Zoe Daniel's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Budget | Constituency Statements | House debates
This week's budget saw the age-old ritual of the government announcing a tax cut with great fanfare to offset the impact of bracket creep. While the top-up tax cut is welcome relief, voters in...
This week's budget saw the age-old ritual of the government announcing a tax cut with great fanfare to offset the impact of bracket creep. While the top-up tax cut is welcome relief, voters in Goldstein aren't fooled. It is yet another tactical return of bracket creep just before an election, not a sustainable or transparent way to run the tax system. I have been calling for the indexation of income tax brackets for some time. Indexation forces governments to make deliberate, honest decisions about revenue, rather than relying on inflation to quietly grow the size of the tax pie. When I speak to voters in Goldstein they are frustrated with the major parties on this issue. My community tax survey made that crystal clear. Bracket creep is a stealth tax increase year after year that disproportionately burdens younger Australians, workers and families. It allows the government to fill its coffers through an overreliance on income tax and enables them to kick the can down the road, instead of conducting a meaningful review of our tax system. As our population ages, we must broaden the tax base to ensure the next generation isn't saddled with enormous national debt and the interest payments that come with it. Relying on revenue creeping through the back door is no longer working for the lucky country, and unless we get serious about tax reform, we are going to run out of luck. For too long the major parties have relied on windfalls, whether from resource prices, superannuation taxes or bracket creep, to paper over structural deficits, but that well is running dry. Hoping for budgetary luck or favourable resource prices is not fiscal policy. It leaves the national accounts in structural deficit with no real plan, and there's red out until at least 2035. Bracket creep is not just bad policy; it's an intergenerational equity issue and a drag on the lives and livelihoods of working Australians, especially young people. Seventeen countries in the OECD already index their income tax brackets. There's no reason Australia should lag behind. We are the lucky country, but luck isn't a policy. If I am re-elected in May I look forward to working constructively with both major parties to restructure our tax system so it is fit for purpose and fit for the future of our children.
Defence Procurement: Submarines | Questions without Notice | House debates
It is on relevance. The question went to either the capacity or the willingness of the US to deliver such subs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. People in Goldstein are constantly raising with me their concerns about the stability of the Australia-US relationship under the Trump administration and...
My question is to the Prime Minister. People in Goldstein are constantly raising with me their concerns about the stability of the Australia-US relationship under the Trump administration and whether it's sensible to be spending billions on the AUKUS deal when even the US Congressional Budget Office says the submarines may never be delivered. What is your Plan B?
Australian Society: Social Cohesion | Adjournment | House debates
We're living in a time where the truth isn't just distorted; it's drowned. Political leaders flood the media with so many outrageous claims that accountability becomes almost impossible. We're...
We're living in a time where the truth isn't just distorted; it's drowned. Political leaders flood the media with so many outrageous claims that accountability becomes almost impossible. We're seeing what's happening in the US with the Trump-Musk dysfunction to the extent no-one can keep up with it, and I'm seeing that same playbook unfolding here in Australia. As a foreign correspondent, I was in Singapore in 2018 among an international press pack as Donald Trump unloaded his idea of a deal to encourage Kim Jong Un to give up his nuclear aspirations and exploit the beauty of North Korea's beaches to become a tourist attraction. He informed us that he'd told the one he called 'little rocket man': … Boy, look at that view. Wouldn't that make a great condo? … In his version of international diplomacy, he is, to his credit, consistent. Benjamin Netanyahu struggled to contain his surprise last week when the President pronounced that two million Palestinians could be shifted out of Gaza so it could become the 'riviera of the Middle East'. No-one should imagine that these outrageous fantasies are spontaneous. They reflect Trump's conviction that the modern media can't cope with more than one initiative a day, and he's right. As New York Times journalist Ezra Klein noted in the days after Trump's second inauguration: … speed and force is a strategy unto itself … My observation after spending four years or so covering the first Trump administration is that, if you say something often enough, it becomes true and often more dangerous. This week the President has pledged to impose a 25 per cent tariff on imports of iron, steel and aluminium to the United States without exception. Then he and our Prime Minister agreed that an exemption of Australia would be under consideration. Beyond the obvious question of how Australian diplomats do their work when the target changes not weekly but within minutes is the issue of whether we want this kind of behaviour to influence our own politics. I can see it already has. In Australia, tolerance and respect are now being weaponised as 'woke'. An end to so-called diversity hires in the Australian Public Service, for example, was foreshadowed by the opposition should it win government. This week 18 of the 30 coalition senators supported a failed move by Senator Pauline Hanson—I repeat, Senator Pauline Hanson—for an inquiry into the human cost of child gender treatment, a callous, inflammatory political stunt, with a government sponsored inquiry into health care for trans children already underway. Yet the majority of the opposition Senate, the alternative government, bought in. Respected and long-time columnist Niki Savva, previously a long-time Liberal staffer, suggests the opposition leader is Trump's 'little sir echo'. This copycat behaviour includes enlisting Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as an Elon Musk lookalike with a signature offering of ending Commonwealth expenditure on welcomes to country—all $450,000 of it. Unity's great, I guess, unless it involves standing in front of Indigenous flags! Culture wars are a condescending vote grab, a calculated distraction, and they're dangerous. We've seen this all before in the mid-20th century—you can guess the regime—and I'm very troubled that we're seeing it again. It may work for some but apparently not in my home state of Victoria, where the Werribee state by-election showed a massive swing away from Labor but not towards the Liberal Party. The old way of doing things is done. On this likely last day of the 47th Parliament, I ask the constituents of Goldstein to consider everything I've said when they cast their votes in the next few weeks. Understand your power, weaponise your independence and choose hope.
Biodiversity | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
At the 2022 federal election, then aspiring prime minister Anthony Albanese committed to delivering an ambitious package of environmental reform named the Nature Positive Plan. Nature Positive is...
At the 2022 federal election, then aspiring prime minister Anthony Albanese committed to delivering an ambitious package of environmental reform named the Nature Positive Plan. Nature Positive is a global movement to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and achieve recovery by 2050. Three years later, the lack of substantive progress on this critically important area of policy is one of the most substantive failures of this term of government, and it's frequently raised in that vein with me by my constituents in Goldstein. In the final sitting week of 2024, after much political brinkmanship in the Senate, Minister Plibersek was within striking distance of a deal with the crossbench to pass these reforms. But an intervention by the Prime Minister and the Western Australian premier left it and the urgent action that our native wildlife and environment need shelved indefinitely. The government has a record to folding to powerful corporate interests. This is just one example displayed during the term of this parliament. Australia is endowed with diverse natural beauty and unique native wildlife. Both are central to our lifestyles, our culture and our national identity. With that comes a responsibility on us all to preserve and protect it. As an example, data provided by BirdLife Australia shows that 11 bird species that called Goldstein home are now classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable—the Swift parrot, the fairy tern and the blue winged parrot—and 2,142 Australian animals, plants and unique ecological communities were officially recognised as being in danger of extinction last year. Yet, even with clear data on the disastrous outlook for those species, this government's proposal for environmental reform in this term of parliament has not been the systemic reform our environment deserves. It was first chopped up across multiple packages of legislation and now terms of parliament. At every possible opportunity, I moved amendments to strengthen our environmental protection laws—for example, proposing an ambitious and world-leading definition of 'nature positive' and proper parliamentary oversight of the government's proposed environmental protection agency. Neither of these common-sense improvements were supported by the government. This is incredibly frustrating not only for the crossbench but also for our communities who put us here to get this done. National environmental standards are the low-hanging fruit in this debate. Ambitious standards should form the foundation of Australia's environmental protection laws. Standards would provide assurance to conservationists that action is being taken, provide industry with the guardrails needed to make decisions with certainty and provide our environment with the urgent intervention it needs to restore and recover. Indeed, as Professor Graeme Samuel recommended in his review, legally enforceable standards should be legislated immediately. Standards should precede other areas of reform, such as an EPA, because they form the basis for environmental impact assessments across all levels of government, not just the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, this was not the approach adopted by the government. In fact, the government did the opposite. The legislative package didn't even mention standards. It is among the greatest missed opportunities of the 47th Parliament that we could not agree on a package of environmental reform, one with national environmental standards at its core. And I agree with the assistant minister to some degree: that's on all of us. Australia has some of the most biologically diverse and carbon-dense native forests in the world. They're inhabited by among the most unique and diverse wildlife in the world: the koala, the kookaburra and the fierce little Tassie devil. Meanwhile, industrial logging of these natural assets results in huge amounts of carbon pollution into our atmosphere. The regional forest agreements that enable such logging should be abolished. This would be of benefit to a range of sectors, including ecotourism, and enable soil stability for agriculture. Untouched native forests enable more effective bushfire prevention. Older trees are more fire resistant, a healthy canopy holds more moisture and logging often leaves behind debris that can act as extra fuel for fire. The economy is turning away from this anyway and is increasingly taking many state governments along with it, but there's been the usual sluggish approach from the major parties on environmental reform throughout the 47th Parliament, while only the crossbench has stood up for the policies to protect and restore our native wildlife while providing certainty and establishing fair guardrails for industry to operate within. This is a balance that is possible to achieve, one missed by this government and this parliament, and, in that, we have failed our children.
Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
We have a real opportunity to transform early childhood education and care in this country. I cannot overstate how important this is for children, women, families and the economy. What could be...
