Kylea Tink's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Climate Change | Adjournment | House debates
When I gave my first speech in this place almost three years ago, I said that the people of North Sydney wanted faster action on climate change, led by facts, not politics. They recognised we're...
When I gave my first speech in this place almost three years ago, I said that the people of North Sydney wanted faster action on climate change, led by facts, not politics. They recognised we're at a tipping point on climate and, fundamentally, politics. Like many other forward-looking communities across Australia, they wanted a clear and actionable plan to reduce national emissions. They wanted innovative, smart and transparent investment in renewable energy, and they wanted improved access to clean transport. When I stood here then, I committed to advocate for science informed action on climate change and faster access to cleaner fuels and more efficient vehicles, and I committed to work together across all levels of government to make the electorate of North Sydney one of the first net zero urban energy zones in the country. Fast forward to today, and I can proudly say that North Sydney has delivered. From legislative amendments to private member's bills, community forums and clean energy fairs, the electorate of North Sydney has moved towards net zero as a community and pushed this 47th Parliament to take bold, decisive steps to tackle climate change. When the Climate Change Bill 2022 was introduced to legislate the government's 43 per cent emissions reduction target, North Sydney was there, ensuring advice from the Climate Change Authority would be published on its website and tabled in parliament. We supported other crossbench amendments to strengthen the bill, including supporting regional communities and ensuring the 43 per cent emissions reduction target was a floor, not a ceiling. We successfully amended the safeguard mechanism to prevent new or expanded fossil fuel projects from accessing government funding to pursue abatement, and we worked with the government to ensure carbon offsets are not recognised within the Future Made in Australia Guarantee of Origin scheme. We fought for changes to the nature-positive bills to ensure better transparency and community consultation. Although those changes were ultimately not adopted, they put community consultation at the centre of the nature-positive discussions. Throughout this term, we have consistently pushed for both the major parties to release 2035 emissions targets before the next election and for the government to urgently legislate a duty of care. We introduced a private member's bill, the Fuel and Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment (Reducing Vehicle Pollution) Bill 2022, to bring vehicle emissions regulations in line with international best practice, and we advocated strongly for fuel efficiency standards, which were finally introduced in 2024. As the member for North Sydney, I brought the federal climate conversation back to my community, hosting multiple local forums on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the broader EPBCA reforms. It was a pleasure to host the Sustainable Living in North Sydney Forum, bringing together experts from sustainability, bushcare, garden and repurposing groups across the electorate to discuss their vision for a better climate in Canberra. And, in collaboration with local councils, I held the inaugural Clean Energy Community Fair, with over 30 stalls run by vendors, service providers and councils to help households and businesses reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. Just a few weeks ago, I joined with members of the Powering to Net Zero team and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to launch the first community battery in Cammeray. I've had the immense privilege of working with amazing groups and talented people dedicated to climate action, from launching a report calling for communities to be afforded the right to seek a merits review of environmental decisions to facilitating a cross-political and science led discussion on nuclear energy to supporting my crossbench colleagues' calls for investment in climate resilience and preparedness measures. I can proudly say that my Powering to Net Zero team has made a real difference on the ground. Whether it be through their handy guide to government incentives to help electrify homes and businesses in North Sydney or their regular webinars and events, they have helped the North Sydney community reduce emissions and power bills. The growth rate in total residential rooftop solar installations between June 2022 and December 2024 in North Sydney was 41.9 per cent, far above the New South Wales average of 31.5 per cent. Passenger battery electric vehicles garaged in North Sydney electorate grew from 1,115 in July 2022 to 4,511 in January 2025, now making up four per cent of the total vehicle fleet, far above the New South Wales average of 1.6 per cent of passenger vehicles. While there is still much to do, North Sydney can be proud that we have, indeed, progressed urgent climate action, led by facts, not politics, in this place. As a community, we have both changed the climate here in parliament and driven our community closer to net zero.
North Sydney Electorate | Statements by Members | House debates
In 2022, the North Sydney community sent me to parliament to be their authentic voice, rather than a distorted version filtered through a party caucus room. As the last federal member for North...
In 2022, the North Sydney community sent me to parliament to be their authentic voice, rather than a distorted version filtered through a party caucus room. As the last federal member for North Sydney, I wanted to record how that voice and vote has been used. I've served on three parliamentary joint committees—the human rights committee, the Parliamentary Library committee and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards—and have fearlessly applied our community's values to those deliberations. I've introduced three private member's bills: the first on cleaner vehicles, the second to end indefinite detention of asylum seekers and children, and one to legislate a rights based approach to housing. On the 326 bills passed I have spoken 143 times, and moved 82 amendments to 19 different bills to influence climate, industrial relations, tax, superannuation and integrity reforms. I've made over 240 statements, including on ministerial questions and constituent statements. I've attended 90 per cent of divisions, voting with the ALP 49 per cent of the time, to support human rights, HECS, fuel efficiency standards and net zero economy reform, and with the coalition 55 per cent of the time, to support small business, industrial relations and superannuation reform. I voted with the Greens 61 per cent of the time, to support climate policy and environmental reform. I've also consistently supported crossbench colleagues on integrity and accountability, women's safety, climate change mitigation and adaptation and environmental reform. Contrasting this to party backbenchers, I've done three times the work. I'd say North Sydney's voice has been well and truly heard.
Human Rights Joint Committee; Report | Committees | House debates
by leave—I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. I want to start by thanking the chair of...
by leave—I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. I want to start by thanking the chair of the committee, the member for Macnamara, because I think he did an excellent job in holding us all together and holding space for this really important inquiry. I also want to thank all my fellow committee members for their engagement with and participation in the inquiry and extend my heartfelt thanks to all of those who supplied evidence. The testimony of many witnesses was immensely powerful, and the sincerity and frankness they brought to the discussion was invaluable. I'd like to particularly thank the Jewish community, who spoke so eloquently and honestly about their experiences and fears, and, again, reiterate my deep concern and care for them. The testimony of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students in particular stayed with me throughout the hearings—thank you for your courage. As a member of the 47th parliament, I feel the incredible weight that comes with participating in an inquiry like this one. To think our society has reached a point where we needed to hold this inquiry is a sad indictment on the direction we are headed in indeed. As a person the community from North Sydney sent to parliament to represent them during this term, hear me when I say that the people who surround me every day in my community share a common belief that all of us have the right to feel safe, be treated with respect and participate in our society without fear of vilification or discrimination based on our individual characteristics. We condemn all forms of racism and are horrified at the recent antisemitic attacks that we've witnessed across our country. We must do better. To this moment then, while I support the majority of the committee's recommendations and the report as a whole, I do have some concerns with particular recommendations, which I'd like to address. Firstly, while I certainly support the adoption of a definition of antisemitism by universities, I do not agree with the committee's recommendation that this definition must align closely with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. Rather, I believe we heard compelling and legitimate testimony from numerous witnesses and submitters that highlighted concerns regarding the appropriateness of this definition for the university sector. Many posited that it inappropriately captures expression which is legitimate and does not constitute antisemitism, that it poses a threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech on campuses, and that this could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of the government of Israel or the political ideology of Zionism. At the same time, I also believe we received compelling evidence, particularly from the Group of Eight, that there is already an active commitment to developing and mobilising behind a shared definition of antisemitism. In this context, I believe the most appropriate recommendation would have been that universities should, for the purposes of addressing complaints of antisemitism relating to students or staff, adopt a definition of antisemitism that recognises the distinction between antisemitism and the criticism of Israel, the Israeli government and Zionism. Secondly, I disagree with the committee's fourth recommendation that the government give consideration as to whether it is necessary to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to enable disciplinary or other action to be taken in relation to a university employee, on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence or testimony on which to base such a broad-reaching recommendation. The committee did hear ample evidence from several universities regarding their existing disciplinary processes, including some universities that are already in the process of reviewing the rules governing their responses to reports of misconduct. The committee did not, however, receive any evidence proposing specific amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Australian Research Council Act 2001. No witnesses or submitters raised specific concerns regarding either of these acts, yet somehow this report recommends that course of action. Given this, I cannot in good faith let that recommendation go unchallenged. Thirdly, I do not support recommendation 10: … if, following a review of the implementation of these recommendations …it is apparent that the response by universities has been insufficient, the government should give consideration to the establishment of a judicial inquiry. This is because I believe that not only is this recommendation overly speculative but also it was not supported by any compelling evidence to demonstrate that a judicial inquiry is either necessary or of specific use in this context. With that said, I'd also like to make some brief additional comments. Firstly, many submitters and witnesses highlighted that the increase in antisemitism in Australia and on university campuses has been accompanied by a rise in other forms of racism, particularly Islamophobia, following the October 7 attacks. Interestingly, it was the Australasian Union of Jewish Students who first raised this argument, as they identified that addressing antisemitism in a silo fashion may not be the best way of addressing the issue and that dealing with broader racism as a whole is a better approach. Many others pointed out that the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework, which provides a whole-of-society road map for governments, non-government organisations, businesses and civil society organisations to address issues of racism across sectors, is a useful tool to combat antisemitism. Additionally, several witnesses recommended that Australia's existing suite of antidiscrimination legislation be amended. In this regard, I have recommended that the government adopt the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework; that universities address antisemitism as part of broader strategies to reduce racism in all its forms; and that the government consider consolidating Australia's antidiscrimination legislative framework into a single uniform antidiscrimination act. Finally, I'd like to highlight that many submitters also raised the need for a human rights framework or a human rights based approach to effectively navigate competing human rights, such as the right to equity and nondiscrimination with the rights to education and freedom of expression. A number of submitters highlighted the direct relevance of the United Nation's Rabat plan of action on the prohibition of the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. It's a detailed framework for distinguishing hate speech from protected expression. Given this, I've also recommended that universities adopt the Rabat plan of action and that the government introduce legislation to establish a human rights act as per the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into Australia's human rights framework. During my valedictory speech on Monday I reflected on the fact that as a nation we faced significant challenges over the course of the last three years, including increasing global conflict, starting with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian regime's crackdown on its citizens, the appalling Hamas attacks on October 7 in Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza. Every instance has left us shocked as we've witnessed the brutality that people have levelled against one another, with far too many lives caught in the crossfire. Here at home the campaign around the Voice referendum unveiled a schism in our society that stunned many, while more recently the rise of all forms of racism, and in particular the completely incomprehensible instances of antisemitism, has created a sense that hate is boiling over. Surely in this context we must ask ourselves: what is it that we believe in today, and what are we prepared to do to fight for those beliefs? Universities are undoubtedly a direct reflection of our broader society, and they play a pivotal role in shaping thinking and expectations. Given this, I believe they have a great responsibility when it comes to ensuring they are places that value respect and tolerance and foster an environment where everyone feels safe. We must all do better, and I thank them in advance for learning from the mistakes of the past two years and for not only committing to doing better but providing tangible evidence of their improvement in the years to come. Again, I'd like to thank the chair of the committee, the member for Macnamara. You truly were an inspiration to work with through this process, so thank you.
Biodiversity | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
As the State of the environment report declared in 2021 nature is in crisis with the general outlook for our environment deteriorating. It showed Australia has one of the highest rates of species...
