've had some good wins this year already. The crossbench rigorously interrogated the EPBC bill, collectively proposing 119 amendments. The House knocked back 118, but I was pleased that one of my amendments was accepted—to improve the transparency of the offsets fund. Tomorrow morning we're expecting the bill to come back from the Senate with additional amendments, originally proposed by the crossbench in the House, to protect forests and prevent fossil fuel projects from using the national interest process. Additionally, after fighting for the huge number of older Australians who are waiting, we saw 20,000 home-care packages brought forward ahead of the delayed implementation dates. After repeated demands by the crossbench in the last parliament, the Treasurer agreed not to tax unrealised gains in the new superannuation laws. After I'd tried to split the education bill to ensure the integrity of the higher education system without an international student cap, the government saw sense and did the same thing. After advocating for tax reform in the last term, it's now finally on the agenda, and, after its inclusion in the Economic Reform Roundtable, momentum is building. After I called for the establishment of an Australian AI safety institute to identify risks and support policymakers and regulators, the government announced a similar body would be established. As the government tried to undermine our freedom-of-information laws, it was the crossbench that proposed and debated amendments, drawing attention to the dangerous signs of increasing secrecy. It's now languishing in the Senate. Part of being a constructive crossbench is finding ways to improve or refine legislation. In the last eight sitting weeks, the crossbench has introduced 160 amendments to 10 pieces of legislation, drafted in consultation with experts and stakeholders. As a comparison, the opposition has introduced only 18 amendments to five pieces of legislation. The crossbench has introduced 10 private members' bills, ranging in topic from climate to gambling to ebike regulation to responding to robodebt. These put pressure on the government, showing that change is possible. My private members' bills were to ban AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material, and to clean-up data harvesting in the postal voting process. Both demonstrate issues with clear solutions that the government needs to implement, but, of course, the most important thing to me is ensuring that the voice of our community is heard in Canberra and that the people of Curtin feel informed and engaged in our democracy. Since May, I've made eight Curtin submissions to committee inquiries, including recommendations on economic reform, productivity, aged care, Thriving Kids, net zero, the FOI Bill and electoral laws. We've held community events with Saul Griffith on electrification and Ken Henry on tax reform, a grants-writing workshop and an innovative online event using a new AI powered tool to all together community views on negative-gearing and CGT reforms. My community liaison team, Joe and Felicity, continue to go above and beyond for the constituents of Curtin, and, in the last five months, they have helped more than 250 people with their concerns with aged care, Centrelink, immigration and child support, as well as responded to nearly 2,000 emails. I'm so grateful that our team Chaney volunteers keep showing up—from a river clean-up to doorknocking and public pop-ups. On this last day of parliament, I want to particularly thank some team members. This year I farewelled Tony Fairweather and Louise Jones, who were foundational members of Curtin Independent and followed up with operational roles in my first term. Their integrity, vision, strategic insight and willingness to turn their hand to whatever was needed made the last three years and two campaigns possible. Thank you, Tony and Louise. My senior policy adviser Katherine Parkinson has been by my side since day one, making significant personal sacrifices, leaving her young children to travel with me across the country for every sitting week for 3½ years. I could not have survived these years without her humour, her intellect and her loyalty, and I will miss her terribly as she moves into her next, less travel-intensive, role. I'm hugely grateful to my whole team, my husband, my three kids, my extended family and the nearly 1,000 volunteers who gave up their time this year to keep Curtin independent. I'm also very grateful to the people of Curtin for the opportunity to represent them. Thank you for showing we can do politics differently in 2025. I look forward to 2026.
Housing | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is for the Prime Minister. The average house price has gone from four to nine times the average income in the last 25 years, locking younger Australians out of a home. If this...
My question is for the Prime Minister. The average house price has gone from four to nine times the average income in the last 25 years, locking younger Australians out of a home. If this government is trying to address the housing affordability crisis, are your policies aiming to increase, plateau or reduce house prices?
Gambling Advertising | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are asking why the government has failed to respond to the Murphy review's unanimous recommendation to ban gambling ads. No-one in this chamber...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are asking why the government has failed to respond to the Murphy review's unanimous recommendation to ban gambling ads. No-one in this chamber is seeking to ban gambling, despite what you've said, and when asked about reform you list actions that were announced before the Murphy review. Many members of your own party support an ad ban. Why won't you allow a free vote on a ban on ads for online gambling?
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
When I was in my early 20s, I was renting in Sydney, working hard and loving my life and my friends. Once a week I sat down with my boyfriend and we watched The Secret Life of Us on TV. I loved...