We have a real opportunity to transform early childhood education and care in this country. I cannot overstate how important this is for children, women, families and the economy. What could be more important than giving every child the best start in life? The early years are critical. They set the foundations for a child's development and learning trajectory. By the age of five, 90 per cent of a child's brain is fully developed. The barriers some children face, socioeconomic disadvantage, unstable homes and limited access to education and care can lead to gaps in learning that become increasingly difficult to bridge as children grow older. Early childhood education and care can level opportunities from the start, with lasting economic and social benefits. Children who attend quality care are twice as likely to reach their development targets when they get to school. Quality care also leads to reduced crime rates and improved health, which ultimately reduces the costs to society. Unlike interventions aimed at addressing inequalities later in life, early childhood education and care is a cost-effective way to close these gaps before they widen. All the evidence is there. 'Early childhood education is the golden ticket for children', as the Parenthood describes it. It also unlocks the economic potential of women. Early childhood education and care is the centrepiece of my work to accelerate women's economic security in Goldstein and Australia-wide. Women in Australia are among the most highly educated in the world and have similar levels of labour force participation to men until they have children, when they begin to fall behind and never catch up. The differences are most pronounced in families with children under the age of five. The extent to which child care is available and affordable has consistently been found to lift rates of female participation. The Impact Economics and Policy 2023 report found that if labour force participation rates for females in families with children under five were to increase to match male participation rates, there would be an additional 301,000 women in families with children under five in the labour force. More women working boosts economic growth and tax revenue. Our job as policymakers is to remove this barrier of returning to work for the sake of women and families, many of whom are facing real cost-of-living pressures. The cost of early childhood education and care in Australia is among the highest in OECD countries and is often the second-highest expense in a household after the mortgage. For a lot of parents, the cost of care means they simply can't afford to work. It's often referred to as a 'cost-of-working crisis'. The HILDA Survey collects data on spending from more than 7,000 households every year. It found that about 83 per cent of families spend more on child care than on utilities or clothing for all members of the household. Seventy per cent spend more on child care than transport, and 30 per cent spend more on child care than groceries. Unaffordable child care often results in parents, usually women, deciding not to work. This begins lifelong gendered financial disadvantage. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, more than half of Australian women reported turning down a new job or promotion because additional childcare costs made it not worthwhile. The latest ABS data shows that 140,000 women in 2023-24 cited the cost and lack of availability of child care as the reason they either don't want to work more or are unable to work more. All the arguments for accessible and affordable early childhood education stack up. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce put it firmly on the political agenda when it stated that Australia should move towards adopting a universal childcare system. The Productivity Commission explored the path to universal early childhood education and care and recommended that every child have access to three days of quality child care per week. It's a position shared by the Parenthood, the Centre for Policy Development, Early Childhood Australia, the Business Council of Australia, chief executive women and others, and the Prime Minister has given his commitment to working towards a universal system. In his words: … child care isn't a luxury—it's an essential service for modern families. The Prime Minister gets it. He understands the power of early childhood education, but I urge him to be bold. I urge all members of parliament to zoom out and see the big picture—healthier and happier children, women engaged in the workforce, cost-of-living relief, higher productivity and a stronger economy. The case for reform is strong. This is not women's policy, as some like to suggest. It's economic policy. The three-day-guarantee bill is a small step on the path to universal care. It replaces the existing activity test with a three-day guarantee in early childhood education and care. All families will be guaranteed three days, or 36 hours, of child care subsidy each week. Removing the activity test is long overdue. I've been calling for this for several years now. It's a barrier to women's economic participation and prevents children from accessing early childhood and care, especially vulnerable children. The focus should now be on replacing the subsidy system with a timely pathway towards a universal system with a low-cost fee. As a nation, this is where we need to get to. Universal early childhood education that is affordable would be life changing for so many children, and it would take cost-of-living pressure off families. According to leading economist Dr Angela Jackson, the impact of female participation in the workforce would provide the biggest immediate economic benefit. In her report, Time to stop throwing good money after bad: delivering universal child care through market reform, Dr Jackson identified several limitations in the modelling approach used by the Productivity Commission in its recent report, which stopped short of recommending a flat, daily fee. The commission's modelling shows that a universal system with a flat $10-a-day fee would only lift labour force participation by 7,200 people. If this modelling is correct it would mean that female participation would only increase one day for every eight additional days of child care. But Dr Jackson says that these findings are not consistent with current childcare use or stated preferences of mothers to look after their own children. As a result, the modelling underestimates the benefits of universal early childhood and care. For now this bill is a small but important step; however, I am disappointed that this legislation in the last days of this parliament is being referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. It should be debated and passed this week. This is too critical to get caught up in delaying tactics and political games. There is no need for a Senate inquiry. The weight of evidence is there. From leading economists to experts from the early childhood sector, support for replacing the activity test with three days of access to early childhood education is strong. In fact, the only negativity seems to be coming from the opposition. Again I ask: where is Labor's courage? Early childhood education and care is supposed to be one of the government's signature policies. I urge the Minister for Education and the Minister for Early Childhood Education to secure the passage of this bill as soon as possible. This bill will help give children the start they need by increasing attendance, especially for those experiencing disadvantage. What could be more important? It will alleviate cost-of-living stress for families, and it will advance gender equality by getting women back into the workforce. I've said it so many times in this place: affordable and accessible child care is good for children, families, women and the economy. It ticks all the boxes. I promised the women of Goldstein I would fight for their economic security, and I will continue to do so. I will continue to push the government to be more ambitious with its pathway to universal care and to keep things moving in the right direction. I move: 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 that universal high-quality, accessible, low fee Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) would improve childhood outcomes and equity, enable more women to work, boost productivity and support families with one of their biggest household costs". We must be bold. As businesswoman and now Governor-General Sam Mostyn said last year, universal early childhood education and care is as important as public schooling and as transformative as Medicare. As a nation, we must embrace this opportunity for real change.
Morton-Bowles, Ms Holly Jayne, Jones, Ms Bianca Adrienne | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week I met with Holly Morton-Bowles's father, Shaun. Holly and her friend Bianca died after consuming bootleg alcohol in Laos last year. Their...
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week I met with Holly Morton-Bowles's father, Shaun. Holly and her friend Bianca died after consuming bootleg alcohol in Laos last year. Their families are desperate for information about the investigation into what happened and whether anyone will be held responsible. They're also concerned about protecting other young travellers like their precious girls. Can you please advise the House what progress has been made on this important matter?
Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Scams don't just rob Australians of their money; they rob Australians of their peace of mind, trust and dignity. Being the victim of a scam can be a devastating experience that ripples through...
Scams don't just rob Australians of their money; they rob Australians of their peace of mind, trust and dignity. Being the victim of a scam can be a devastating experience that ripples through families and communities, creating untold suffering and leaving immense damage in its wake. Our country has become a honey pot for scams. Last year alone, a staggering $2.7 billion was stolen from Australians by scammers. Small businesses remain particularly vulnerable to scams, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission highlighting that small and micro businesses lost over $13.7 million to payment redirection scams in 2022, a 95 per cent increase from the previous year, constituting a significant proportion of total business scam losses. These scams exploit digital vulnerabilities, leaving businesses exposed to financial and operational risks. This is an issue that requires urgent attention and a solution that will protect all Australians from the scourge of scams. This is a transnational criminal industry that extends far beyond our borders, and it requires an immediate and effective response. The devastating consequences of scams cannot be understated. I hear stories about scams all the time in my own electorate. I'm especially haunted by one story. It's about a man in his 70s, an immigrant, who came to Australia decades ago and built a life here then was caught in a series of scams that took nearly everything he had. He had saved for his family and for his children and grandchildren, but over time, as he found himself widowed and living alone and vulnerable, he fell prey to a series of calls that seemed so convincing. They promised him higher returns, security for his future and companionship. He trusted them, and in return he was stripped of his life savings. Now, at nearly 80, he is contemplating finding a job because his retirement has been stolen. This isn't an isolated story. It's a shared experience for countless Australians, and that's why we're here today, discussing the proposed Scams Prevention Framework. The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 takes steps towards fortifying Australia's defences against a very real and escalating threat. However, it doesn't do enough. We must be honest about this bill's shortcomings, because, as it stands, it risks burdening the very people we're trying to protect. One of my key concerns is the onus reversal that this bill proposes. Under this bill, victims not only are left to pick up the pieces but are also expected to prove that the financial institutions or platforms they trusted failed them. They must somehow gather evidence to make a case against companies that have teams of lawyers and access to all the data they themselves lack. According to an ACCC report from April last year, it's older people who suffer the greatest harm at the hands of scammers. Losses for people over the age of 65 increased by 13.3 per cent in 2023 to $120 million in 2024. Imagine an elderly woman who has recently experienced a devastating financial blow because of a scam. Her hard-earned savings have vanished due to sophisticated fraud, leaving her overwhelmed with the daunting task of proving what went wrong. She now faces not only emotional turmoil but also a taxing and arduous process of proving that her bank didn't take the proper steps to protect her. This process is unfair. As it stands, this bill shifts that burden onto individual victims, asking too much of those who are already struggling. The reversal of the burden of proof creates a stacked deck where corporations are shielded behind technical jargon and internal policies that consumers aren't even allowed to see. It creates a barrier that favours those with resources and penalises ordinary Australians, who are often isolated and unable to navigate such a complex process alone. Another pressing issue is the lack of a clear, consumer focused timeline for resolving disputes. Currently, people who have been scammed can face months or even years trying to get answers. They're left in limbo, often with financial stress that compounds their trauma. We should be putting in place a clear, timely process that allows scam victims to find redress quickly, not landing them in a bureaucratic maze. We should look closely at the UK, where they've established a clear presumption of reimbursement for scam victims. The UK model starts with a simple idea: consumers who've been scammed will be reimbursed if the institution fails to prove it took every reasonable action to protect them. This approach not only aligns with models proposed by experts but represents a critical shift in the pervasive victim-blaming dynamic that often underpins the response to scams. In the case of the UK, placing the onus back onto the institutions that control the systems that facilitate scams and away from consumers who simply don't have the resources or information to prove negligence has proven to be an effective model. According to the UK Payment Systems Regulator's June 2024 report, victims of scams in the UK were reimbursed for 67 per cent of their losses in 2023, with that figure expected to rise to 95 per cent under a mandatory model. In stark contrast, Australian banks reimbursed only two to seven per cent of scam losses in 2023. By holding institutions responsible, unless they can demonstrate proactive and reasonable scam prevention measures, the model has led to a shift in industry practices, with banks investing more in antifraud technologies and strategies. The focus on institutional responsibility not only improves consumer protections but also reduces the overall impact of scams, as institutions have stronger incentives to prevent fraud before it occurs. This model drives accountability