As the State of the environment report declared in 2021 nature is in crisis with the general outlook for our environment deteriorating. It showed Australia has one of the highest rates of species decline in the developed world, with more mammal species lost here than anywhere else, and we are the only developed country that is a deforestation hotspot. Yet four years on from that report, logging of native forests is still exempt from federal biodiversity approval processes in some parts of Australia, and hectares of threatened species habitat is routinely destroyed by both approved and unauthorised clearing. And while our legislation does not recognise it, climate change is absolutely compounding the damage from deforestation, invasive species, pollution and urban expansion with species from Australia and New Zealand among the most at risk of extinction globally. As the 47th Parliament enters its final days, it's little wonder that greater protection for nature is the call I hear most consistently from my community of North Sydney. Indeed, my office is frequently inundated by people across my electorate asking me and this parliament to do more to protect nature. Meanwhile the sentiment is amplified when you look at the results of recent polls, with the Biodiversity Council poll showing nearly nine in 10 Australians support stronger national nature laws while two in three people support the establishment of national environmental standards. This is further supported by the results of a YouGov poll that showed seven out of 10 voters want the government to do more to protect and restore nature. Fascinatingly, these sentiments are reflected consistently regardless of age and political allegiance. Yet, after almost three years of discussion, development and debate, this parliament has failed to deliver on any of the ambitions, leaving our communities, rightfully, bitterly frustrated—frustrated at the government, frustrated by the opposition and frustrated by this parliament's forgoing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen Australia's environmental framework. They are frustrated that, according to media reports, a deal on the nature-positive reforms was scuttled at the eleventh hour, following political pressure from Western Australia's Premier. They are frustrated that, since the last federal election, we've approved 10 new coalmines or expansions, with 2,449 million tonnes of lifetime emissions. And they are frustrated because they, like me, recognise both the huge economic potential and the nature-positive potential of the renewable energy transition. The transition to renewables presents a once-in-100-years opportunity to reset how we address environmental concerns, how we engage in community consultation and how we honour First Nations cultural heritage protection, in a way that is fundamentally different to that of the fossil fuel and mining industry of the past. But none of this will be possible without stronger environmental laws and adequate funding. Australia has no lack of environmental expertise, but we certainly need more political ambition, commitment and financial support. We must halt biodiversity loss that is currently occurring both on land and in our oceans, and we must stop approving new coal and gas projects. As a parliament, we should have delivered this reform of Australia's nature laws as a national priority, including legislating an independent and well-resourced environmental protection agency. But, in the absence of this outcome, I would argue this government must invest in nature repair and recovery, while the current opposition must be clear on their intentions in this space in the lead-up to the next election. Current federal government spending on protecting nature equates to just 0.1 per cent of the total budget. While funding has increased in recent years, it is nowhere near the level required to meet our commitments to protect 30 per cent of Australia by 2030 and prevent native species extinctions. Scientists and conservation groups are urgently calling for a measly minimum—just one per cent—of the federal budget to be allocated towards nature protection. The shocking thing is that this would still be a significant increase in nature funding. And the money is there. According to the 30 by 30 alliance, the federal government is currently spending 16 times more on subsidies for oil and gas production and consumption than it is on protecting biodiversity. In this context, surely it is beyond time that we finally break with our fossil fuel reliance and redirect that investment towards nature protection. Everyone in this place could choose to set aside petty political point scoring to make nature a priority at the next election. But, if they're unable to make that commitment, I call on all voters: in 2025, cast your vote like your kids' future depends on it, because it does.
New Vehicle Efficiency Standard | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. For too long, Australians were placed at the bottom of the list in terms of priority access to low-emissions vehicles, and, without...
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. For too long, Australians were placed at the bottom of the list in terms of priority access to low-emissions vehicles, and, without intervention, transport will be the largest source of emissions in Australia by 2030. The people of North Sydney, who are surrounded by major freeways and roads, are living with the consequences of that in terms of poor air quality. We fought for and welcomed the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard that has come into effect this year. But, with misinformation regarding the impacts of these standards rife, could you please provide an update on them, including their expected impact on both the uptake and the price of vehicles?
Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
In October last year, I hosted the North Sydney Deliberative Democracy Forum on early childhood education and care. The event brought together 35 randomly selected but demographically...
In October last year, I hosted the North Sydney Deliberative Democracy Forum on early childhood education and care. The event brought together 35 randomly selected but demographically representative members of our community, with experts from academia and industry, to discuss the affordability and accessibility of early childhood education and care services right across our country. Their goal was to arrive at a consensus on a policy approach that they wanted to see the federal government pursue to ensure these services are affordable and accessible to everyone. There were lots of ideas that participants supported, including equalising the pay of early childhood educators with primary-school educators and requirements to build early childhood education and care centres alongside new public primary schools. But the core of their final recommendation was that the government should provide universal free or low-cost early childhood education and care services to all children from birth, regardless of their families' financial circumstances. I can't tell you how pleased I am, then, to say that, with the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, the government is moving Australia towards my community's final recommendations and aspirations, and we could not be more pleased with this reform. I want to thank everyone who has fought so hard for it over many years. Indeed, when I first announced that I'd run as the independent candidate for North Sydney, it was people who were advocating in this area who were among the first to approach me to ask for my support, and, as a consequence, it was one of our key policy platforms during that campaign. This win, then, is not just for parents but specifically for all children right across the country. That's because this bill does two really important things. Firstly, it winds back the activity test to ensure that all families have access to 72 hours of subsidised care a fortnight, regardless of how many hours they work, study or volunteer. This is what is known as the three-day guarantee. At the same time, it allows families caring for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, or those who work, train, study or volunteer for more than 48 hours a fortnight, to have access to 100 hours of subsidised care. It's not an understatement to say that this reform is incredibly important, as we've known for a long time that, rather than acting as a stimulus for workforce participation, the activity test has been acting as a barrier, particularly for many lower-income families and families with irregular patterns of work. Indeed, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee itself called the test 'poorly designed' and 'punitive', highlighting the barrier it creates for many parents wanting to participate in the workforce, while research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found no evidence—no evidence—that the test had increased workforce participation. The minister herself noted in her speech that in 2021 only 54 per cent of children in the most disadvantaged areas were enrolled in early childhood education and care, compared with 76 per cent in the highest socioeconomic areas, whilst an Impact Economics and Policy analysis found removing the activity test could allow around 126,000 children from lower-income families to access early childhood education. Ultimately, although ostensibly designed to encourage work, the activity test has failed, instead excluding many struggling families from access to early childhood education and care for no substantial gain. For this reason, countless researchers, peak bodies, committees and, indeed, many on the crossbench have been calling for the end of this test for years. As Georgie Dent, the CEO of The Parenthood, said: Removing the Activity Test is the most significant step towards creating truly universal early education and care. At the heart of the problem with the activity test is the fact that it places the focus on the parents, when, ultimately, many—including myself—argue the focus should be on children and on ensuring every child, regardless of their circumstance, has the same opportunities from the earliest days of their life. With all that said, I acknowledge some people are struggling to understand why those who ostensibly can afford to pay for it will not be charged under this new reform. But I'm comfortable the reform is absolutely the right thing to do as it essentially aligns our attitudes and the attitudes we have always espoused as a nation when it comes to public education. As someone who was educated through the public system, I am so proud of that attitude and I will defend it to the death knell as, ultimately, I do not believe a level of education or care a child receives should be based on an accounting declaration, nor should we as a society aspire to create a two-tiered system where those that can afford to pay get access to some form of high-end silver-plated service, while those relying on a public assistance are only offered a white-label experience. As I said, as someone who was public school educated through the seventies and eighties, I think that is what we have created on other levels of education and we should wind that back and get it right for early education and care. No public school asks you how much your parents work before letting you in the door; rather, it is accepted that no matter where you live or what you live in, or what your parent does, every child in Australia needs and deserves access to an education without having to crunch numbers about their parents' circumstances. But this does represent a major philosophical shift in our approach to early childhood education and care, and some who may have made a lot of money in this space or who just think some people have too much and, therefore, should be paying for it, will be uncomfortable with what I have just said, so I accept it may take time for everyone to convalesce around the idea, even though I think it is brilliant. Having grown up in a regional community and now representing a wonderfully vibrant and diverse community, I believe communities are their strongest when environments that surround our kids expose them to all sorts of people—to those who have and those who do not have. In addition to all of that, however, this bill will bring us further in line with countries like Italy, Sweden, South Korea, Germany and others, who already operate more universal systems for early childhood education and care, and we know their systems work. In Germany, for example, researchers found the expansion of the government's childcare system to children aged one to three significantly improved the socioemotional development of less advantaged children. In the Nordic countries, which have generous and robust early education and care systems, they consistently rank as the best places in the world to raise children. But of course, the bill doesn't fix everything. For one thing, the sector has and is still facing a workforce crisis, losing workers to primary education and other careers due to the fact this work is historically poorly paid and supported. While the recent pay rise legislation is a welcome improvement, we do still need to ensure we are investing in workforce training and development, and improving working conditions on an ongoing basis. As it currently stands, around one in four Australians live in a childcare desert, with services few and far between. This leaves many families completely unable to access care for their children, which adds to their overall struggles. This inequity is stark in some regional areas. In this context, I support the efforts to build early childhood education and care centres, especially in rural and regional areas, and to work with communities and not-for-profits to ensure every town has access to the services its citizens need, regardless of whether there are five, 15 or 500 kids in the area. Finally, although subsidies are important, the out-of-pocket costs for many families, including those in my community of North Sydney, continue to be far too high and often prohibitive. Moving towards a truly universal system with a low out-of-pocket cost for five days of education and care without any form of activity requirement will take some work but it is work that is worth doing. Ultimately, I am only one of literally thousands of voices that have been calling for these changes to early childhood education and care, and I feel for the families that have been struggling to afford these services for years while they waited for the government to act. I was also so drawn to this point of argument because, as a mum of three kids of her own, I really struggled when they were young to get them into the services that they needed. Whether it is here in this place or in the wider community, I will continue to fight for this reform, and, while this is an excellent start, we should go further. In closing, I want to thank everyone who has engaged so passionately with this issue over the past three years. To my community, who know all too well the challenges of high costs, thank you for sharing your stories and for being prepared to advocate for a program that sought to remove barriers for any child or family based on income, location or class. I encourage you to see this as a positive reform, and to ensure that, no matter the way the election goes in 2025, you back the people who are prepared to deliver this. To the participants of the North Sydney Deliberative Democracy Forum on Early Childhood Education and Care, thank you for transforming the community's values into policy recommendations. To the researchers and advocates, thank you for fighting so tirelessly for the reforms. This win is yours. You deserve to bask in it. But, finally, to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, the Minister for Youth and Minister Assisting the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Hon. Dr Anne Aly, thank you for finally bringing this to life. I have no doubt that having a cabinet that finally has equal representation of both men and women has been instrumental in getting this reform done, so please keep up the good work. Thank you.
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
Standing to give a valedictory speech after just three years as the Independent federal member for North Sydney is nothing short of surreal. No-one—well, except maybe Antony...