When I was in my early 20s, I was renting in Sydney, working hard and loving my life and my friends. Once a week I sat down with my boyfriend and we watched The Secret Life of Us on TV. I loved it. I felt like Claudia Karvan and Samuel Johnson could easily have been my friends. They sounded like my friends, lived similar lives and dealt with similar issues. We looked forward to Monday nights and chatted about it at work. It became part of the language and culture I shared with my friends and it brought us together. Later, as a parent of young kids, turning on Justine Clarke and Jay Laga'aia on Play School provided the window I needed to get a load of washing out, tidy up or lie exhausted next to my toddlers for a moment. I didn't want my kids to learn to talk with an American accent; I wanted them to understand, embrace and share our unique Australian culture. Although my kids were too old for Bluey, I've watched it with my nieces and nephews and seen the same thing in today's toddlers. Bluey shows the best of us, reflecting our culture and values in a way that reminds not just kids but also adults who we are. Only a few years ago I loved watching Tim Minchin's Upright, a road trip across Australia that ended with a homecoming to Cottesloe, in my electorate of Curtin. The trees, the architecture and the vibe bring these stories into our lives and make them real to us. As our TV viewing patterns have changed, with far more choice, global content and streaming services, our cultural references are becoming more fragmented. We have fewer of these common cultural touchpoints, these collective Australian experiences that bring us together. Some of this is inevitable and positively reflects that we now accept a much broader range of ways to be Australian, and we have endless global choices available to us. But it also comes at a cultural cost, and this cost is not inevitable. TV stations are required to include some Australian content, which is how we get to hear more of our stories. But, until now, streaming platforms have not had this requirement, and this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, fixes that. This bill is a significant and long-awaited reform. It's a milestone for Australia's cultural life. I commend the government, and Ministers Burke and Wells in particular, for delivering the decisive action that Australia's screen sector has needed for far too long. The bill introduces for the first time a clear and enforceable Australian content requirement for the major streaming platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video—the services that now dominate how Australians watch television. If a streaming service has at least one million paying subscribers in Australia, it will be required to spend more on new eligible Australian programs—either 10 per cent of its total program expenditure for Australia or 7.5 per cent of its Australian revenue. These eligible programs include the backbone of Australian storytelling—drama, children's content, documentaries, arts and educational programs. Streamers can equip their obligations over a three-year cycle, recognising the lumpy, project based nature of screen investments, and they must report annually to ACMA. Crucially, the bill brings streaming services into line with the free-to-air and subscription broadcasters who have carried these obligations for decades. In short, the bill guarantees that no matter which remote control Australians pick up, Australian stories will remain at their fingertips. This reform is not just a technical fix; it's a cultural safeguard and a cultural opportunity. For decades, Australia's local content rules have ensured we can hear our own voices and see our own communities, histories and quirks reflected on screen. But audience habits have changed dramatically. More and more Australians watch content through streaming platforms, and those platforms have had no requirement to invest in Australian stories. This gap has left our screen sector increasingly vulnerable. Production has slumped, local commissions have declined and a highly-skilled workforce—actors, directors, writers, crew, editors, musicians and creatives—has faced deep uncertainty. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance described today's reforms as 'a vital lifeline'. They stressed that the new content requirements will deliver safe and secure employment opportunities and offer real hope to thousands of creative workers who rely on a stable and sustainable production sector. Screen Producers Australia called this 'a landmark day', the result of more than a decade of advocacy built on the simple principle that Australian stories deserve a guaranteed space in our media landscape. As SPA put it, without clear local content rules, the ready availability of imported content risks drowning out our own voice. Of course, this is about audiences too. Australians want Australian stories. They want stories that reflect our identity, humour, complexity and diversity. They want programs that understand our communities because they come from our communities. This bill honours that. There are some small improvements that could be made to this bill. I'll be supporting the amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth to exclude the amount of the producer offset from qualifying expenditure in order to prevent international streaming services from artificially reducing their Australian expenditure. That amendment would also ensure that Australian companies, rather than international companies, retain important intellectual property rights over the new Australian programs. It requires that the streaming services report on the subgenres of their new Australian programs to promote broader assessment and monitoring and to help key sectors of the screen industry, like children's programming and documentary production. I urge the government to seriously consider this amendment. To conclude, this is good, thoughtful, balanced legislation. It recognises that Australian stories are not just entertainment; they are part of the fabric of who we are. They help us understand ourselves and each other and they allow the world to understand us. The government have listened to extensive consultation and years of advocacy and acted, and I commend them for that. I strongly support the bill and the amendment being introduced by the member for Wentworth. I look forward to seeing it strengthen our culture, creative industries and national identity for years to come.