and delivers real, positive outcomes for victims by ensuring that those with the power to prevent scams are fully responsible for doing so. The data shows that a model like this is effective not only in delivering compensation to victims but in driving long-term improvements in scam prevention. Presumption of reimbursement provisions exist in laws addressing power imbalances and information asymmetry, which is especially true in the case of scams. Experience tells us that, if we don't hold companies accountable, they will likely do the bare minimum, and it's Australians who will pay the price. As it stands, this bill doesn't do enough to drive real, proactive protections across banking, social media and telecommunications companies, and this is what needs to change. We need to shift the responsibility from individuals to institutions. We must hold banks and platforms accountable for protecting Australians, not ask people to justify why they deserve redress. Second, we must compel companies to formally acknowledge their obligations under the Scams Prevention Framework. The proposed amendments put forward by my crossbench colleagues mandate the public disclosure of prevention efforts, require companies to provide a statement of compliance and ensure special protections for vulnerable consumers. These will strengthen the bill's effectiveness, addressing some of the flaws I have outlined today. Mandating public disclosures of scam prevention efforts will help shine a light on industry practices, ensuring companies do more than just meet the bare minimum. The member for Mackellar has introduced a 'vulnerable consumer' definition, which will enhance protections for consumers who are particularly susceptible to scams, including elderly people, non-English speakers and people with disabilities. The member for Wentworth's amendment requires regulated entities to publicly disclose information about the scams they detect and respond to. Under this provision, entities involved in scam prevention must publish quarterly scam reports, with civil penalties imposed on those that fail to comply. Enshrining special protections for vulnerable Australians and measures to increase public accountability and transparency must be included in the primary legislation. These critical additions will ensure scam victims are not left in the dark when trying to seek redress. Crucially, the amendment being moved by the member for Warringah introduces a statement-of-compliance requirement, a particularly crucial step in protecting small businesses and Australians from scams by increasing transparency and accountability. Financial institutions and digital platforms handling scam complaints will be required to formally demonstrate compliance with their obligations through a written statement, ensuring businesses are not left in the dark when seeking redress. Failure to provide this statement will be a civil penalty provision, making institutions more accountable while also strengthening small businesses' legal ability to unfair denials of reimbursement. Additionally, these statements will be admissible in external dispute resolution, giving Australians and small-business owners a stronger foundation to recover losses. This is a crucial addition and a necessary first step in safeguarding the businesses that sustain our economy. Finally, I am concerned that this bill lacks an explicit focus on mental health and well being, leaving a critical gap in its approach to addressing the full impact of scams on individuals. Scams inflict more than just financial wounds. They cause extreme stress, anxiety and other mental health issues, especially for those who may already be vulnerable and marginalised. The absence of a mental health lens in this legislation overlooks the compounded effects of scams on victims, who often experience ongoing distress and psychological harm. While this bill offers avenues for consumer redress through internal and external dispute resolution mechanisms, it stops short in the critical area where it must bare its teeth. My criticism of this bill is informed by extensive consultation with experts, by the experiences of victims in my electorate who come to my office in Goldstein desperate for help and by the clear lessons we can draw from successful models overseas. That said, while this bill is far from perfect, Australians simply cannot afford to wait any longer for some protections against scams that are escalating in scale, sophistication and devastation. I am inclined, for that reason, to support this iteration of the bill, but it is clear that this legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure this framework is backed by enforceable, sector specific codes that create real accountability. While this bill lays the legal foundation for scam prevention, the second phase—implementing mandatory industry codes—is essential to establishing clear, enforceable standards across banking, telecommunications and digital platforms. Without these codes, we risk a fragmented approach that leaves consumers vulnerable. These codes must be binding to ensure consistency in internal dispute resolution processes across banks, telecommunications providers and digital platforms. I will continue to advocate for a robust scams prevention framework, one that holds industries to account, provides clarity for consumers and prioritises fair and timely outcomes for scam victims. This is unfinished business. The financial and emotional toll of scams is too great for us to take half-measures. We must get this right. We have the chance to do better for Australians—to create a system that doesn't leave people fighting impossible battles on their own.
Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It's a matter of sadness and concern that we've come to this—that this legislation should be necessary. The fact that we're debating this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes)...
It's a matter of sadness and concern that we've come to this—that this legislation should be necessary. The fact that we're debating this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024, today is a sign of just how seriously the social fabric of this nation has been torn and the extent to which division and vilification have been normalised in public debate. The wild west that social media has become has not helped, aided and abetted by the intransigence of the digital giants. They should be responsible for the content they allow to be published. The idea that age assurance or verification, for example, will protect children from the deluge of pornography and toxic misogyny available at the click of a cursor or the swipe of a device is a victory for hope over expectation and a reward for corporate irresponsibility. That's a matter for other legislation, but I make the point to indicate how much of the antisocial behaviour we confront is linked and how hard it is, indeed, to address one problem just as another pops up elsewhere. Technological change aggravating social and cultural division is so rapid that we struggle to keep up. But try we must, and in doing so we must separate the right to free speech from hate speech and hateful online behaviour. They are not equivalent. Hate speech, at its core, is about dehumanising, silencing and infringing on human rights. Freedom of speech is critically important, and I've worked in countries where it does not exist, but it is not absolute. We have been a socially cohesive nation. Our multiculturalism has been a success story and the envy of much of the world. But as I've said many times since entering this parliament, our social cohesion is being challenged as never before in my lifetime: homes sprayed with graffiti, communities vandalised, a synagogue just outside Goldstein firebombed and a caravan found packed with explosives and antisemitic materials in New South Wales. The fault lines of war in Gaza have reached into Australian society. In the wake of the 7 October Hamas terrorist attacks, which have had a profound impact on the Goldstein community, the government says this bill is a further step designed to 'address the rising incidence of hate speech, in particular antisemitism and Islamophobia'. The bill would create new criminal offences and strengthen existing offences to protect the community from harms caused by those who foster hatred and violence. I note, however, that the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, while welcoming the legislation as a step in the right direction, says it still falls short of the reforms that are needed. The ECAJ argues that there should be the opportunity for criminal prosecution for people calling for a final solution against the Jews and describing Jews collectively as innately bloodthirsty, treacherous criminals and monsters. The executive council argues this legislation does not do that. It was not so long ago that we were passing legislation to strengthen the outlawing of Nazi symbols and memorabilia. Yet it's been a matter of just a couple of months since the firebombing attack on the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne and only a matter of months since a restaurant within the Goldstein electorate hosted a gathering attended by prominent neo-Nazis. It is appalling that Nazism has any support in Australia in the 21st century. It has absolutely no place in our suburbs. As I've said many times in the last 15 months, my absolute priority is the safety, security and wellbeing of the Goldstein community. I sincerely wish that this legislation was not necessary. But, unfortunately, the language of hate has become even more extreme and more prevalent in recent years, as have the threats of violence that go with it. As the explanatory memorandum accompanying this bill notes, public discourse has increasingly been weaponised with hateful rhetoric aimed at attacking groups in the Australian community. Urging and threatening force or violence against targeted groups or members of targeted groups undermines and erodes Australia's shared values. The harm caused by this conduct can be profound. It's an attack on the dignity of targeted groups and members of targeted groups which affects the physical and psychological wellbeing not only of those targeted but of the whole community. It can also lay the foundation for violence and extremism. This is in line with last year's admonition from Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security, when he found it necessary to state publicly that words matter and that ASIO had seen direct connections between inflamed language and inflamed community tensions. Less than a year later on 5 August, ASIO found it necessary to raise the national terrorism threat level from possible to probable, with the Prime Minister noting that more Australians are embracing a more diverse range of extreme ideologies. In November 2023, in the days after a frightening confrontation outside a synagogue in my electorate, I moved the following matter of public importance: the need for the parliament to support social cohesion and take steps to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of those affected communities at a time of international conflict when communities in Australia are directly affected. Nothing has changed. In fact, it's worsened, as demonstrated by ASIO's decision to elevate the terrorism threat level. As I said in my MPI speech a lot more than a year ago, Australia has a limited ability to influence the course of events in Israel and Gaza. What we can do and have a responsibility to do is articulate multipartisan calm, encourage empathy and, at all costs, take the politics away. The risk of cataclysmic global conflict is higher than at any time since the height of the Cold War in the early eighties or perhaps the Cuban Missile Crisis of the sixties. Now we're confronted with a conflict which directly affects our own communities and threatens to tear apart the hard-earned gains of Australian multiculturalism—the envy of the world. Since then, I've engaged with Jewish and Palestinian organisations, met university leaders to encourage them to take robust action to address antisemitism on campus, publicly encouraged the government to appoint an antisemitism envoy, pressed the Prime Minister to fast-track security grants for religious institutions and engaged with the government to act to address doxxing, among other things. Unfortunately, and not just because of the conflict in the Middle East, social cohesion overall has eroded in recent years. The Voice to Parliament, for example, should have been an opportunity to bring the community together to right a historical wrong and forge a way forward for greater equity and equality for First Nations peoples. In fact, the opposite occurred. The lack of groundwork and preparation for the referendum, the failure to explain the value of amending the Constitution to provide for constitutional recognition and the opposition of some in the 'no' case provided an opening for division. It was not so long ago that the existing protections against discrimination now acknowledged by the intelligence community as one of the gateways to community tension and worse were under fire. A decade ago the Attorney-General of the time, George Brandis, argued for the removal of section 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act, declaring, 'People have the right to be bigots.' It was only persistent and cogent opposition from Jewish and ethnic community organisations that convinced the Abbott government to reject the arguments of former senator Brandis and other enthusiasts—among them my predecessor, the former member for Goldstein. In a submission to a 2016 inquiry into the Racial Discrimination Act, and specifically section 18C, by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, he argued: … the law is inconsistent with human rights, operates anathema to liberal democratic values and is utterly inconsistent with a free society. As the inquiry prepared to bring down its report in 2017, the former member for Goldstein declared he'd like to see the committee abolish the existing definition of 'racial discrimination'. That was not the view of the committee, which was much more persuaded by the views of community representatives, ALP members on the committee, the ECAJ and others. The ECAJ argued in its submission that any amendment to the part of the Racial Discrimination Act where section 18C is located: … would send a strong and dangerous message from Australia's political leaders that a degree of racism in public discourse is to be considered acceptable. … … … The threat to public peace and order posed by home-grown and imported forms of racism are of an entirely different order to the dangers posed by bad policy ideas. It is naive to suggest that racism can always simply be left to sort itself out through public debate. Subsequent events, especially those of the last 15 months, have indicated this, and that is why we now have this legislation before us today. It may be one step in the right direction rather than completely up to the task. I note the member for Wentworth's amendment to create a new offence of the promotion of hatred, which, in these troubled times, I will support. As I've said many times since entering this parliament and before, hate speech is not free speech. We must all work together across these aisles and across this nation to bring people together, not tear them apart. I will support this bill.