Standing to give a valedictory speech after just three years as the Independent federal member for North Sydney is nothing short of surreal. No-one—well, except maybe Antony Green—could have predicted this plot twist, especially given that, when as a community we decided to take our voice and our vote back in 2022, we had plans that reached well beyond one parliamentary term. At the time we were deeply dissatisfied with what we saw as a lack of direction or ambition offered by either of the major parties. Regardless of what our MP said to our faces in our electorate, when they came here they would always cast North Sydney's vote the way the party instructed them to. The blue tie/red tie dynamic was too focused on working for itself rather than for us. When we wanted faster action on climate change, we were witnessing prevarication and outright denial. We were literally told we were overreacting and we needed to calm down. Where we expected integrity, transparency and accountability from those in parliament, we were instead offered $10 million in regional sporting grants to fix our iconic—and not-so-regional—North Sydney Olympic Pool. It seemed the expectations for appropriate conduct set by us ordinary folks were too pedestrian, and we were told that if we had a problem with that we could take it up at the next election. Where we wanted to see a society where everyone could reach their full potential regardless of gender, racial, cultural, sexual or religious background, we were offered a government hell-bent on advocating for women only when it was not 'at the expense of anyone else' and who openly castigated those who wanted true equity as 'woke'. So, after 115 years as a safe Liberal seat, we did the unthinkable and turned up en masse to take our parliamentary voice and vote back, rather than simply handing it over yet again to an unresponsive and disrespectful party system. As one of the first seats ever established in Australia, North Sydney has a long history of not just looking out for ourselves but doing what we can to ensure no-one is left behind. While some have decided to describe us as 'woke, latte-sipping, inner-city dwellers', my community has contributed much to our country, from innovation to leadership and economic stimulus. As my community's champion in this place, I've done everything I could to ensure our authentic voice was heard here—not one filtered through a party backroom but one that has been raw, honest and at times controversial. That has taken courage but courage is something North Sydney has in spades, as was evidenced by the way we approached the Voice referendum in 2023. Offering my respects to the traditional custodians of the land that I am speaking on—the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri—as well as to the traditional custodians of the land on which my seat sits—the Cammeraygal and Wallumattagal—isn't something I do because it's politically correct; I do it because I was taught we should respect those who have come before us, honour the legacy they have left us and aspire to learn the lessons they pass to us. In the case of our First Nations people, for many years our country has not listened for what we might learn, instead often choosing to pursue agendas which assume we know better than those who are living the experience firsthand. This attitude has seen what is often described as 'well-intentioned policies' pursued relentlessly, even as those impacted by them have asked us to step back and listen—and we seem determined to carry on in that fashion. I don't say this from some high horse but as someone who has been an active member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and who, in that role, has witnessed some of the most reductive thinking I have seen from people in this place when it comes to recognising and honouring First Nations people's capacity to make decisions for themselves. In 2023, my community's courage, compassion and wisdom to vote for the Voice to Parliament reaffirmed that I was absolutely representing the right people. Ultimately, I believe we must confront our past, embrace the learnings and pursue true reconciliation with the First Peoples of this continent in a way that prioritises fairness and respect. I want to take a step back and share a very personal truth with you—that being that, as my parents will attest, as a child I dreaded the game of musical chairs. It was such an anxiety-provoking experience for me, as I hated the thought of having to race or fight for a chair and I worried how the person who did miss out would be left feeling. Fast forward to today, and I can't help but laugh at the fact that I seem to have found myself once again in a game of musical chairs and no seat is left for me. As my seat in this place is abolished, however, rather than feeling anxious I feel really deep gratitude for the extraordinary experience serving my community has been. From the rapid learning curve through to the sheer volume of information I've had access to, the great minds I've heard speak, the people I've met and the processes I've witnessed, the learnings I take from this place will last me a lifetime. That's because, as an Independent on this House of Representatives crossbench of the 47th parliament, I have been one of just 151 people in this country who have had the opportunity to develop, discuss, debate and decide the laws that govern us, and that is a pretty bloody extraordinary thing to have done. While the boundaries of my electorate have ebbed and flowed over time, with Warringah created in 1922 and Bradfield and Bennelong in 1949, North Sydney has always held its own until the most recent Australian Electoral Commission review of our electoral boundaries. Over 124 years, North Sydney has been a seat of many firsts. In 1900, we were one of the original 75 divisions created that contested the first federal election in 1901. In 1990 we elected Ted Mack, who was the first Independent in the modern era of politics, breaking an 89-year-old hold on the seat by conservative party politicians. In 2015 we elected Trent Zimmerman, the first openly LGBTIQA member in the House of Representatives. In 2021 we were the first new seat to announce our intention to run an Independent in the 2022 election. And in 2022 I became the first woman and only the second Independent to win the seat. In 2025 we're the first Federation seat and the first seat held by an Independent to be abolished and, to be honest, I could have done without those last two firsts. While I think ending as an Independent seat held by a woman is a great way to go out, I do want to acknowledge the members for North Sydney who came before me, all who contributed more than what they took from this place. Moving forward, our community will be absorbed into Warringah, Bradfield and Bennelong. While it is the end of an era, I know the courage, conviction and compassion of the North Sydney community will strengthen those electorates. I've tried not to take a single minute for granted in this place, with people much wiser than me, including the interminable Cathy McGowan sitting up there in the wings, counselling me very early on that I needed to work like I had just one term—and thank goodness I took their advice! Working with my community, my team and others in this place and key stakeholders across society, I've introduced three private member's bills to parliament to drive broader discussion and legislative reform. One was to bring Australia into line with the rest of the world and give people access to cleaner cars. Another was to end indefinite detention and finally make it illegal for the Australian government to hold those fleeing for their lives and seeking our protection for more than 90 days or to detain children. The final one was to apply a human rights framework to housing and homelessness policy and bring consumer voices to the front of that debate. Recognising the power of working across political lines and building consensus and awareness, I've also worked with parliamentary friendship groups, including establishing the Parliamentary Friends of Youth Mental Health and co-chairing the groups for cancer care and a cure, women in work, Amnesty International, the Australian Red Cross and the Hazara community. I've served on three joint parliamentary committees, including: the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, which developed the first ever binding code of conduct for parliamentarians and everyone working in or visiting parliamentary workplaces; the joint standing committee overseeing the workings of the Parliamentary Library, which provides invaluable research and data to everyone in this place, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which not only scrutinises every bill that passes through this parliament for human rights compatibility but has also held inquiries into the potential for a national human rights act and income management in our country and is currently investigating antisemitism in our universities. If you can believe it, I've spoken 143 times and moved 82 amendments to 19 different pieces of legislation. I can see the Leader of the House smiling as I quote those stats as many of them have been done with him. Each of those amendments were designed to improve transparency and accountability, whether that was in climate policy or for small business, to improve economic inclusion or on superannuation reform laws. In total, I have made 238 statements, including questions of government, amendments to legislation and constituency statements. But more important than numbers are the truths they reflect. I was there fighting to legislate 43 per cent emissions reductions as a floor, not a ceiling. I was there fighting for a binding code of conduct for everyone in this place and for better behaviour. I was there fighting for human rights for all. I was there fighting for HECS reform and rebates for young Australians. I was there fighting to lift the single parent payment. I was there fighting for greater protections for small and family businesses. I was there fighting for families to enable access to a home and for fairer childcare fees. I was there fighting for the best and cleanest transport for our kids, and I was there fighting for our environment. Each of these actions fundamentally helped shape the debate in this place and helped create what I hope is a new path towards consensus. As my term in parliament comes to an end, I wanted to share my key take-outs in the hope that they will inspire others to choose optimism over despair. Firstly, there is power in understanding our democracy is the direct result of our individual voting decisions and actions. If we are unhappy with the direction our country is headed in, fixing it is on us. No-one else is going to come and save us. Secondly, winning the seat of North Sydney says everything that needs to be said about exactly what one person can do. The community movement in North Sydney showed that a group of committed people, united behind a common idea, can achieve extraordinary things. Thirdly, though, there is still so much work to do. While the environmental catastrophes of the 2019 and 2020 summer and the appalling treatment of women in this place were enough to drive momentum for change in 2022, the past three years have seen us continue to struggle as a nation, to find our way forward, as some have actively sought to divide and undermine our national character. And, finally, despite progress, we continue to move too slowly—too slowly to embrace the economic opportunities that come with addressing climate change; too slowly to help the most vulnerable, as more and more everyday Australians get left behind while vested interests double-down to protect their margins and the status quo; too slowly to end debates that pit us against one another, whether that is man versus woman, city versus country or those who were born here versus those who have immigrated; and too slowly to change a political dynamic which gets stuck on being so focused on maintaining short-term power that it's incredibly difficult to drive the necessary long-term reform. As a nation, we've faced significant challenges over the course of the last three years, including increasing global conflict, starting with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Iranian regime's crackdown on its citizens, the October 7 attacks in Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza. Every instance has left us shocked as we've witnessed the brutality that people have levelled against one another, with far too many innocents caught in the crossfire. Meanwhile, democracies have been under siege globally as far-right movements sweep through previously progressive societies. Here at home, the campaign around the Voice referendum unveiled a schism in our society that stunned many, while more recently the rise in all forms of racism, particularly antisemitism, has created a sense that hate is boiling over. This is further reflected in the abhorrent increase in the rate of violence against women across our community. Economically, many have been left feeling like they just can't get ahead, as wages have struggled to catch up with inflation, and young Australians are being left behind in the race for homeownership and long-term financial equity, drowning under levels of educational debt not previously seen in this country. Underlying it all is the increasing frequency and severity of climate disasters that see our emergency services fighting fires in one place while responding to catastrophic floods in another, with the knock-on effects driving a cost-of-living crisis. In my electorate, these issues have translated to a significant loss of green space, as open land is sacrificed to infrastructure and greedy owners seek to increase their property value by killing trees along our foreshore, while a housing crisis has pushed essential workers and young people out of our community. It has also created challenges to our social cohesion, with various members of our community feeling increasingly unsafe, whilst worrying rates of youth mental health distress, unprecedented numbers of women and children seeking refuge from domestic abuse and more and more pensioners living in our community struggling to stay in their homes are leaving us with more people living in vulnerable situations than we've ever seen. In contemplating everything I've just outlined then, I can't help but feel that we must ask ourselves: what is it that we believe in today, and what are we prepared to do to fight for those beliefs? As Robert Menzies, the father of the modern day Liberal movement himself, once said: 'It happened because we had something to believe in, not just something to oppose.' So while many of my experiences in the last three years would suggest our current political frame has sunk to a place where opposition for opposition's sake is all that matters, I have hope—hope that is driven by an understanding that any government derives its power and authority from the people. In this way, democracy is not reserved or an entitlement for certain parties, groups or individuals. Rather, political equality amongst all of us means no single person's vote is any more important than another's, and that truth is not only important but must be protected. A healthy democracy requires public awareness of personal responsibility, understanding of democratic processes and, I believe, active participation. I've seen the power of that level of participation not only through our day-to-day work in our electorate but during the deliberative democracy forums I've hosted on topics as contentious as housing availability and supply, access to early childhood education and care and support for small businesses. As my independent predecessor Ted Mack said: … government should be open to public scrutiny … elected representatives should enable people to not only participate in all decisions … but ultimately find ways to have people make decisions for themselves … a decision taken by the public as a whole will be right more often than decisions taken by an elite group … But currently our parliament operates on the basis that, 'Because I have the numbers I am right and you are wrong,' and that is holding us back. The alternative is a democracy where independents bring authentic community representation to this place and force conversations that are focused on building consensus across the chamber to move us forward on tax reform, forward on economic development, forward on renewable energy, forward on nature protection, forward on gender equity and forward on human rights. In 2022, communities like North Sydney disrupted the system. As more and more communities announce their intention to run their own independents in 2025 I am truly hopeful that courageous and ambitious thinking and debate will be brought back into this place. Community independents run because their community asks them to and because they believe our democracy will be stronger if their community has a genuine voice which is heard during the political debate. On the other hand, communities send independents because they want their parliamentary voices to be heard for their individuality in this place, not because they think they have all the answers or they think they have a greater right to be heard but because they believe that by sharing their collective experiences, opinions and ambitions they will add value to the national discourse. Unfortunately, they know that at the moment neither of the major parties are providing that level of discourse for them. They want to see a parliament that is diverse, vibrant, resilient, responsible, responsive and optimistic—a place where people listen as often as they speak and are prepared to work together to help move our nation forward. When I made my first speech in this place I talked about four values I believed had led me here and would guide me in my time as member for North Sydney. They were community, curiosity, compassion and courage, and they have indeed been the foundations of everything I have done. During the election of 2022 the traditional two-party system touted the rise of community independents as a risk to stability and predictability, and we're hearing those same threats thrown around today. They argue that without party domination our parliament would descend into chaos. We've proven them wrong during this term. Rather than chaos, I believe people like me have brought a level of debate and consideration to this parliament that has not been seen since the earliest days our democracy, and that is a good thing. This parliament should serve the people, not the politics. Yet for this to happen, people must continue to stand up, turn up and speak up. As I leave this place I do so with a very deep sense of optimism that through greater community representation in parliament we can develop a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian: to recognise and respect everybody's fundamental human rights; to get comfortable with the conversation around racism so we can recognise it, name it and act on it; to achieve true gender equity, with our expectations of appropriate behaviour and integrity modelled from the top down; and to, as a nation, fully embrace the huge economic potential that comes with no longer shying away from the challenges presented by climate change. But this will take true leadership that inspires and encourages us all