Goldstein is home to the third-largest Jewish community in Australia—Holocaust survivors and their descendants, largely, who came to Australia for safety. This is something to be proud of....
Goldstein is home to the third-largest Jewish community in Australia—Holocaust survivors and their descendants, largely, who came to Australia for safety. This is something to be proud of. When I speak to members of the Jewish community in my electorate, they speak with such strong love for the safety their families have found here and now with such deep sadness, confusion and fear about what's happened over the last 15 months. When I think of the Jewish community and talk about this frightful situation, my mind inevitably goes to a friend and her young, primary-school-age son. He has barely slept since 7 October 2023, and he has barely gone to school, not only because of the terror over the seas but because of his fear here. It was only when he saw armed guards at school that he would go back. This is not only sad; this is wrong. What's happened in Gaza is terrible. I don't agree with the way it has unfolded. Questioning that, the lack of humanity in it, is not antisemitic. We must be able to demand accountability from governments across the world. But hateful rhetoric and acts against Jewish people here are absolutely wrong and must be condemned. No Jewish person—Jewish people have many views, I might add—should be blamed for the actions of a government in Israel. These are separate and must be treated as such. People have been cancelled, communities have been defaced, a synagogue adjacent to my electorate was firebombed, and credible threats of domestic terror attacks have been found. We have been blessed to be a socially cohesive nation. Our multiculturalism has been a success story, the envy of much of the world. But, as I've said many times since entering this parliament, our social cohesion is being deeply challenged. Our geographical distance has provided us safety from many modern conflicts in the past, but not from this one. Let me be clear: antisemitism is intolerable and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But the twin tragedies of this conflict—the suffering in Gaza and, to some degree, the West Bank, and the fear among Jewish communities—coexist. Their peace and their safety are intertwined. Defacement, demonisation and, indeed, terror do nothing but deepen these enduring wounds. We must get back to reason. When hatred is allowed to fester, it endangers all of us. Life and death must never be weaponised for political gain, and hate, in all its forms, including antisemitism, must never be allowed to shape our discourse. I support this motion, and I thank the member for Wentworth for bringing it. I'm hopeful that legislation now before the parliament to combat hate crimes will be a substantial step forward to restore social cohesion and safety for our Jewish communities. There is more to do. I send this message to everyone in my community and the nation who is living in fear of antisemitic violence: I stand with you, and we must work together across these aisles to bring people together, not tear them apart.
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "relating to social media...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "relating to social media minimum age". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 and 7), after "A provider", insert "(other than an exempt provider)". (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 18), after item 3, insert: 3A Section 5 Insert: exempt provider has the meaning given by section 63CA. (4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 18), after "Providers", insert "(other than exempt providers)". (5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 22), after section 63C, insert: 63CA Exempt providers (1) For the purposes of this Act, a provider of an age-restricted social media platform is an exempt provider at a particular time if, at that time: (a) the provider has complied with: (i) its risk assessment obligations under section 63CB; and (ii) its risk mitigation obligations under section 63CC; in relation to the age-restricted social media platform; and (b) a determination under subsection (2) is not in force in relation to the provider and the age-restricted social media platform. (2) If the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that a provider has not complied with its obligations mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) in relation to an age-restricted social media platform, the Commissioner may make a determination, in writing, that the provider is not an exempt provider in relation to the age-restricted social media platform. 63CB Risk assessment obligations of providers (1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must undertake an assessment (a risk assessment) that identifies and assesses the risks associated with providing the service to age-restricted users. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the provider must have regard to the following matters in undertaking the risk assessment: (a) the dissemination of illegal and harmful materials to children; (b) the dissemination of online scams to children; (c) negative effects on children's best interest; (d) serious negative consequences to children, including their physical and mental wellbeing; (e) the matters (if any) specified in the legislative rules. (3) The provider must exercise due diligence in undertaking the risk assessment. (4) The provider must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year: (a) give the Commissioner a copy of its risk assessment as prepared under subsection (1); and (b) publish that risk assessment on a publicly available website. (5) A risk assessment given or published under subsection (4) must be accompanied by a report including the following: (a) details of the risks identified; (b) indications of the severity of the risks; (c) measures of the scale of the risks in Australia; (d) a risk mitigation plan about managing and mitigating the risks in accordance with subsection 63CC(2). 63CC Risk mitigation obligations of providers (1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must have policies, procedures and systems to monitor, manage and mitigate risks associated with providing the service to age-restricted users. (2) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must prepare a risk mitigation plan in relation to risks identified in a risk assessment prepared by the provider under section 63CB. (3) The plan must identify measures to manage and mitigate those risks. (4) Without limiting subsection (3), such measures may include any one or more of the following: (a) changing advertising systems, including the way advertisements are targeted at or presented to children; (b) improving internal business processes to maximise safety; (c) taking targeted measures to improve child safety, such as age assurance or parental control tools; (d) taking into account the best interests of children when making decisions. (5) The provider must take reasonable steps to implement those measures. (6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 26), after "A provider", insert "(other than an exempt provider)". (7) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), after Part 2, insert: Part 2A — Amendment of the Online Safety Act 2021 relating to data access schemes Online Safety Act 2021 17A Section 5 Insert: data access scheme means a scheme prescribed by rules made for the purposes of section 160B. 17B After Part 9 Insert: Part 9A — Data access schemes 160A Simplified outline of this Part The Commissioner may make rules to provide for one or more data access schemes. The rules may require a provider of a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service to give access to data to approved independent researchers in relation to the safety of end-users of the service. 160B Commissioner may make rules for data access schemes (1) The Commissioner may, by legislative instrument, determine rules providing for one or more data access schemes that require a provider of a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service to give access to data for the purposes of independent research about the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks in relation to the safety of end-users of the service. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purposes of that subsection may: (a) provide for different means by which approved independent researchers are given access to data under the rules; and (b) provide for procedures relating to requests for access to data by approved independent researchers under the rules including, but not limited to, time limits within which providers must deal with requests for such access; and (c) make provision in relation to fees that may be charged by providers before access to data is given to an approved independent researcher, under the rules, which must not exceed the reasonable costs arising from providing the access; and (d) provide for the giving of information to the Commissioner by providers in relation to the following: (i) requests for access to data under the rules; (ii) actions taken in relation to such requests; and (e) provide for approved independent researchers to give information to the Commissioner on a voluntary basis, being information that the approved independent researcher obtained under the rules. (3) If rules are made for the purposes of subsection (1), the rules must provide for criteria to be satisfied before the Commissioner approves a researcher to be given access to data under those rules, in relation to one or more of the following: (a) the research project in respect of which the researcher is to be given access to data; (b) the qualifications and experience of the researcher; (c) how conflicts of interest will be dealt with; (d) the organisation (if any) on behalf of which the researcher will conduct the research project concerned; (e) the proposed sources of funding for the research project concerned; (f) the technical and organisational capacity to fulfil data security and confidentiality requirements of: (i) the researcher; and (ii) the organisation (if any) on behalf of which the researcher will conduct the research project concerned. (4) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (3) must also provide that a researcher must not be approved to be given access to data under those rules unless: (a) the researcher certifies that data to which access is given under the rules will be used by the researcher only in conducting the research project concerned, and that the results of the research project will be made widely available; and (b) the researcher certifies that the researcher will not use the results of the research project concerned, or data to which access is given under the rules, for the purpose of obtaining commercial benefit or advantage. (5) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (3) must also provide that a researcher must not be approved to be given access to data under those rules unless the researcher is willing to enter into a standard form confidentiality agreement (see subsection (6)) with each provider that will give the researcher access to data. (6) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (3) must also prescribe a standard form confidentiality agreement, which: (a) must be directed towards protecting the security of services and data; and (b) without limiting paragraph (a), must specify that, if data to which access is provided includes information that is: (i) protected information; or (ii) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988); or (iii) any information the disclosure of which the provider reasonably considers might cause a significant security vulnerability for the service or provider; the information will not be further disclosed except: (iv) in the case of information other than personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988)—with the consent of the provider that provided access to the data; or (v) in any case—otherwise as required or permitted by law. 160C Compliance with rules regarding data access A provider must not contravene rules made for the purposes of section 160B. Civil penalty: 500 penalty units. 160D Remedial directions — contravention of rules regarding data access (1) This section applies if the Commissioner is satisfied that a provider has contravened, or is contravening, rules made for the purposes of section 160B. (2) The Commissioner may give the provider a written direction requiring the provider to take specified action directed towards ensuring that the provider does not contravene rules made for the purposes of section 160B, or is unlikely to contravene those rules, in the future. (3) A provider must not contravene a direction under subsection (2). Civil penalty: 500 penalty units. 17C At the end of subsection 163(1) (before the note) Add: ; (q) section 160C; (r) section 160D. 17D At the end of subsection 164(1) Add: ; (r) section 160C; (s) section 160D. 17E After paragraph 165(1)(r) Insert: ; (ra) section 160C; (rb) section 160D. I thank the minister's office for the deep engagement on this bill. I spoke extensively yesterday on my reservations about it, on which I won't go into detail again now, other than to say that what I've attempted to do with these amendments is to create an exemption framework in order that social media platforms may be able to bridge the gap between having to ban young people from being inside a platform and actually doing something about the way that they run their platforms. I have a really strong position that it's far too simplistic and it's a bandaid measure to simply lock young people out of the platforms, and that where we need to get to—and I'm not entirely convinced that the minister disagrees with me on this, because I know that the minister has spoken about a duty of care—is getting the platforms to take responsibility for what is happening. I strongly believe that simply locking kids out is not going to achieve that. It's not going to make the platforms safer. It's not going to make them more transparent. It's not going to make them manage their algorithms. It's not going to make them either identify or manage risk. One way of achieving that within this bill, to some degree, would be to create some provisions within this amendment to the Online Safety Act which would incentivise platforms to actually do something about those things. So, in effect, what these amendments do is to progressively make the platforms safer over time and allow the minister or regulators to home in on specific risks. It would mean that the platforms would have to assess their services for various harms—things like dissemination of scams, and negative effects on children's best interests, including their physical and mental wellbeing. It would mean that they'd be required to prepare a mitigation plan which would demonstrate to the government and to the public exactly how they'd reprogram or alter their algorithms and their systems. It would mean that they would have to do risk assessments and mitigation mechanisms together—and this has been demonstrated, internationally, to be an effective tool to increase platform safety, and I don't think there's any reason that we can't begin implementing it here. The point is that, if platforms want to actually move forward and be exempt from the ban, these amendments give them the opportunity to step into the idea of safety-by-design, which I think is really where we do need to get to. I know that the minister has flagged a duty of care down the track. I tabled a private member's bill—in effect, providing a framework for that—on Monday, but I think a step towards that which would be very productive right now would be to insert these amendments into this bill in order to start moving us towards a systemic approach to online safety, rather than this, I think, simplistic, unfortunately, measure of age bans. So I commend the amendments to the House.