to push for something better. That will need to come from a place that is grounded in compassion and courage, and to me that sounds a lot like the community independent movement has more to offer. Extraordinary things can be achieved when we take the time to truly listen to each other, and that must be the ambition for this process and this place. It cannot just be about power and control. Doing politics differently is incredibly tough. It's isolating, sometimes overwhelming, and it requires coverage, conviction and support. In closing I want to thank the thousands of people who have helped me in this experience, and I have to preface it by saying I haven't named names, for fear of missing somebody out. To my community, to the board of Kylea Tink Independent Ltd, to the incredible volunteers, to the people who take the time to speak with me, to the advocates who turn up and reach out to me time after time, to my donors and supporters and to my friends and the wider community independent movement, thank you for seeing what you did in me. To those in parliament, the people who keep it working—the clerks, the security team, the cleaners, the gardeners, the stewards, the hosts around this house—your smiles have made every one of my days in this place better. Thank you. To my peers, colleagues in both the House of Reps and the Senate, while we've not always agreed, I've always valued the opportunity to listen to the arguments you have made and have respected the fact that progress is only possible through the open and honest exchange of ideas. Thank you for continuing to fight for what you believe in. To the political leadership, especially the Speaker of the House, Milton Dick, thank you for your patience, humour and guidance. This is a crazy environment, and I'm so appreciative you were willing to help me try to make sense of it. And to the ministers in this government, thank you for being prepared to listen to my arguments and to have those conversations. I have truly enjoyed that interaction with you, and I believe you are 100 per cent committed to making this place a better place. I also want to thank the Leader of the House and the opposition's business manager. You've taught me things and I still don't think I've learnt everything, but I'm very prepared and looking forward to watching my crossbench colleagues continue to challenge you. To my team, thank you for holding the line, for turning up in a way that has prioritised listening to our community, working incredibly hard to digest and critique every piece of legislation that has been presented to us and for always having my back. My trusted advisors—you know who you are. You are the people who when you say no I hate it, but I listen. And when you say go, I ask you how far you need me to move. Thank you for pushing me. My family, my mum and dad—I am so grateful you have been there every moment. Thank you for wanting to protect me when I've been under attack and for reminding me that this is just another chapter in my life, not my entire story. To my brothers and sister, thank you for getting interested in politics and, again, for being there to shield and support me when vitriol was being hurled my way. To my kids, you are my world. Back in 2021, I only said yes to running because I wanted to be able to honestly say to you that I had done everything I could to leave this place better and to leave it as something you deserve. I'm actually really sorry this experience has been so disruptive for our family, but we did it together—and I think Uber has been very grateful that I've spent three years here. And for a family like ours to do something like this together, well, that's pretty bloody incredible. To my current crossbench colleagues, you are such an extraordinary group of human beings. You are articulate, you are intelligent, you are courageous and it has been an absolute privilege to get to know each of you. To leave calling you friends is a true blessing. You've got this next election. Our country needs you, so please hold the line. And, finally, to those community independents who will run in the upcoming election, including Nicolette Boele in Bradfield, if you remember nothing else, remember this: first they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you and then you will win. Go get 'em tigers! Thank you.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
As I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024, I can't help but be struck by the thought that, yet again, here is another Frankensteinian monster of a...
As I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024, I can't help but be struck by the thought that, yet again, here is another Frankensteinian monster of a bill, one that combines changes to the way fuel-efficient vehicles are treated under the luxury car tax system, provisions that would make the penalties attached to general interest charges and shortfall interest charges non-tax-deductible, an extension of the ATO's notification period for retaining funds from 14 to 30 days and, finally, the long-promised extension of the instant asset write-off for small businesses, which is being moved as an amendment to this bill by the government. Again, there's no logic in this legislation. It couples some pretty ordinary reforms in a way that makes it hard to vote against them, as the overall potential upside probably outweighs the potential downside. But it's still ugly. Let me explain. If we start at the beginning, in principle, the changes to the luxury car tax are welcome, not the least because these are way overdue. Yet, the changes to the tax deductibility of the ATO penalties are problematic, as they're likely to be yet another measure that will disproportionately affect small businesses who are already struggling. Rather, the reform offered here does nothing to meaningfully assist small businesses to reduce their debts, but it will impact their cash flow. The ATO time extension is probably neither here nor there, although it does seem to prioritise the needs of an agency over all others, while the extension of the instant asset write-off is quite simply something that can't come soon enough and, potentially, hasn't gone far enough in this iteration. In this scenario, the question I have to answer as the member for North Sydney is, 'Which side of the median line does the needle finally land on?' Speaking firstly to the reform of the luxury car tax, schedule 1 of this bill redefines fuel-efficient vehicles as those with fuel consumption not exceeding 3½ litres per 100 kilometres, which is down from seven litres per 100 kilometres and aligns the indexation rates that apply to the fuel-efficient and other luxury car tax thresholds. While these changes are sensible, they're actually long overdue and not nearly ambitious enough to, in the Assistant Treasurer's words, 'foster a cleaner and more sustainable future'. The introduction of the luxury car tax followed hot on the heels of the GST, and was eventually designed to try to encourage people to consider local cars over high-end imports and opt for the most fuel-efficient models. To encourage the latter, the tax is based on two thresholds in the 2024 financial year: a higher threshold of $91,387 for fuel-efficient vehicles, which are currently defined as vehicles with fuel consumption not exceeding seven litres per 100 kilometres, and a lower threshold of $80,567 for all other vehicles. What this means is that businesses and individuals that sell or import a car pay 33 per cent of the value of the car that exceeds the relevant threshold of the luxury car tax. However, this tax is now largely out of date and no longer incentivises the purchase of the most efficient vehicles possible. The introduction of the vehicle efficiency standards this year means car manufacturers are finally prioritising the importation of the most efficient vehicles they have in their line. Given this, the current definition allows many models that actually aren't the most efficient vehicles on the market at the moment to take advantage of the tax break. It is time we close this loophole, in my opinion. Additionally, different indexing arrangements for the two thresholds have eroded the price advantage of the so-called fuel-efficient vehicles. These changes are sensible, but the government could have gone further if they were truly committed to driving change. The first thing they could have done was to change the definition of fuel-efficient vehicles under the luxury car tax to 'zero emissions vehicles' rather than the proposed definition of '3½ litres per 100 kilometres'. While that would have been bold, it's a change that would have ensured only the most fuel-efficient models—that is, those without an internal combustion engine—would benefit from the higher concessional threshold. This would have also made the luxury car tax consistent with other federal legislation designed to encourage the uptake of more efficient vehicles, such as the fringe benefit tax exemption—which as of April of this year is available only to zero emissions vehicles. In making this suggestion, though, I recognise that people living in regional and rural areas often have no choice but to purchase fossil-fuelled or hybrid vehicles, and I would not want to see them disadvantaged by legislative reform. Having grown up in north-west New South Wales in the town of Coonabarabran, I'm incredibly aware that the charging infrastructure for zero emissions vehicles is just not up to scratch in regional areas. So, while being supportive of the introduction of targeted policies to increase clean vehicle uptake, I would argue we need targeted assistance to ensure the transition is equitable and that regional and rural Australians aren't left behind. The second way to amend the luxury car tax would be to remove the broad exemption for all utility vehicles. As it currently stands, this exemption is offered regardless of the reasons these vehicles are being purchased. Commercial vehicles are defined by the ATO as 'those designed for the principal purpose of carrying goods used for business or trade' and they are not subject to luxury car tax. Yet there's no requirement for someone who either owns or is choosing to buy one of these vehicles to demonstrate that the car is being purchased or used primarily for commercial purposes. Rather, the accepted test to determine the principal purpose of a utility vehicle rests on whether the passenger-carrying capacity is less than 50 per cent of the load-carrying capacity. According to the Australia Institute, this definition meant that every dual-cab ute on the market in 2024 was exempt from the luxury car tax. With the number of light commercial vehicle sales well outweighing the number of people who are registered as tradespeople nationwide, it's clear that not all purchases are for commercial reasons. While I doubt that what I'm about to say is going to make me popular, I would argue that this loophole should be closed or replaced with a narrower definition of a commercial vehicle. There are simply far too many of these cars on the road in my electorate of North Sydney. I stress that this is something the Labor government should care deeply about as, under their watch, emissions have flatlined. To June 2024, emissions decreased by a measly 0.7 per cent compared to the previous year. And while emissions reductions were recorded in the stationary energy, agriculture, electricity and industrial process sectors, transport emissions continue to increase. All the modelling supports the supposition that this is due in no small part to the trend towards the purchasing of SUVs, light commercial vehicles and heavy vehicles, which is something that our current tax system encourages. If the government want to get serious about emissions reduction in our transport sector, they need to push for bolder reforms to decarbonise transport. Fixing an inefficient tax that encourages the use of heavier, higher-emitting vehicles for personal use is, I would suggest, a good place to start. Ultimately, the changes contained in this bill are pretty pedestrian in their ambition, with similar changes originally proposed as far back as 2019 by Independent senator Tim Storer when he was chair of the Senate select committee on EVs, and members of this crossbench have continued to advocate for them during this term. An ambitious transport agender would have included: removing the luxury car tax ute loophole; reforming the heavy vehicle road user charge or the fuel tax credit system; shifting to an equitable, transparent user-pays road charge system; or encouraging active transport through tax deductible ride-to-work allowances for employees. Yet none of these things are currently being pursued by this government. Instead, the changes being proposed here should and could have been made years ago, so it's a bit hard to get too excited by them. Turning to schedule 2 of the bill, these changes will remove the ability of taxpayers to claim the general interest charge, also known as the GIC, and the shortfall interest charge, known as the SIC, as tax deductions. While this proposal may seem innocuous, I have real concerns about the impacts these changes will have, particularly on small, family-run businesses in Australia. Without transitional or accompanying safeguards, this measure risks being the straw that breaks the camel's back, and I ask the government to think very carefully before they make yet another bureaucratic change without fully thinking through the impact on the end user. In context, the ATO imposes these penalties either on taxpayers who have not paid their taxes on time or where a tax liability has been incorrectly self-assessed, resulting in a shortfall of tax paid. At the moment, if incurred, both the penalties are tax deductible, and some businesses and individuals may actually choose to cop them. Having spoken to people likely to be affected by this change, I know they don't do that lightly but often have no choice as they are struggling with cash flow. In making these changes, the government argues that penalties for noncompliance should not be tax deductible, and on the surface that seems reasonable. But the reality is far more complex, and whether it is intended to or not, this measure will disproportionally impact small, family-run businesses, who currently owe about two-thirds of the collectible tax debt. As I think everyone in this place knows, these people are already struggling. Recent research from the Commonwealth Bank found that more than half of the small- to medium-size businesses in Australia are feeling the stress of navigating the cost-of-living crisis, with one in two business owners reporting feeling stress owing to financial pressure. As the member for the third-largest business sector in the country, I hear about their stress every day. Small businesses tell me about the unhelpful and often stressful interactions they have with the ATO or external debt collection agencies. I can't help but feel that, while this change might seem like nothing much to the government, it sends yet another message to small and medium businesses that this government does not understand what they are facing or how they operate. Increasing the cost of tax debt will not help these businesses self-assess their tax liability more effectively. Rather, it risks accelerating the accumulation of tax liabilities on small businesses to unsustainable levels, forcing them to increase their reliance on accountants and financial advisers, which in turn drives up the cost of operating their businesses. While I acknowledge the tax commissioner will retain the discretion to remit the interest charges where they consider it is fair and reasonable to do so—say, in the instance of financial distress, as I've outlined—I don't think that offers adequate protections, particularly in the current uncertain economic environment. To rely entirely on a commissioner's discretion is to leave many Australian families and businesses at the whim of one decision. With all of that said, I would encourage the government to delay this measure and instead work with the small business community to find a solution that ultimately reduces outstanding debt without accelerating current debts to unsustainable levels. For instance, rather than penalising generally compliant small businesses by denying them a deduction for GIC or SIC, the government could choose to invest more in an organisation such as the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, who in turn could deliver better education and other services to help family-run businesses correctly self-assess their income tax liability. The government could choose a carrot rather than a stick. At the same time, the ATO could implement targeted debt collection measures that focus on high-debt accounts. Sensible recommendations have been made by submitters to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into this bill, and they do warrant further consideration by the government. They include clarifying whether the proposal applies to amended assessments issued on or after 1 July 2025 that are referrable to income years beginning prior to 1 July 2025. As many of us know, many people run their tax accumulation 12 months behind. This would create a more level playing field for over- and underpayment of tax and encourage the accuracy and accountability of the ATO, excluding disputed debts subject to a fifty-fifty arrangement made before the announcement of this measure and at the very least retaining the deductibility of the SIC. Finally, I want to turn to the government amendment that we expect to see as this bill progresses through the House. It's an amendment that would finally legislate an extension of the instant asset write-off for small businesses through to 30 June 2025. While I will certainly be supporting this amendment, the deferral of this measure, including the fact that it was removed from a bill which passed at the end of last year, has left small businesses in an uncertain position yet again. As the CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, Luke Achterstraat, has said, many will feel like this is groundhog day—a painful reminder of the last financial year, when the legislation was only passed a matter of days before the window for applications was due to expire. Ultimately, this government continues to seem to fail to understand that, for this measure to work and be effective for small businesses, they need certainty. It needs to be legislated, not just announced. The fact that the government does not seem to get this point just shows how out of touch they really are with how small businesses operate. I reiterate my previous calls for a permanent, ongoing instant asset tax write-off for small and family businesses with an increased threshold to at least $30,000. For this reason, I will be supporting the member for Warringah's amendment to that effect. There seems to be no absence of voices in this place for big business. As such, I would suggest many of them currently enjoy favourable operating environments. But if this government genuinely wants small businesses to thrive, making the instant asset write-off permanent and lifting the threshold would be a good place to start. Generally speaking, I would encourage them to stop talking and start listening to this sector so we can get reform that makes it possible to have a successful small-business environment in this country.
Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I confess that, as a member of the 47th Parliament, I can't help but feel the incredible weight that comes with debating what is quite an extraordinary piece of legislation in our nation's...
I confess that, as a member of the 47th Parliament, I can't help but feel the incredible weight that comes with debating what is quite an extraordinary piece of legislation in our nation's history. That our society has reached a point where we must put in place laws to protect individuals and groups from hate speech is a very sad indictment on the direction in which we are headed. Yet here we are. As the person the community of North Sydney sent to parliament to represent them during this term, I ask you to hear me when I say the people who surround me in my community every day share a common belief that all of us have the right to feel safe, to be treated with respect and to participate in our society without fear of vilification and discrimination based on our individual characteristics. If realising that ambition means we need to move laws like this, then we will support that legislation wholeheartedly. At the end of the day, however, we will also ensure our day-to-day actions are driven by common values that are not just practised to ensure we stay within the boundaries of the law but are practically lived on a daily basis to ensure everyone feels included. We will also continue to work to bring those that are currently outliers to this ambition back into line, even as we are called 'woke'. Much to all our shame, there are people currently living in Australia who are subject to hate speech and vilification. To quote the Human Rights Law Centre: Far right hate and extremism is on the rise. Women wearing the hijab have been assaulted by men in the street, while men wearing the kippah have been met with the white power salute. We have seen rallies held against trans rights, and neo-nazis intimidating refugee activists. This cannot continue. Most recently it has been heartbreaking to see so many disgusting instances of blatant antisemitism targeting Jewish businesses, individuals and places of worship. These acts are abhorrent, and there is absolutely no place for them in this country. In this context then, it's clear we need stronger measures to prevent and address hate crimes in Australia. While I can wish that it had not been necessary, I believe this legislation will certainly play a valuable role in our overall response to this challenge. But, as we've heard from human rights organisations and community groups, it cannot be our only response. In addition to the changes to hate speech laws in the bill before us, there is also a clear need for measures that not only address actual violence but ultimately stop vilification of groups before it even begins. There's also a clear need for a long-term national antiracism framework in Australia, including a national hate crimes database and greater funding for the prevention of extremism, because, ultimately, if we can't name it and track it, we will never be able to adequately understand where it comes from or what is driving it. Informing all of these responses is a need for a national human rights framework that ensures hate speech and discrimination laws and policies are grounded in a common, irrefutable and legislated understanding of minimum human rights for all. The bill before us broadens the offences for urging violence against either members of specific groups or entire groups themselves to include groups distinguished by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. It would also broaden this offence to capture recklessness, rather than just intent, and remove the availability of the good faith defence. The bill does this by creating a new offence for directly threatening force or violence towards a group or a group member. Finally the bill would expand the existing offences against the public display of Nazi or terrorist symbols used to humiliate or intimidate a group to include groups distinguished by sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of these measures have been advocated for by a broad cross-section of our society for a very long time, including advocates for the LGBTQIA+ community and, more recently, the Jewish community. I thank the government for finally heeding that advocacy and bringing this reform into law. At the same time, I'm concerned the bill doesn't do enough to adequately address the threats faced by a multitude of communities. Particular concern has been raised around the absence of an offence that specifically targets serious vilification of protected groups. As one North Sydney resident expressed to me: 'the current bill won't protect me, or other LGBTQIA+ people, against serious vilification—the promotion of hatred that can be the spark which leads to violence will not be stopped. We need stronger, broader protections that operate nationally to protect all of us, including other communities impacted by prejudice-motivated speech and violence.' In this context, I will be supporting the amendments to be moved by the member for Wentworth that would create a new criminal offence for public acts performed with the intention and likely outcome of promoting hatred towards a targeted person or group. Her amendment would close a current potential loophole where a person hasn't explicitly urged violence but is nonetheless engaging in serious vilification. I recognise this as potentially quite an extraordinary inclusion in a piece of legislation. I think we're living in extraordinary times, in which extraordinary actions are required. The amendment moved by the member for Wentworth has been advocated for strongly by Equality Australia and supported in principle by the Human Rights Commission. In considering all of these approaches to tackling hatred and discrimination, however, I share the caution of many human rights groups that legislation targeting hate crimes must be carefully calibrated to ensure we avoid over-policing and/or inadvertently capturing the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. In the case of this legislation, we have heard criticism from certain groups that the legislation doesn't take enough care in weighing up competing human rights. For instance, the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I'm a member, noted that it is currently unclear whether this bill's limitations on the rights to freedom of expression, religion and nondiscrimination would be proportionate in all circumstances. The committee further highlights the risk that in practice these offences could capture a range of conduct, the prohibition of which could constitute an unjustifiable limit on the rights to freedom of expression. These concerns extend to the removal of the good-faith defence, which would eliminate any legal recourse for individuals who fall foul of this law. The Australian Human Rights Commission questions whether expressive speech during unpopular or divisive public protest could be viewed as incitement against protected groups. If so, legislation such as the disproportionally impact groups that engage in protest to have their voices heard, such as First Nations people. Given this concern, while I ultimately support this bill, I also believe it is imperative that we are able to answer these questions, as they are reflective of a recurring we have in Australian lawmaking as we struggle to weigh up freedom of expression against the right to safety, freedom from discrimination and other rights. While I acknowledge much of what is included here in the member for Wentworth's amendment is already in practice in WA, I would assert that applying this thinking from the federal level down warrants a degree of certainty for those whose primary concern is the protection of free speech. Ultimately, I also can't help but take this opportunity to again assert that many of the concerns that have prompted the introduction of this legislation today would have been avoided if we had a federal human rights act. As one of the only developed nations in the world not to have a human rights act, we continue to be hamstrung by a piecemeal system that relies on applying bandaids to close gaps rather than being guided by a well-articulated framework that recognises our responsibilities and duties towards other people and our community as a whole. Ultimately, individuals bear the responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with due regard for the rights of others. For example, exercising freedom of speech should never infringe on somebody else's rights to privacy, nor should it infringe on their right to safety. Recognising and respecting fundamental human rights are a part of the context of people living together in societies. As part of this, there must be legal, social and international order for human rights to be realised effectively. As the Law Council of Australia notes in their submission: … articulating … limitations on multiple rights could be navigated in a more coherent way through a federal Human Rights Act and Human Rights Framework. In the absence of a Human Rights Act … assessments for Bills … are being conducted in a legislative vacuum. Another challenge we face is the lack of coherent national approach to tackling racism in Australia. Again, as the member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights I have recently had the privilege of being involved in public hearings looking at the prevalence and experience of antisemitism in our universities. This has involved listening directly to students as they've shared their experience of the rise in antisemitic sentiment on campuses and the fear and abuse they have experienced. In these hearings the committee has heard from many groups that there is an urgent need to address racism and religious discrimination more broadly in Australia. The number of Australians reporting a negative attitude towards Jewish people rose by four per cent in the past year, and this is truly shocking. But further to that, negative attitudes towards Muslims have risen by seven per cent, leading the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute to report: … while attitudes to Australia's Muslim and Jewish communities is a particular area of concern, relations towards and across all faiths appear to be under pressure. We've also heard from the Australian Human Rights Commission's interim report on racism at Australian universities that Jewish students and staff cited a rise in antisemitism, including extremist propaganda and intimidation. At the same time First Nations students have reported enduring structural and interpersonal racism whilst Arab and African students reported frequently encountering severe racism, and Muslim students and staff described hostility, threats and discriminatory practices. Where are we going? This message does not diminish the need to specifically call and address antisemitism, and nor should it, but it does add a sobering dynamic that makes it clear we need to tackle all forms of discrimination, racism and radicalisation in Australia. Ultimately the messages from the experts are clear: we need a holistic national approach to these challenges that tackles them from the ground up. In this vein the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia called on the government to provide additional specific long-term funding for a national antiracism framework. A federal framework like this would allow us to look beyond one-off projects and reactive legislation and provide monitoring, evaluation and strategic planning to tackle racism. A key part of this framework needs to be the establishment of a national hate crimes database, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Currently, state and federal police, and by consequence policymakers in the wider community, don't have a shared resource to track and monitor hate crimes across the country. Australia is one of the few countries without a national database, with the USA, Canada and the UK all collecting hate motivated crime data. Without a complete understanding of these crimes and their prevalence, our attempts to address them are in danger of being misinformed and misdirected and fundamentally informed by poor media commentary rather than the facts. The National Cabinet's recent announcement of a national antisemitism database is an important first step, but I do encourage the government to consider the expansion of this program to capture all hate crimes. Finally, it's apparent that even though this bill's measures to address hate symbols and incitements to violence are important, we need systems of early intervention to prevent radicalisation and extremism before they even take seed. Criminalisation is one lever we can use to address extremist views and behaviours, but it shouldn't be either the only one or, in my own personal opinion, the primary one. It's not enough to put out fires; we need to stop them from ever being lit. One proposal is the national delivery of community based prevention and rehabilitation programs. These programs could identify at-risk or radicalised individuals and provide them with an off-ramp from extremism. Again, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils suggests schools are critical for educating and inoculating our young people from racism, yet where are the resources for them? Students need to be educated on racism and its harms, as well as diversity as a positive feature of Australian life. In closing, I've not met a single person in my community who does not believe that all Australians deserve to live in a country where they don't have to fear discrimination, hatred or violence because of their identity, and who is not shocked by the direction our country seems to have been sliding towards over the course of the three years since this parliament first sat. But for us to realise that ambition, we're going to need to go further than penalties for hate crimes. We need a long-term national antiracism framework informed by robust debates and supported regardless of which side of politics you stand on. We need early interventions to prevent the spread of racism and the invoking of extremism, and we need a federal human rights framework to allow for a coherent approach to fairly balance competing rights and freedoms. My community welcomes this bill, but it needs to be the beginning of a much larger movement to create an Australia that lives up to its values of tolerance, equality and respect for all.
Life Insurance | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. You announced 6½ weeks ago that the government was committed to legislating a total ban on the use of predictive genetic tests when Australians are...
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. You announced 6½ weeks ago that the government was committed to legislating a total ban on the use of predictive genetic tests when Australians are attempting to access life insurance products. Despite this promise, genetic discrimination legislation has not been introduced. Assistant Treasurer, when will the genetic discrimination legislation be introduced and what is causing the delay?
Infrastructure | Statements by Members | House debates
Stories of builds that run over budget and over time are plentiful, but the saga of the North Sydney Olympic Pool is a cracker. Last week, residents across North Sydney were dismayed when our...
Stories of builds that run over budget and over time are plentiful, but the saga of the North Sydney Olympic Pool is a cracker. Last week, residents across North Sydney were dismayed when our local council flagged that they may need to raise rates because of the bungling of what was meant to be the refit of the change rooms at our iconic pool. Back in 2020, the then North Sydney Council embarked on a project without final designs or proper costings. Then, in a brazen pre-election grab for votes, they were waylaid by a coalition government pledge of $10 million for the project. Four years on, the pool is still closed. Understandably, news of a possible rate hike has many worried, with one person recently asking me why she should pay for the previous council's gross mismanagement. All of us in this place must learn from runaway infrastructure projects like this and challenge pork-barrelling that runs rampant in the lead-up to elections, because pre-election promises can derail normal governance and sideline community interests. While our current mayor, Zoe Baker, is doing everything she can to rectify the issue, the challenge is significant. Just in the past week the member for Indi reintroduced the Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024, a private member's bill designed to stop this egregious and cynical behaviour. While they're too late for North Sydney, her proposed reforms would safeguard other electorates. I urge the government to bring on the member's bill for debate as a member of urgency.
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Australia urgently needs to reduce emissions and transition to a zero carbon economy. My community of North Sydney have long realised that the net zero transition is not just an obligation but an...
Australia urgently needs to reduce emissions and transition to a zero carbon economy. My community of North Sydney have long realised that the net zero transition is not just an obligation but an opportunity to revitalise Australian industry, increase productivity and meaningfully improve the quality of life for all Australians. In that context, my community largely welcomes the Future Made in Australia policy package to attract invest investment in low-carbon technologies and projects in Australia and leverage the financial and industrial opportunities that arise from the global transition to net zero. The Guarantee of Origin scheme will underpin the Future Made in Australia package by establishing a critical carbon accounting framework on products made under the package. Specifically, the scheme will function as an internationally aligned, voluntary certification program for low-emissions products and renewable electricity. Certification will initially focus on renewable electricity—through the creation of renewable energy guarantee of origin certificates, or REGO certificates—and hydrogen and associated products through the product guarantee of origin certificates. There will be potential for a phased expansion to low-carbon liquid fuels and green metals. There's a real need for this. Within the Australian economy there is a lack of trusted, consistent information about low-emission Australian made products and no enduring mechanism to certify renewable electricity. I welcome the government's efforts to provide a legislative framework for a voluntary scheme to certify products such as hydrogen and renewable electricity. However, we must exercise a large degree of caution when implementing such a scheme. Product guarantee of origin certificates can be likened to a nutrition label that accumulates information, as the product moves through each stage of production, and signals healthier food choices to customers. In this case, these new certificates will indicate lower emissions products. As with all ticks of approval that purport to certify a product, they run the risk of misrepresenting these products. We all remember the Heart Foundation's healthy heart tick which, while intended to help consumers make healthier choices when buying food, drew considerable criticism after ticks were awarded to McDonald's burgers and nuggets. Furthermore, food manufacturers had to pay a fee to get the heart tick on their products, leading to products that were just as healthy, if not healthier, being overlooked by consumers simply because the manufacturer did not apply and pay for the heart tick. When it comes to certifying environmental credentials, a poorly devised scheme risks greenwashing products by providing a government tick of approval that consumers assume they can trust. The government's own Climate Active carbon neutral scheme has been criticised for lacking credibility and integrity in climate neutrality claims, with the climate neutral certification being awarded to Ampol, for carbon-neutral petrol, amongst others. Other international certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil have also faced their share of criticisms. The lessons from these certification schemes are clear: we need to exercise caution when providing a stamp of credibility. A poorly designed scheme risks being used to greenwash products, undermining the intended benefits of certification, and ultimately to support the fossil fuel industry. On the other hand, a well-designed Guarantee of Origin system could play a pivotal role in supporting the production and use of low-emissions products. It could allow manufacturers to make objective and credible claims regarding the emissions associated with their products and encourage more informed investments, spurring growth of market forces focused on cleaner energy and low-carbon products. It could boost Australia's competitiveness in emerging export sectors, such as clean energy and sustainable metals and fuels, while accelerating the global transmission to net zero emissions. It could provide voluntary participants with significant advantages, including access to policy opportunities and funding support, such as the hydrogen production tax incentives, and reduced trade barriers through alignment with international market standards. This is particularly important as other economies bring in carbon pricing, making it increasingly likely that goods imported from countries, including Australia, with a lower carbon price or no carbon price will face new levies. Global markets such as the European Union are implementing policies like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, increasing demand for certified renewable electricity, hydrogen and other low-emissions products. Australia will need a reliable, transparent and trustworthy certification system to ensure our Aussie-made products meet these emerging global standards. Clearly, it's critical we get this right. The enabling legislation creates two types of certificates: a product guarantee of origin certificate to record attributes of products including their emissions, and, as I said before, a renewable energy guarantee of origin certificate, or the REGO, a new form of personal property which can be traded, retired and used to support claims about the use of renewable electricity, largely replacing the Renewable Energy Target scheme from 2030. The bill also empowers the minister to make rules and administer the scheme, establishes the Clean Energy Regulator as the administrator and regulator of the scheme and provides the Clean Energy Regulator with associated mandates and powers. Beyond this, however, much of the detail for the Guarantee of Origin scheme for different products will be set out in subordinate legislation, including rules made for the administration of the scheme and the methodology determinations. While it's appropriate that highly technical elements be housed in subordinate legislation, it's difficult to properly scrutinise the scheme given so much detail is left to later codes and regulations. This was explicitly noted by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which stated: A number of provisions in the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024 (the main bill) seek to allow for the rules, made for the purpose of the main bill, to determine or provide various matters that are relevant to the Guarantee of Origin scheme that the bill seeks to establish. The committee went on to say: Where a bill includes matters in delegated legislation, the committee expects the explanatory memorandum to the bill to address why it is appropriate to include the relevant matters in delegated legislation… Yet in this instance the explanatory memorandum does not provide a justification for why this is appropriate for inclusion in delegated legislation rather than in the primary legislation. Many stakeholders who contributed to the inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024 and related bills submitted that it was essential there is a genuine consultation and opportunity for feedback on design features, noting that the detailed methodology underpinning the scheme should be released and consulted on properly. I agree with many of the submitters to the bill's inquiry who called for the timely passage of the legislation for the renewable electricity and product guarantee certification, balanced with proper scrutiny and consultation. It's important that the rules and methodologies underpinning the scheme are prioritised and finalised in a timely manner to ensure the scheme can commence as soon as possible. But it is equally important that they are available for proper public consultation so that industry and other stakeholders can provide feedback on the scheme's detailed operational elements. To the product guarantee of origin certificate specifically: these certificates will track and verify the carbon intensity and other key attributes of products throughout the product's entire life cycle. This will include information on emissions associated with the supply of raw materials, production, storage and transport to the point of consumption or international departure. However, currently the legislation makes no mention of offsets or Australian carbon credit units. While the consistent position of the government has been to exclude offsets from the calculation of the embedded emissions of a product, under the GO scheme their use is not explicitly excluded in the legislation. A number of experts, including the Australian National University's Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, have recommended including an explicit statement in the primary legislation that offsets cannot and will not be allowed to be used to lower product-embedded emissions in the PGO. They have warned that enabling offsets in the Guarantee of Origin scheme would compromise the scheme's integrity, facilitate greenwashing and potentially undermine the interoperability with international schemes and markets. While I don't believe it's the government's intention to allow offsets to be used for this purpose, I do believe the exclusion of offsets should be made explicit in the primary legislation to guard against potential future backsliding on this really important design feature. I thank the assistant minister for his constructive engagement on this issue and welcome the government's amendments to this effect. It's particularly pertinent given the history of this scheme. Consideration of a hydrogen certification scheme first emerged as a key government action under the National Hydrogen Strategy under the last government in 2019. Back then much of the talk was around clean hydrogen, a misleading term that grouped green hydrogen, which is produced using electrolysis and zero-emissions electricity and does not create greenhouse gas emissions, with hydrogen, which used fossil fuel stocks—these do cause emissions—combined with unproven and unsuccessful carbon capture and storage. The coalition has recently reiterated this in the coalition senators' dissenting report to the inquiry into this bill. There they stated that the Guarantee of Origin scheme's original intent under the then coalition government was to: … cover a variety of ways in which clean hydrogen could be produced, including from renewable sources and from methods using gas or coal with substantial carbon capture and storage. It's not unreasonable then to assume that a future coalition government might seek to use this scheme to facilitate greenwashing-polluting industries. I now want to turn to the renewable energy Guarantee of Origin certificates. These REGO certificates will certify that the electricity linked to them is verified as renewable. They will be tradable, will enable the holder to claim the benefits of renewable electricity use and will offer detailed information about the generation and delivery of electricity, including the facility age, fuel source, time of generation and facility location. They are intended to operate alongside the existing large-scale generation certificates under the current renewable energy target until this system is phased out in 2030, after which they will function as the primary certification method for green electricity. This is widely welcomed. The renewable energy target has successfully accelerated investment in new renewable supply, but continued investment in renewable generation is needed post-2023 in order to reach net zero. Continuity of a renewable energy certification scheme is essential so those investing have policy certainty. At the same time, expectations are changing as to which renewable energy attributes a certificate should contain, making it an opportune time to shift to a modern certification scheme. However, this shift has raised the controversial issue of how to deal with pre-1997 renewable generation capacity—specifically, whether those projects should be able to generate certificates or not. Ultimately, this issue goes to the purpose of the renewable electricity element of the Guarantee of Origin, and there are differing views as to what that purpose is. If the purpose of the REGO scheme is to purely meet information needs for energy buyers and their stakeholders, then it would make sense to include all generation capacity. However, if the purpose of the scheme is to incentivise new renewable investments, as the current renewable energy target does, then it would make sense to exclude older capacity. Below-baseline certification inclusions in the REGO scheme would be a departure from the large-scale generation certificate scheme, which deliberately excluded old hydro and biomass projects built prior to 1997 because they didn't add to the renewable energy supply. The result of this policy change would be a massive gain to two government-owned firms, Hydro Tasmania and Snowy Hydro, for projects that were built decades ago. In fact, the Smart Energy Council estimates that the windfall gain for old hydro and old biomass projects at 2023 large-scale generation certificate prices is approximately $200 million. This has raised concerns that allowing access to below-baseline generation may place downward pressure on the LGC price and may negatively impact the investment case for new projects. I know the government has considered this issue in detail and has responded in part, but, while the bill provides for rules to be created which could restrict the surrender of these certificates to new emissions-intensive trade-exposed entities, given the complexity of this issue and the ramifications of this policy decision, I believe the government's position should be made clear in the primary legislation. In summary, the Guarantee of Origin scheme could play a really important role in Australia's energy transition and create an enduring renewables certification framework to empower the purchaser to purchase green energy, with the inclusion of energy attributes giving customers choice about the type of certificate they want to purchase. It's a welcome move—one supported by my community of North Sydney. But, to get it right and ensure the scheme is not used to facilitate greenwashing, it is critical there is proper scrutiny of the rules and regulations that will govern the operation of the Guarantee of Origin scheme. While it's appropriate for highly technical matters to be included in delegated legislation, I urge the government to ensure proper and detailed consultation on the rules and methodologies underpinning this scheme, to explicitly rule out the use of offsets and to make clear the government position on below-baseline credits within the primary legislation.