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
This legislation, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, is a bandaid to fix a wicked problem. It's neither the systemic nor the structural reform the Australian public...
This legislation, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, is a bandaid to fix a wicked problem. It's neither the systemic nor the structural reform the Australian public needs. I can well understand why parents like it, and I especially acknowledge those parents who've lost children, whose loss is attributed to social media harm—including those who testified, bravely and powerfully, to the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, which I was a member of. I also acknowledge Robb Evans, father of Liv, who I've spoken of before in this chamber. Liv took her own life due to an eating disorder, and social media was a contributor. I convened a working group on eating disorders and social media, which, in many ways, has been the genesis of my policy work in this space and I think has also captured the government's attention in a positive way. I absolutely acknowledge the connection between various harms and social media. So I don't deny that something needs to be done. The platforms have powerful underlying systems that actively and knowingly influence kids' social lives, play kingmaker in online public debates and run a data free-for-all in the name of advertising. And it's self-evident that these platforms are motivated by profit, not community benefit or safety. However, my issue is that this legislation will make zero difference to the harms that are inherent in social media. It will not force the platforms to manage their algorithms, it will not force the platforms to identify and manage risk, and nor will it force transparency. So what to do? Social media gives us many great rewards: connection; information; business opportunities. It opens up the world. For young people, it's a social space—the 2020s equivalent of sitting on the landline phone on the hallway floor for hours, as I did in the 1980s. It's a source of mental health support for many, and University of Canberra research shows that it's where the vast majority of young people get their news and current affairs. But the sheer scale of the risk it concurrently poses to individuals and our society demands a regulatory response that is proportionate in urgency and in ambition. This is particularly the case given the power of the social media proprietors, who've operated and grown their platforms largely uncontrolled until now. Additionally, in Australia they operate under a toothless self-regulation model, and they place the bulk of their profits and management offshore, out of reach of Australian tax and legal systems. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, it's fair to say that I've been thinking about all of this a lot of late. The committee had a wide remit but took substantial evidence regarding age assurance. Certainly there were opinions that it was a good idea, but there was no substantive, evidence based, expert testimony that stacked up if, or how, it would actually work. One of the recommendations the committee did agree to in its final report was that the government should report the results of its age-assurance trial to the parliament. The trial is only just underway, and it won't be complete for at least six to 12 months. Meanwhile, we're debating—and presumably the parliament will be passing—this legislation blindly, because the idea is somewhat popular. Worse, it potentially allows big tech to tick a box, without actually doing much at all. And what that even is, is unknown. The bill, which was introduced just last week and sent to committee for one day, despite more than 15,000 submissions, contains no provisions on how the platforms are to keep the kids out. They're expected to take 'reasonable steps'. What those are will be worked out by the platforms, with regulatory input from the minister later. It's backwards. In many ways, this is policy that is also looking back to a bygone era, when we all played street cricket until dusk, instead of looking at our phones, and found out where our friends were by riding around the neighbourhood until we found the house where all the Malvern Stars were lying on the front lawn. I get it. We all want that life back for our kids. But our societies have become digitised over the last 2½ decades. The entrenchment of digital communications platforms and technologies has been gradual, but it is enduring. We cannot look back to the technological challenges and solutions of last century and apply them to our contemporary context, as the Online Safety Act does and age-gating social media would. This mindset cannot continue to guide contemporary Australian policymaking. It is time to think forward, not back. In my engagement with the Goldstein community on this legislation, the feedback has been varied. I've heard from some parents and, as a parent, I understand the uncertainty and feeling of lack of control over what our children can be exposed to online. These parents observe their children taking to the intentionally addictive qualities of social media and digital platforms, and I deeply understand the desire to solve this problem. I, like these Goldstein parents, wish that this legislation was the silver bullet we wish for to comprehensively protect our kids from online harm. If it was, I would be its strongest advocate. But, unfortunately, this legislation is nowhere close to what's needed to meaningfully protect our kids in their online experiences. The true objective of the legislation is not to make social media safe by design but to make parents and voters feel like the government is doing something about it. There's a reason why the government parades this legislation as world leading. Its because no other country wants to do it, and for good reason. Modern policy problems require modern solutions, and, obviously, solutions that will actually work. Of all the many pitfalls in this legislation, at the core of arguments put forward by those who oppose it is this: age gating is, quite simply, not the appropriate mechanism to use in this context. In fact, there is little evidence at all to suggest that an age based regime of this nature could be effective. Instead of protecting our children from social media, it may also expose them, and, possibly, Australia's adult population, to additional risk. The bill does not specify how digital platforms will be expected to verify an individual's age, leaving open the possibility that Australians of various ages may be forced to hand over sensitive personal information to keep their accounts. I note the opposition amendments, apparently negotiated with the government, on limiting the requirements to hand over things like passport details, and this is a good step. But according to Digital Rights Watch, the information required might still range from birthdates all the way to face prints. I note that the legislation mandates the destruction of such information, but as so many Australians deeply understand, our nation doesn't have a strong track record of late in protecting the privacy of its citizens. I note the member for Mayo's consideration-in-detail amendment in relation to the provision of personal information, which I will support. It would be remiss of me not to point out the stunning irony of the coalition's sudden reluctance to support this legislation following a tweet by one of big tech's oligarchs, Elon Musk. Misinformation spreading online sought to make the curious link between this legislation and the government's Digital ID Act as part of a conspiracy to shut down free speech on the internet. This bill—one that ostensibly claims to challenge the awesome and concentrated power of big tech—was close to the chopping block via a simple tweet sent from those who stand to be regulated by it. Go figure. Perhaps, though, this is more than simple irony. Perhaps this is testament to the disproportionate political and cultural power that big tech have been allowed to accumulate and the set of circumstances which have led us to this point—the point of debating legislation which even the Prime Minister himself describes as potentially unenforceable. The power of the platforms and the importance of making them accountable leads me to what we could be doing—should be doing—instead: something that is actually meaningful and will stand the test of time. The government have lots of policy options to choose from here. One only needs to look overseas to see online safety regulatory regimes that are working. But—on brand for this government—once again, their chosen policy was just the lowest-hanging fruit: the path that is simple and political, not the one that will actually make social media safe for our children by design. Yesterday I tabled, as a private member's bill, a five-pillar regime which amounts to a digital duty of care. If the government wants to make social media safe not just for children but for everybody, then let's take that to a vote right now. This model of legislation has broad support across the parliament and in Australian civil society. It is supported by organisations ranging from the Foundation for Social Health and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education to the Human Rights Law Centre and Reset Tech Australia, amongst others. A fully implemented digital duty of care is what will make social media safe for all Australian kids and adults. Rigorous age verification technology may one day be a supplementary component of such a duty of care, but the age-gating model as proposed in this legislation alone will be starkly inadequate. This is why I move the second reading 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: (1) notes that: (a) Australia was once an international world-leader in online safety regulation when the previous Coalition Government enacted the Online Safety Act 2021; (b) Australia's existing content-based model of online safety regulation was inspired by what was once effective during the era of Broadcast television, newspapers, and radio last century, and that technology has fundamentally changed this information landscape; (c) Australia has lost its status as a world-leader in online safety regulation following the enactment of ambitious 'systems'-based laws in the European Union and United Kingdom respectively; and (d) whilst age assurance as a tool for regulators may have some capability to contribute to safer Australian online spaces, it does not change how algorithms operate in any fundamental way; (2) recognises the promising recent public statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications expressing the Government's intent to implement a 'Digital Duty of Care' if elected to a second term of Government; (3) notes that a Duty of Care: (a) alone is insufficient to meaningfully hold digital platforms and their algorithms to account and make social media safe by design; and (b) is just one of five necessary elements of equal importance if Australia is to meaningfully make digital spaces safe for Australians of all ages; (4) calls on the Government to re-claim the mantle of our nation as a world-leader in online safety regulation by enacting a comprehensive 'systems-based legislative framework, this being: (a) a Duty of Care; (b) risk assessments; (c) Risk Mitigation Plans; (d) genuine transparency measures for the Australian public and our research community; and (e) enforcement measures proportionate to the risk algorithms pose to Australian society". Australia was once a world leader in online safety regulation, and we can achieve the government's aim to reclaim that mantle—just not with this bill. Only with safety by design, a duty of care, risk management and mitigation, and a solid incentive to comply will we make digital platforms safe for our kids, ourselves and our communities. Online safety regulation cannot truly be safe unless it's systemic. It is the systems that must be made to change, not the people. We need to reshape our vision of what online safety looks like and follow the models that are achieving meaningful behavioural change, namely the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act in Europe, that impose a duty of care on the companies to do no harm. We won't achieve that by passing a bill that just makes us all feel better.
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
How we treat the most vulnerable among us reflects the values we uphold as a society. This Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024, now in its fifth...
How we treat the most vulnerable among us reflects the values we uphold as a society. This Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024, now in its fifth iteration since 2017, falls short of these values. Despite minor amendments, it remains deeply flawed and its passage would compromise the rights and dignity of individuals already in highly precarious situations. This legislation aims to expand the search and seizure powers of detention offices, including confiscating mobile phones. These measures allegedly address safety concerns, yet the evidence does not adequately support such sweeping powers. Instead, it risks exacerbating the situation for detainees, who are already detained for an average of 513 days—nearly 1½ years—sometimes without any criminal conviction. The Human Rights Law Centre has highlighted how these expanded powers will isolate detainees further, cutting them off from their families and legal counsel. I understand the government's arguments about bikie links and such, but human rights still apply. Mobile phones are lifelines for detainees, many of who are held in facilities far from loved ones. Confiscating personal devices disrupts communication, delaying access to legal support critical for challenging detention or ensuring accountability. Existing laws like the Migration Act 1958 already grant detention offices powers to manage risks, including searching for and seizing contraband, while police are equipped to handle serious crimes. Claims of endemic criminality among detainees lack sufficient substantiation. While some do have prior convictions, some pose no security risk. They are not all the same. For those who do have a criminal history, provisions may well be warranted, but they must be specific and targeted, not catchall. Even the Human Rights Commission report into the Yongah Hill centre, which this bill leans heavily on, notes the complexity of different cases and different environments. It's important to manage the risks that staff face in detention facilities—that is absolutely true—but these provisions lack oversight and could easily be misused. Past inquiries into similar legislation, such as the mobile phone ban bill 2021, concluded that current frameworks are sufficient. Yet this bill broadens powers, permitting invasive strip searches and arbitrary confiscations under vague terms like 'order' and 'safety'. Such measures, disproportionately targeting asylum seekers, are inconsistent with Australia's human rights obligations. As the member for North Sydney perfectly articulated, Labor's support for this bill is a significant shift from its previous stance on provisions to prohibits items like mobile phones in detention facilities. For example, in both 2017 and 2020, Labor senators voiced strong opposition to the bill's provisions, stating: … the government has not demonstrated any attempt to address these risks in less restrictive ways than those proposed in the bill. They also emphasised the critical importance of detainees' access to communication, asserting: … the evidence highlights the importance of mobile phones in allowing detainees to communicate with their legal representatives and external support networks. I couldn't agree more. Labor's support for this new iteration of the legislation directly contradicts its earlier positions, raising questions about the party's commitment to detainees' rights and the principles that it previously championed—not to mention the fact that the crossbench was briefed on this today, in the last sitting week of the year. What a surprise! And, while the bill claims to provide safeguards, the alternative communication options it proposes, such as landlines or shared internet terminals, are inadequate. Landlines in detention centres are few and communal, restricting timely or private communication. Internet access is scarce and must be booked in advance, making urgent legal matters nearly impossible to address. Access to communication is not a privilege. It is a basic right, particularly for those seeking asylum or justice, and providing dumb phones is not enough. Stripping detainees of the right to communication risks silencing voices that hold power accountable and amplify stories of mistreatment. At its core, this bill reflects a troubling willingness to compromise human rights in favour of administrative convenience. With detainees already subjected to significant restrictions, adding further layers of control risks stripping away their dignity entirely. Instead of punitive measures we should focus on strengthening oversight, accountability and transparency within detention centres. Evidence based policies are the solution to safety concerns, not sweeping legislation treating all detainees as threats. This bill echoes the failed approaches of past administrations, prioritising control over compassion. Australians have a responsibility to uphold human rights and fairness, and this legislation fails that standard. I will not support it.
Bowles, Ms Holly, Jones, Ms Bianca | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. As you know, the community in Goldstein and across Australia has been shattered by the tragic deaths of Holly Bowles and Bianca Jones due to methanol...
My question is to the Prime Minister. As you know, the community in Goldstein and across Australia has been shattered by the tragic deaths of Holly Bowles and Bianca Jones due to methanol poisoning in Laos. The community's priorities are to provide Holly and Bianca's families with every support we can to make sure the girls are returned to Australia as soon as possible and to make sure that a proper process occurs to prevent this from happening to other young travellers. Prime Minister, can you update this grieving community on what the government is doing to bring Holly and Bianca home?
Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Research from the Foundation for Social Health shows that the emergence of social media correlates with young Australians now being the loneliest...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Research from the Foundation for Social Health shows that the emergence of social media correlates with young Australians now being the loneliest cohort in our society. Previously, it was the over 60s who topped the stats on social isolation, but now it's apparently our most connected generation that feels most disconnected. Ninety-one per cent of participants in the millennial and gen Z generational cohorts reported that social media has taken away from their real-life interaction with friends, family and community in some way. Human society has long had a dual relationship with technology. New inventions—particularly those with the potential for transformational change—have carried an inherent but invisible framework of risk and reward. And since the emergence of social media, we have failed to manage that risk. Now, we're faced with the challenge of retrofitting rules onto enormously powerful societal influencers—the companies that run these platforms. And I would argue that we should do that not with bandaid measures but with an approach that manages the whole environment where the harm is taking place—and puts the responsibility on the platforms not the users. Over the last decade or two, as social media and big tech have entrenched their practices and business models, governments—like the former coalition government—have designed 'content' based take-down regulatory models like those previously designed for broadcast media. It makes sense—broadcast something that doesn't meet community standards—remove it or don't do it again. But of course those legacy media environments didn't have the algorithm to spread content like wildfire the way information moves on social media now. In lieu of a better idea, it's understandable that governments returned to what used to work. And when the former government enacted the Online Safety Act, it was world leading in its ability to combat the spread of harmful content. There was, to put it bluntly, no better idea. But now there is. The Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill, like the European Digital Services Act and UK's Online Safety Act, is modelled off of the groundbreaking work of Professor Lorna Woods and a four-year project from Carnegie UK Trust. Core to this model, now implemented in the EU and UK, are five interoperating key elements. And the core aim—to make the platforms make their spaces safe for us, for our kids, for our communities. First, the bill implements a singular and overarching statutory duty of care required by digital platforms for the wellbeing of their Australian users. A duty of care is not only just but essential. It is appropriately broad in scope to ensure that all of the systems, processes and elements of a digital service are captured, including 'dark patterns' and addictive design features. Now I've been talking about this for some time, and I acknowledge that the government is gradually signalling its intent to move in this direction eventually. But a duty of care isn't enough on its own. It must be given teeth. Second and third therefore, the bill frames a complementary scheme of risk assessments and risk mitigation. Platforms will be regularly required to assess for the risk that their algorithms and other digital systems could have on mental health, the rights of the child, gender based violence and electoral processes, for example. Platforms will also be required to prepare an accompanying mitigation plan which demonstrates to the government and the people exactly how they will reprogram or change their algorithms and systems to prevent these risks in the first instance. This is how we make social media safe by design. Without pressuring digital platforms to make all of their algorithms and systems progressively safer over time, governments around the world will continue to resort to handbrake measures, such as age based prohibition. Age gating will not make platforms safer. It will maintain the situation where safety is the responsibility of the user—including parents and children—and indeed it may have the unintended consequence of further socially isolating some young people. Far better, surely, than attempting to lock young people out (without even knowing if or how that can work), to make the space safe. Fourth, and critically, the bill imposes mandatory transparency measures to ensure the government and public understand and can monitor how algorithmic systems are functioning. This involves mandatory data access for public-interest research, and regular transparency reporting on key metrics, such as usage statistics and quantitative data on exposure of children to harmful content. Fifth, this regime must be backed up with enforceability. Digital platforms under this bill will be liable for civil penalties of up to 10 per cent of annual turnover for noncompliance, and their senior management with penalties consistent with securities fraud. And the bill will require platforms to enable people to reset and switch off the algorithm if they so choose and require the strongest privacy settings by default. I acknowledge the work of my expert and lived experience Eating Disorders Working Group, which in many ways has been the starting point for my work in this space. There is no silver bullet for online safety. But this five-element regulatory framework is demonstrably effective, and has become the international best practice. I commend this bill to the House—because Australia can once again become a world leader in online safety. In the words of Professor Lorna Woods, 'We need a response that is preventative, not palliative.' Humans designed these systems. And so, where we must, we can redesign them to serve our collective needs, rather than those of Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Musk. This groundswell here has already begun. The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, the Foundation for Social Health, the Human Rights Law Centre, Reset Tech Australia, AWO Agency, Queensland University of Technology, the Butterfly Foundation and the Black Dog Institute have all joined me in Canberra in recent weeks backing the changes that would occur under this bill. I urge the government to allow debate and adopt this legislation, and I cede the rest of my time to the member for Kooyong.
Jones, Miss Bianca | Statements on Indulgence | House debates
Bianca and Holly went on a holiday to Southeast Asia—a rite of passage that many young Australians experience. If you were to look at their holiday photos, you would see the wonderful...