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
This is exactly what many have been calling for. I therefore encourage the government to focus on the duty-of-care legislation rather than rushing this blunt bill, the Online Safety Amendment...
This is exactly what many have been calling for. I therefore encourage the government to focus on the duty-of-care legislation rather than rushing this blunt bill, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. After all, there is a positive precedent for a duty-of-care approach, with the EU's digital safety act obliging companies to design and operate their platforms to ensure people aren't harmed. Likewise, the United Kingdom legislation prevents access to content that promotes eating disorders or suicide. Here, I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Goldstein, who this week introduced her Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2024. In stark contrast to what we have in front of us, this alternative bill has been developed over a period of 18 months in consultation with experts, carers and young people. Importantly, the member for Goldstein's bill addresses the underlying issues relating to online harm. I therefore thank her for her work and urge the government to withdraw their bill and bring hers on for debate. To proceed with the legislation as it currently stands sets us up for failure, as evidenced by the failure of bans in other jurisdictions, including France and Canada. Concerningly, a ban has the potential to create a false sense of security for parents and complacency for platforms, leaving children who circumvent it with no protection against harmful content. Even if a ban could be enforced, there is a real risk it would drive young people to less-regulated services where adults or regulators have less oversight. The government has also indicated online gaming services would fall beyond the scope of this legislation, despite games displaying many of the features cited as the core problems with social media, such as addictive features and potentially harmful content on social feeds. I can't let that exclusion go unchallenged as I have personal experience with friends who have had their kids refuse to go to school because of their gaming addiction. Beyond concerns around the potential impact of an age ban on access to useful information, some of my community have also raised concerns on the bill's implications for privacy. The age-assurance trial is set to examine methods from estimation and inference to full-blown identity verification. With the former, we risk false positives as systems approximate a potential user's age. With the latter, users may be required to upload personal ID documents that many will rightly feel uncomfortable sharing. Ultimately, the more rigorous the test, the greater the risk that the right to privacy will be infringed. This is something my community of North Sydney cares deeply about. More than a decade ago the then Attorney-General, who also happens to be the current Attorney-General, instructed the Law Reform Commission to conduct an inquiry into serious invasions of privacy in the digital era. Since then, academics and independent bodies like the Law Council have continued to call for action, arguing there is an urgent need for reform to strengthen protections for citizens and align Australian law with law in Europe and parts of North America. This government then conducted another Privacy Act review, with the report offering 116 recommendations tabled in February last year. In it's response, the government agreed fully to 38 proposals, agreed in principle to 68 and noted 10. According to the Attorney-General's website, 'The government is committed to introducing legislation to protect the personal information of Australians in 2024.' Yet we have not even seen a draft of the new legislation. Instead, we have this bill which does nothing to offer any greater protection to anyone including our children. Rather, this bill will likely require personal identification or biometric data from all Australians to be gathered by the platforms. So, like many in my community, I'm confused by the government's priorities. Other concerns related to this bill include the sharing of data with third-party verification services, the creation of databases linking real identities to online accounts, requirements for platforms to track Australian user location and the creation of infrastructure content monitoring—not to mention the potential for commercial surveillance of Australians. With all of that said, I also think it's unacceptable that the government is using its concern for the potential harms of online content to ban social media for the under-16s but won't ban online gambling advertising, despite the overwhelming evidence of the good an advertising ban would do. Rather than pursue the bill in front of us, I urge the government to focus on empowering young people to curate their feed and ensuring parents feel comfortable having conversations with their children about the use of these tools in their day-to-day lives. I also encourage them to force the platforms to give users the ability to reset their algorithms and ensure they are held to account for providing broader education on what is possible, because we can already restrict the time a young person spends on their devices, we can already restrict the type of content someone sees and we can already implement strategies that provide a trusted source with an oversight on how a young person is engaging online. As a 12-year-old told me confidently just last week, 'It's all in the settings, silly.' Ultimately, while I agree we need to ensure our kids are safe, this bill simply doesn't do that. Rather, this bill offers a blunt instrument that fails to meaningfully address the real problems of social media or hold platforms accountable for making their services safe for young people. For this reason, I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading, and notes: (1) the concerns raised by the mental health sector that a social media ban for children under 16 could: (a) limit young people's access to important online mental health services and positive social connections; (b) disincentivise platforms from offering child safety features for younger users that will inevitably circumvent the ban; and (c) push younger users onto less regulated platforms; and (2) that a one-day window for submissions to a Parliamentary committee inquiry is insufficient given the potential magnitude of these risks, and a robust inquiry process should instead take place".
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024; Third Reading | Bills | House debates
My understanding of the process of consideration in detail is that this is a stage of the legislation progressing through the House where I can ask questions of the minister about the intention...
My understanding of the process of consideration in detail is that this is a stage of the legislation progressing through the House where I can ask questions of the minister about the intention behind the bill, but I note that the minister is not currently in the chamber, so I'm just looking for direction on how that stage of consideration in detail may proceed.
In the 2½ years I've been in this place I have learned good government policy is created collaboratively, while poor policy is developed 'for others' through a top-down approach that does...
In the 2½ years I've been in this place I have learned good government policy is created collaboratively, while poor policy is developed 'for others' through a top-down approach that does not involve those who stand to be most affected. Policy developed this way is frequently a recipe for disaster as unintended consequences swamp a good intention. I fear that's exactly what we are seeing in this Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, a piece of legislation that may be well intentioned but ultimately fails to deliver on its promise. Rather than you taking my word for it, I want to share with you the words of one of my youth forum participants. He compared this ban to a mayor of a city who, in response to high rate of car crashes, decides to simply ban cars rather than fix the potholes, make seatbelt laws or provide more driver education. In his exact words, he said: While that probably sounds silly, to young people like me, the government's plan to ban social media for under 16's applies the same logic—it doesn't fix anything and fails to recognize the benefits of social media for my generation. With those words ringing in my ears, then, I stand today to put forward a contention that the policy that the government is moving appears to be more about quick political wins than doing something meaningful for our kids. They are not fixing the potholes; they are just telling our kids there won't be any cars. In pushing this legislation, the government has shown it's not prepared to listen to the voices of countless human rights groups and mental health experts who are concerned that a social media ban will not only be ineffective but will be harmful to many young people. They are also indicating that they do not care that this reform threatens to stop young people accessing much-needed mental health services and information and to isolate them from social community, all while driving them to less-regulated services. Perhaps even more galling, the legislation relies on the promise of an age assurance that would be unenforceable and could require all users, including adults, to share highly confidential and private information with platforms. While this legislation claims to be about protecting young Australians, it doesn't hold platforms to account to make their systems or their content safer for younger people. It is not just the contents of this bill that is problematic, however; my community of North Sydney is equally frustrated by the government's determination to rush this legislation through parliament without proper scrutiny, particularly as this idea of a social media ban for under 16s was originally a thought bubble offered by the Prime Minister during a press conference where he was being peppered with criticism on why we are seeing inaction around the legislation for a ban on gambling advertising. While this legislation was rushed into the House last Thursday, was referred to a one-day Senate inquiry and will be pushed through the Senate this week, the gambling reform legislation is still nowhere to be seen. Insultingly, those who wished to make a submission to the inquiry were given just 24 hours and a two-page limit. Despite this, media reports today suggest over 15,000 submissions were received. But with just three hours to hear the evidence, even if just one per cent of the people who submitted were invited to give their evidence, they would have just two minutes to speak. That's not a proper inquiry; it's a tick and flick. The whole process around this legislation is disrespectful to the community and the experts in this space, and with more Australians than ever saying they do not trust our government, processes like this will not help. Trust is restored when you earn it by enabling transparency, deliberation and due process—all ideals from which the basis of a healthy democracy stems. I turn to the bill itself. This bill sets a minimum age of 16 for social media users. It defines an 'age-restricted social media platform' as one where a significant purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more users, where users can link to or interact with other users, and where the service allows users to post material. The bill gives the minister the power to create additional conditions that could narrow the definition of an 'age-restricted social media platform', and the government has proposed using this power to exclude services such as WhatsApp, YouTube, certain educational and mental health services, and online gambling services, yet the reasons these platforms are exempt are opaque. The bill establishes an obligation for providers to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from holding an account, with platforms expected to introduce systems and processes to meet that standard, while the eSafety Commissioner will be given powers to obtain information about compliance, with penalties of up to $49½ million for noncompliance. The ban will commence no sooner than 12 months from royal assent, while the government continues to fund an age-assurance technologies trial. The bill aims to prohibit platforms from using information collected for age assurance for any other purpose. Finally, it will be subject to an independent review within two years of the ban taking effect to consider necessary changes. As the mum of three young adults, I'm very aware of the negative impacts of social media and the challenges of parenting in this digital world. However, I also recognise my children are digital natives and are very literate about how these platforms work. For this reason, I encourage everyone involved in this debate to ensure they are listening to the voices of young Australians when it comes to this decision-making process, rather than assuming that the grown-ups in the room know best. Prevention United's recent news survey found that young Australians rated fears about the future and cost of living as the largest negative influences on their mental health, while social media was ranked only 12th out of 20 factors evaluated. For this reason, I fear we are grabbing at this as the simple answer to a challenge that is far more complicated. After all, young people understand the good and the bad of social media better than anyone. Surely the issue here is not that social media as a whole is harmful but that these tools are designed to be addictive and that young people can be exposed to inappropriate content. If we want to solve that issue, then we need to do more than just impose an age ban. Ultimately, the addictive nature of social media platforms, coupled with the fact that there's no regulation governing their content, means that inappropriate content, harmful body images and mis- and disinformation will still be dished up, whether someone accesses that platform when they're 14 or 17. We also can't ignore the fact that social media is being used by young people in positive ways, including to help them find community around shared interests or problems in fostering belonging. In fact, a recent study by the Black Dog Institute found these platforms offer adolescents opportunities to enhance wellbeing by strengthening existing relationships and reducing loneliness. Crucially, social media is also increasingly being used as a gateway to access mental health services and information, with research conducted by ReachOut finding that nearly half of their youth service users access their services via social media, while the same number of young people use social media as a substitute for professional support. In this context, I can understand why many from the mental health sector are alarmed by the proposed ban. The truth is that the demand for these types of services already far outstrips supply, and closing an important substitute pathway could be disastrous. As the bill's own explanatory memorandum says, young people 'vary substantially in how they use social media'. I ask, then: why is the government introducing such a blunt instrument that fails to differentiate between positive or problematic uses of social media? It's difficult to see this bill as doing anything other than avoiding dealing with the problems of social media head on, as it ultimately fails to hold platforms accountable for their online environments. Separately, the government has announced plans to develop a duty-of-care framework to keep users safe, prevent online harm and hold platforms accountable.