Bianca and Holly went on a holiday to Southeast Asia—a rite of passage that many young Australians experience. If you were to look at their holiday photos, you would see the wonderful adventure that these best friends were having together. They could be any of our teenaged kids embarking on life from the wonderful suburbs of Bayside, Melbourne, where they've both grown up—gone to school at Mentone Girls' Grammar and Beaumaris Secondary College, worked in casual jobs and then, of course, played AFLW together at the famous Beauie Sharks. Bianca's parents, Michelle and Mark, and her brother Lachlan have been by her side during this ordeal, for the last few days. Today, of course, they're suffering pain beyond measure, a pain that no parent or sibling should ever experience. I offer my sympathy to Bianca's family and also my strength to Holly's parents, Shaun and Samantha, who remain at her bedside in Bangkok. I'm sure, as I do, the House sends love and strength—along with people all around the country—to the families of these two young Aussie girls who just headed off on an adventure together. I know that so many members of our community are connected to these girls and to these families. I feel your grief. Our hearts are broken.
Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The royal commission's findings on robodebt were damning, and rightly so. It was an intentionally unintelligible, unjust and illegal scheme that was shrouded in secrecy and targeted Australia's...
The royal commission's findings on robodebt were damning, and rightly so. It was an intentionally unintelligible, unjust and illegal scheme that was shrouded in secrecy and targeted Australia's most vulnerable people. This so-called welfare cop initiative branded 866,000 Australians as noncompliant and deviant, inflicting deep financial and psychological wounds on people's lives, and it did so without accountability, with no clear processes to safeguard against errors or abuses of power. As the commission described it, robodebt was a 'crude and cruel' system, a mechanism that sent letters indiscriminately implying wrongdoing where there was none, forcing recipients to prove innocence under threat of debt recovery. The scale of harm, financial distress, mental health impact and even the tragic loss of life reflects a government failing in its duty of care to the people it served. Women already facing financial instability were issued erroneous debt notices under robodebt, exacerbating their economic struggles and severely impacting their mental health. Single mothers reliant on support payments were disproportionately affected, with the stress of unjust debt claims undermining their ability to care for their children. For survivors of domestic violence, the situation was even more distressing, as some found themselves pursued for debts accrued during abusive relationships, retraumatising them and hindering their efforts to rebuild their lives independently. This scandal revealed more than policy failure; it exposed something deeply broken within the heart of government: an erosion of accountability, transparency, integrity and, above all, care. It was a gross breach of public trust, a failure to uphold the duty of care that public administration promises to each and every Australian. We saw a government more invested in recovering debts and achieving financial targets than in safeguarding the dignity and welfare of its citizens. The numbers themselves tell a story. The $1.8 billion debt recovery target ultimately cost taxpayers $1.7 billion. But robodebt is about more than statistics; it's about people. Behind every debt letter was a person or family left to navigate a complex, opaque, bureaucratic system that couldn't withstand legal scrutiny. The tragedy is not in the dollars wasted but in the individuals harmed and the trust in public institutions irreparably damaged. People and organisations across a range of positions of authority failed profoundly in their duty to ensure accountability for robodebt. The Australian Public Service Commission offered weak justifications for inaction, more recently followed up by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which initially declined to investigate. The real tragedy of robodebt lies not just in its procedural failings but in a stark failure of humanity, and the failures in follow-up are part of that. The NACC is now reconsidering its decision not to investigate robodebt after a scathing report from the independent NACC inspector into the referrals. Delayed accountability only deepens the wound for those who are affected, suggesting that even the highest oversight bodies lack the urgency to protect those most harmed by government failures. Australians expect a government that serves them, not one that scapegoats them for financial or political expediency. The NACC bar is high, with corruption defined as serious and systemic, but to assume it's not there without even investigating after such serious consequences goes against public expectations, and at the end of the day the NACC is there to serve. In Goldstein, during my last election campaign, the call for integrity in government was resounding. Increasing accountability was central to my decision to run, and it remains central to my work here. In response to robodebt, the government has proposed the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The bill is positioned as a corrective measure to prevent further disasters like robodebt by enhancing accountability and expanding the oversight powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Taxation. This bill aligns well with the royal commission's recommendations: strengthened oversight, statutory duties for agency heads and expanded access to information. It clarifies obligations for public servants to fully cooperate with oversight mechanisms, which is an essential step forward in addressing the accountability failures exposed by robodebt. Locking in these requirements is a valuable move towards reinforcing a transparent, accountable Public Service, which was lacking in the robodebt process. Former public service commissioner Professor Andrew Podger, who's written a discussion paper outlining reforms that balance efficiency with integrity, states it plainly: 'Getting the rewards and penalties more in line with frank and fearless advice is crucial for effective governance.' The issue during robodebt wasn't that the ombudsman lacked statutory power but rather that the departments themselves withheld cooperation and did not act in good faith. Real accountability is not legislated into existence by mandates or fear of noncompliance. It is borne from a culture within government agencies that prioritises transparency and is committed to serving the people. The true lesson of robodebt is that we need a culture of transparency and ethical governance within our Public Service, one that empowers public servants to raise concerns about harmful policies and encourages fearless advice. Systems should encourage honesty and value the voices of those directly impacted by policies. The royal commission's recommendations go beyond oversight. They suggest a transformative approach to policymaking, one that places humanity at its core. As recommendation 10.1 suggests, policy design should centre on the people it serves. This includes using accessible language, fostering engagement and acting with sensitivity towards vulnerable Australians. When policy disregards the dignity of those it impacts, it risks becoming an instrument of harm. Oversight, while essential, is not a substitute for culture, and robodebt was not merely a failure of process. It was a failure of humanity. It calls for more than just oversight; it calls for a reform of our Public Service culture to reflect empathy, ethical decision-making and a commitment to transparency. We need a cultural shift. Rick Morton from the Saturday Paper observed, 'Thousands of decisions are made every day in government, and ministers touch very few of them.' Public servants wield enormous power and must be held to the same standards of accountability and transparency as elected officials. They should not be shielded from scrutiny but must instead serve as models of ethical governance. Trust in government institutions is alarmingly low, with only 30 per cent of Australians expressing confidence and a mere 12 per cent believing that government is run for all the people. If we're to restore this trust, we must tread carefully. The public needs to see a government that serves with transparency, compassion and respect, and that also applies to the Public Service and the advice that public servants provide. Last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended legislating a federal human rights act, after receiving hundreds of submissions advocating for stronger protections. The proposal has garnered resounding support from human rights organisations, legal experts and advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Law Centre and a coalition of over 100 civil society organisations. The robodebt scandal, I would argue, highlights the urgent need for a federal human rights act to embed respect, dignity and accountability in government processes, ensuring that no individual is subjected to systemic injustices like those inflicted under robodebt. It would provide clear, accessible standards for treating people with dignity, empowering those affected by unjust policies to seek justice. If robodebt taught us anything, it's that, without a structured legal framework prioritising human rights, policies can devolve into mechanisms of harm, eroding trust in our public institutions. Let us not repeat this mistake. In closing, I will support this bill, but I urge the government to go further. Australians need reassurance that all the recommendations of the royal commission into robodebt will be enacted, including those it endorsed but did not include in its final report. This is not just about legislating enforcement; it's about building that culture that empowers our institutions to act ethically, transparently and with compassion. Robodebt stands as a chilling example of moral contempt. The path forward is one of careful reform, putting people and not paperwork at the centre of our public systems. I commend this bill to the House.
Migration Amendment Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The saying goes that history repeats itself. This is certainly the case with ongoing back and forth between the High Court and the executive that has unfolded over the past year, the latest...
The saying goes that history repeats itself. This is certainly the case with ongoing back and forth between the High Court and the executive that has unfolded over the past year, the latest iteration of which is the Migration Amendment Bill. And while the High Court's actions reflect the separation of powers working as intended, the government's repeated attempts to thwart the court's intentions with patchwork legislation is concerning. In late 2023, the High Court's NZYQ decision on the illegality of indefinite detention provoked a wave of bills to manage the criminal and political risk of the cohort of potentially dangerous individuals being released into the community. Community safety is critically important. There is absolutely no argument about that. The release of potentially dangerous and violent offenders, sexual predators and others into our communities absolutely requires a response, and, in some cases, targeted deportation may be warranted. However, the cohort of individuals affected by the High Court's decision-making is not homogenous. These people are not all the same, and imposing a one-size-fits-all approach on them is therefore flawed. Indeed, this bill captures people who should not be caught in it and goes far beyond the NZYQ group. All of these bills have been complex and rushed. In many cases, they have not undergone proper committee or external consultation, and many of their key provisions are the result of deals between the major parties, which I would argue, in some cases, have been politically motivated. It has been over two decades since Australia began sending refugees and asylum seekers offshore, and our nation is still living with the stain of offshore detention on our national character. Humanity should be at the centre of any conversation about war and its consequences, and this principle must be the starting point for policymaking on migration and refugees. Indeed, Australia's conversation and history of policy in this space has been fought one, one which has not lived up to these ideals. I think that's obvious. Punishment is a matter for the courts, not any minister. Most refugees and asylum seekers are no threat to Australia, and they deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion. These are core principles that should guide Australian migration policy—indeed, principles that I've spoken to on each of the bills the government has introduced to manage the NZYQ division. Last century, Australia provided a home for those fleeing wars across South-East Asia, including those who fled the Vietnam War and the horrors of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. We welcomed people from war-torn Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan. We provided a safe haven for the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors in the world, and they and their descendants now call Melbourne and Sydney home. But our national conversation on refugees and asylum seekers this century has been horrible. It has again turned—indeed, degenerated—in just the past year, including rhetoric in recent months over visas for Gazan refugees and echoes of Donald Trump's toxic Muslim ban of 2017. I will say that we must not follow the path of the US on refugees and migration. Following the American people's decision on 8 November and the president-elect's stated policy of mass deportation, this is perhaps more important now than it ever has been. But the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 debate does not reflect this sentiment. Indeed, it represents a broadening of the executive's power and goes well beyond the scope of NZYQ. The Human Rights Law Centre says it could apply to refugees and asylum seekers holding temporary visas, including those who've lived in Australia for years. These individuals have deep roots in our communities. It risks creating a system of deportation where decisions are made not based on due process but on politics. And the bill provides immunity for the government managing that system, even if people are being deported to environments where there are known risks of harm. I reflect on the case of one of my constituents in Goldstein, currently on a temporary visa. This constituent is a father, a business owner, a taxpayer and an employer. This individual has been in a state of legal limbo for 12 years and lives under a cloud of uncertainty in relation to his ability to remain in our community. His wife was a refugee who's been granted Australian permanent citizenship. They have a child that was born in Australia. What is the outlook for this family under this legislation? Is this man, who is Iranian, facing deportation to a third country? This legislation exacerbates the anxieties felt by many like this across the nation. This is particularly the case for those who have been subjected to the appalling fast-track program for more than a decade and remain in ongoing limbo with limited rights to work, study and health care. I have met many of these hardworking people, some just yesterday, and they do not deserve this torture. This bill would provide the government with unprecedented powers, including the ability to overturn protection pathways and deport people, uprooting them from their families and communities, to third countries via so-called reception arrangements—deportation regardless of the risks they individually may face at their destination or even the risks these individuals may pose themselves to the communities that live there, if they do have a criminal history. This is not a theoretical scenario. The government refuses to specify which third countries it may negotiate with or intends to reach agreement with. I note the concerns of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre that this may represent a continuation or escalation of the offshore detention policy by stealth. The government has not ruled out that the third country could be Nauru, for example. The bill does not rule out deportation to third countries that are not a signatory to the international refugee convention. It is entirely conceivable that an individual could be deported to a third country where they face persecution, discrimination and serious harm. It grants the minister authority to overturn protection findings and permits the government to share personal information with foreign entities and to withhold it from the Australian public. Only indirect transparency measures apply. The public, apparently, must rely on Senate estimates and freedom-of-information requests for insight into the government's deportation arrangements—or at least that's what the minister has told me. The legislation, as I've said, grants immunity to Commonwealth officers from civil claims related to harm caused during deportation processes, shielding government actions from proper legal scrutiny. The High Court has repeatedly affirmed that the punitive measures of ankle bracelets and strict curfews represent executive overreach and are unconstitutional. The reintroduction of these measures in this legislation is a blatant attempt to circumvent the decision of the High Court. Rather than respecting the High Court 's repeated affirmations, the government is once again seeking to undermine them. This behaviour arguably risks eroding the judiciary's independence and also public trust. As I forewarned 12 months ago during the last iteration of this process, this legislation just sets the stage for yet another High Court legal contest. And again now, as constitutional expert Anne Twomey says: It's fairly likely someone will challenge it, and there's a reasonable chance it will be struck down. We must engage in meaningful consultation with legal experts, human rights advocates and affected communities to create policies that reflect our national character and ethical responsibilities. National security and compassion are not a zero sum game. We can govern with humanity as the guiding principle of migration policy. Indeed, we must. I've had many emails from constituents opposing this bill. Here's one. It says: … will you publicly oppose this bill as it is inhumane. We need to deal with this complex problem with a lot more understanding and compassion. Would you kindly let me know your thoughts and intentions. Thank you for writing. Yes, I will let you know that I will not be supporting this bill in its current form.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
We've all heard that Australians have lost interest in politics, that they see all politicians as cynical and self-interested. Indeed, in a recent Australian Reader's Digest survey on Australia's...
We've all heard that Australians have lost interest in politics, that they see all politicians as cynical and self-interested. Indeed, in a recent Australian Reader's Digest survey on Australia's most trusted professions, politicians won the wooden spoon, ranking last—just below journalists. As a former journalist and now standing here in this place, I get it when people question my choice of job, yet last Thursday night, in my electorate of Goldstein, more than 800 people turned up at a community townhall event at the historic Kingston City Hall in Moorabbin to join me to discuss the issues that matter most to them. In recent months I've had multiple full Politics in the Pub events, where we've discussed everything from housing to women and the economy, the renewable energy transition, US politics and Australia's place in the world. It is therefore a lazy trope, I think, to say that people aren't interested in politics. These people are passionate about the issues they care about—climate change, housing affordability, the cost of living, student debt, early childhood education and care, just to name a few. They want to be heard and they want to be part of the solution to these problems. They believe in a type of politics where they're included and respected. They want a seat at the table. Imagine their disappointment and exasperation when, a few days later, they woke up to the news that the Albanese Labor government had apparently done a deal with the coalition on its electoral reform bill that all but locks in the major party duopoly that voters, at best, are drifting away from and, at worst, loathe. Their cynicism would have only grown when they found out that the government dropped this huge and complex piece of legislation late on a Friday afternoon and then demanded that it be hustled through the parliament in a mad rush this week. Even sending it to committee inquiry was a bridge too far. The legislation isn't even set to apply until 2026, and—by the minister's own admission—it proposes the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws in over 40 years. Surely that warrants scrutiny. Given the ridiculously short time we've had to study this bill, with no exposure draft beforehand, it has been impossible to fully scrutinise this legislation, which I guess is entirely the point. The bill ensures that Australian politics remains a cosy table for two, and it makes it clear to ordinary Australians: you're not invited. The Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition—the Coles and Woolies of Australian politics—are engaging in lockout politics. It's politics as usual for the Canberra cartel. The minister says this bill is getting big money out of politics, but actually it's replacing donor money with taxpayer money, which then embeds the incumbents. Rather than banning big money, the bill guarantees big money to the big parties. Let's be clear: they think this will be a short and noisy process—that they'll pass it and everyone will forget about it. Well, we'll see about that. The expenditure caps in this bill are a clear attempt by the major parties to game the system. The expenditure on creating or communicating electoral matter targeting a division is capped at $800,000 per calendar year. 'Targeting' means naming a candidate or including their likeness or expressly mentioning the division, so a poster or billboard with my photo or name on it, mentioning the seat of Goldstein, would sit well and truly under that expenditure cap, yet political party material that doesn't mention the candidate doesn't count under the cap. The Liberal Party or the Labor Party could line the Nepean Highway with their party-branded billboards, all the way from Elsternwick to Cheltenham, and it wouldn't count under the cap. The electoral expenditure of a party plus its branches cannot exceed the federal cap of $90 million, but that amount still allows the Canberra cartel to shift money around the country and pour it into marginal seat campaigns at their discretion. Call it the sandbagging slush fund. There are two sets of rules in play here, and Australian voters aren't fools; they can spot a stitch-up when they see one. This legislation has so many loopholes you could sail a ship through it. These loopholes mean that even advertising mentioning a party candidate doesn't fully count towards their divisional cap, provided it's spread around the state, or Senate candidates are promoted alongside the House candidate, or both. That means the parties could spend much more than $800,000 promoting a particular candidate, if they do it in the right way. Then there's the gaping hole in this bill that is best described as the third-party free-for-all. Any third party, like Advance Australia or the ACTU, can run their own campaign on electoral issues, with a cap of $11 million per annum. Exactly how this works remains a bit opaque, but it appears that, if Advance, for example, wants to spend big on a climate change denial campaign, they can, if they sit under that $11 million cap. The unions could run a pro-jobs campaign geared to Labor. This is in addition to party caps. And that's not to mention the fact that there are three pages of exemptions to the definition of 'gift'. That's confusing and, again, needs scrutiny. Is this the sort of electoral reform Australia needs? Meanwhile, incumbents, including myself, would have the advantage of public funding and resources, while new entrants face the same caps as those of us who are already in office. How is putting the squeeze on new entrants and Independents while giving the green light to partisan lobbyists and political action groups a way to reinstall confidence in the political system? It is true that several elements of this legislation go some way to reforming our electoral system in a way that ordinary Australians will welcome, as I do. Lowering the disclosure threshold for political contributions to $1,000, from $17,000, and aggregating those donations to determine whether they exceed the threshold is long overdue. Having a more transparent process for the disclosure of gifts is vital. The legislation proposes that it occur within 24 hours during the final week of an election campaign, weekly during the campaign proper and monthly at other times. These transparency measures would ensure that we have line of sight on where the money is coming from and where it's going. Kicking the dark money out of Australian politics is something I fully support. Indeed, I practiced as close as practical to real-time disclosure during my last campaign. Unfortunately, this legislation won't stop dark money from being poured in to influence the upcoming federal election—and we can expect plenty of it being spent to try to win seats—because, despite the rush to pass the bill, those measures won't be in place in time. Sadly, the value of these initiatives in restoring faith in the fairness of our electoral process has had the stool kicked out from under it by the other provisions in this legislation. The proposed gift or donation cap for any individual is to be set at $20,000 per annum, and it will reset every calendar year or after a general election. That means there'll be four opportunities for an individual to give every election cycle. The devil is lurking in the detail here. Each party branch will have its own cap. For instance, that means the Labor Party has eight individual state and territory branches as well as national branch. An individual could therefore donate as much as $180,000 per year to the party. Once again, Independents and any aspiring new entrants are playing by a different set of rules to the major parties. Public and administrative funding of elections should be a way to build a firewall between the electoral process and those vested interests with big wallets looking to pay for access and influence. Public funding will increase from $2.91 per vote at the last federal election to $5 a vote, at a total cost of $40 million. About 76 per cent of that money will land in the coffers of the major parties—once again reinforcing their hold over Australian democracy. It basically doubles the funding they receive now. Australian voters are crying out for political parties to cut the bull and stop telling lies in their election ads. If there's one initiative that Australian voters are crying out for it's truth in political advertising. This government has other legislation in train that deals with mis- and disinformation, yet when it comes to just that in political ads it's on a go-slow. The bill has been tabled, but apparently there is no rush to pass that one. The major parties are happy to take an extra bucket of public money, but they won't lift a finger to protect Australian voters from the lies and deceit in political advertising. Is it any wonder the professional reputation of Australian politicians has cratered like it has? Quite seriously, the more time I spend looking at this bill the worse it gets. Ramming it through the parliament without proper scrutiny before Christmas when it won't even come into effect until after the next election is a sign of desperation from the major parties—'Quick! Get it through just in case any more Independents get in and stop us.' This law could fundamentally change who can get into the parliament for a generation. Australian needs a new approach to politics that encourages political engagement and participation in our democracy, not a lockout strategy that signals to ordinary Australians that they are not welcome to get involved. Lead better. Don't change the rules to help you win.