Pensions and Benefits | Statements by Members | House debates
I want to draw the parliament's attention to the plight of one of my constituents—let's call him John. John is an 85-year-old pensioner who lives in North Sydney. He has passionately...
I want to draw the parliament's attention to the plight of one of my constituents—let's call him John. John is an 85-year-old pensioner who lives in North Sydney. He has passionately advocated about the impossible position he and many others find themselves in during their latter years, trying to survive on the age pension. John has done everything right. He's worked hard, paid his taxes, educated his kids and paid off the mortgage on a modest flat. Now he's a pensioner living independently in his own home. But while John is asset rich, his sole income on a single pension is just $500 a week. And just as John has asked me on many occasions, I now ask the parliament: how does someone live comfortably on that amount with limited to no potential to earn additional income? John has tried to find work to supplement his pension, but at the age of 85 the pickings are slim and, heartbreakingly, the experience of applying for jobs has been demoralising. He's been spoken to rudely and even hung up on. As he said, in his own words, 'I haven't been so insulted in my whole life.' In this context, I implore the government to reflect deeply on our social services framework, particularly the plight of pensioners who are being crushed by the rising cost of living. If recipients of Australian Commonwealth welfare are not safe from poverty then we have some serious soul searching to do.
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I thank the honourable member for Barker for allowing me time to get to the chamber; it is very kind of you. I stand to oppose the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention...
I thank the honourable member for Barker for allowing me time to get to the chamber; it is very kind of you. I stand to oppose the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024, which gives the minister the power to declare an item a prohibited item, introduces sniffer dogs into detention facilities and creates Australian-made Guantanamo Bay-esque detention camps. From the outset, it is worth pointing out that this is not a new bill; rather, it is a rerun of the Morrison government's proposal to ban immigration detainees from accessing mobile phones, and is indicative of an appalling race to the bottom. This is the fourth time this bill has been produced since 2017, when the then immigration minister Peter Dutton introduced it on behalf of the coalition government. It was then reintroduced in 2019 and again in 2020 yet each time it has failed to pass the House due to a lack of support, including from the then opposition, the Labor Party. While many have feared that Labor has been inching closer to the coalition on immigration policy, the introduction of this legislation shows they are not even trying to hide that fact anymore, moving what is essentially a cut-and-paste of Peter Dutton's previously failed migration strategy. The bill amends the Migration Act to allow the minister to determine that an item is a prohibited thing in relation to immigration detention facilities or persons in detention. These broad and discretionary powers would allow the minister to determine any item, from a mobile phone to a SIM card to a stuffed toy, as a prohibit item if the minister was satisfied that it would pose a risk to the health, safety or security of a person in a facility or the order a facility. For example, there may come a day when the minister decides reading glasses should be prohibited, as this item could potentially be used to make some sort of weapon, even without proof there was ever an intention of the owner to do so. They might decide to confiscate shoelaces or they might decide to confiscate medicines. Scarily, all of these things were routinely confiscated back in 2014, but, thanks to the diligence of many working in the human rights space, these gross abuses were identified and the system was shamed into compassion. While the government now argues Border Force needs these powers, the truth is we already have laws and policies to deal with the issues the government seeks to address via this bill. These include extensive search and seizure powers under the Migration Act, common law duty of care to ensure the safety of people detained, and the ability of police to investigate any suspected illegal activity. In this context, I would argue law enforcement officers are the most appropriate executers as of these powers and it is not appropriate to delegate them to those working in and around detention facilities. Detention offices can and do work with police when incidents arise because it is rightly the role of police to investigate suspected misconduct, not Border Force, not employees of the private company Serco and not those employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. From a human rights perspective, this legislation also sets a dangerous precedent that ultimately could be applied elsewhere in society in the future, and, while this government may say this is an absurd statement, history is littered with societies that have initially made a law to support an exception to the rule, only to find in future years that the exception slips and it is applied to everyone. The bill also strengthens the powers to search for, screen, seize and retain prohibited and controlled items without a warrant and will allow for searches within centres, including the use of detector dogs to search the premises. While the government claim they've safeguarded the interests of detainees by making minor changes to the 2020 version of this bill, these changes are indeed minor and do not address the key concerns raised earlier. Specifically the bill inserts three new sections to the Morrison government's 2020 version: sections 251AA, 251AB and 251AC, plus some minor legislative notes. These changes include a requirement that an authorised officer search for, screen for or seize a prohibited thing only if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that such a search or seizure is necessary. Yet this is an extremely broad test, which will be easily met and may be applied to everyone currently held in detention regardless of whether they have a prior criminal record or not, essentially applying a general threat of punitive measures to all. The bill does provide for access to an alternative means of communication when a communications device is seized, but the safeguard leaves detainees at the mercy of their guards and facilities when it comes to contacting loved ones, supporting people, legal advisers and the world in general. Additionally it isn't clear what this alternative means of communication would even entail. For instance the bill states: The alternative means of communication must reasonably be sufficient to enable the detainee to: (a) communicate with a member of the family unit of the detainee; or (b) communicate with any person outside the immigration detention facility for the purposes of: … … … (ii) obtaining support of a prescribed kind; or (iii) communicating governmental or committed matters. Does this mean a communications device that enables an asylum seeker to communicate with just one member of their family will be provided but not one that enables them to contact their support team or communicate with a lawyer, a government contact or a journalist? It would seem so. Ultimately little has changed since the 2020 version of this bill. Back then many now in the current government spoke against the bill. I thank them for that, as many of the points they raised are still valid and have not been addressed in this iteration. Indeed the member for Macnamara, the current Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, said in 2020 that the bill was 'not about a proportionate response from government but about cruelty and politics', while the member for Moreton said: It is my view that a 'prohibited thing' should be defined in the legislation and brought before the parliament rather than snuck in via regulation. I could not agree more with his assertion at that time. The member then went on to say: … the fact that they've brought a bill before the parliament that includes such outrageously nebulous and sweeping powers is proof that the current and former ministers can't effectively manage those in their care. Meanwhile the member for Scullin said there was 'no justification for blanket prohibitions'. He said: To simply assert the changed composition of the cohort of people now in immigration detention is no justification for an across-the-board approach without any differentiation. The member for Cooper said: Labor unequivocally do not support phones being removed from detainees who have done nothing wrong. This bill, then, does not address these issues, as mobile phones can still be removed from detainees who have done nothing wrong, the minister is again using the changed composition of the cohort of people in immigration detention as a justification for an across-the-board approach, a prohibited thing is still not defined in this legislation and it would seem that this proposal is still fundamentally about politics. In his second reading speech, the minister said: This bill responds to calls for action from the Australian Border Force, as well as external parties including the Australian Human Rights Commission. Yet this assertion is at the very least cheeky in that he is referring to the Human Rights Commission's report into conditions at a particular facility, the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre. While the Human Rights Commission report did raise serious concerns over safety and care at Yongah Hill, it clearly stated that these concerns will not be resolved solely through tighter security measures. Rather the Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, who attended the facility and conducted the report, gave a far more nuanced assessment of the situation. She said: The cohort of people entering immigration detention has changed significantly over the years. Drug infiltration and substance misuse is a multi-faceted and complex issue, one which cannot simply be resolved through tighter security measures. Access to essential health services, rehabilitation and meaningful activity must be urgently addressed. That report then went on to make 33 recommendations to the Department of Home Affairs, of which the department accepted or partially agreed to 20 and disagreed with seven, with the remaining six requiring government consideration. The report also recommended that the government replace the current system of mandatory immigration detention with a case-by-case assessment process that takes individual circumstances into consideration. The government didn't accept that recommendation, instead noting that it requires government consideration and stating that assessments are already completed as fast as possible to 'facilitate the shortest possible timeframe for detaining people in immigration detention facilities'. If this is the case, why is the average time spent in immigration detention in Australia 565 days, compared to 49 days in the United States of America and 16 days in Canada? To the commission's recommendation that the department review its operational instructions to focus on reducing the adverse impact on privacy and dignity of people subject to searches, the government responded that they had already address that recommendation. Similarly, to the recommendation that the department increase the provision of counselling and rehabilitation services and education to minimise harm and reduce demand for alcohol and other drugs, the department said that they had already addressed that recommendation. To the recommendation that the department review its policy on access to recognised programs of study or vocational training, with a view to enhancing opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration, the department disagreed with the recommendation. For the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to stand in this place and say that he's introducing this piece of punitive legislation in part as a response to calls from the Human Rights Commission is a selective appropriation of a very small part of what could have been a landmark report, had the government chosen to listen to and act on all of the recommendations. Ultimately, in relation to search powers, the Human Rights Commission was clear. They said: The Government should reform the search powers available to detention centre staff to allow for targeted personal searches and room searches to be conducted where there is reasonable suspicion that drugs are being concealed. The recommendation was really clear. It was to identify the concealment of drugs, not to remove mobile phones. They go on to reiterate that, should enhanced search powers be made available to centre staff, any use of these powers should be adequately reported and periodically reviewed to identify and rectify any systemic improvements to the use of force in immigration detention. They then specifically state that the recommendation to reform search powers will not lead to any meaningful increase in safety without there being a more significant investment in engaging more people in detention in drug and alcohol counselling, harm minimisation, access to treatment and rehabilitation, and further education to highlight and discourage risky behaviours associated with drug use. Ultimately, they argued that it would be these investments that would have greater benefits for the behavioural management of the whole centre, rather than enhanced search powers or drug prevalence testing. Yet, conveniently, the government doesn't seem to have read that part. Instead, we have a repackaged Morrison-era migration policy that aims to remove one of the only lifelines for people in immigration detention to communicate with family, friends and the outside world. You can't help but wonder if there's a larger agenda here, particularly as mobile phones have been instrumental in documenting abuse and safety concerns within the detention centres and have given a voice to those living in these facilities. Removing them risks oppressing a detainee's ability to talk to journalists and advocates about the conditions in these facilities. For example, Behrouz Boochani, who spent seven years in immigration detention on Manus Island, used a mobile phone to document his experience, He said that mobile phones were a lifeline for detainees to communicate with family and lawyers. Similarly, the Biloela family used mobile phones when they were deported late at night to contact supporters and journalists, who in turn contacted lawyers, leading to an emergency injunction that saw their plane turned back midflight. There are many other uses of mobile phones in detention facilities, from corresponding with legal professionals to learning English, accessing personal photographs, accessing medical advice, viewing entertainment or exercise routines, and reading the news. Cutting people off would only make an already inhumane system even crueller. Ultimately, having advocated in this area now for almost a decade, I have to believe that, as a nation and a community, we are better than this. Our government should be creating laws that ensure those in immigration detention are treated with dignity, are processed in a timely manner and do not suffer in dangerous environments. The first step should be the implementation of all the Human Rights Commission's recommendations on reforming immigration detention. The second step should be a royal commission into our treatment of asylum seekers. Rather than engaging in a race to the bottom on immigration, I call on this government to implement positive reforms that end the cruelty and human rights violations that have characterised Australia's detention regime since the 1990s. With just one week left in parliament, this is the second bill that this government is seeking to rush through that will limit people's human rights, and this bill will not make people living in detention, or detention centres themselves, safer. It will, however, make an already cruel system even crueller. I wouldn't have supported this bill when it was introduced by the Morrison government in 2020, and I will not support this version moved by the Albanese government. I say to this government: people expected better of you.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
(): There's no doubt Australia is in a period of significant economic transition. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted many critical industries, both globally and domestically, and it will...
(): There's no doubt Australia is in a period of significant economic transition. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted many critical industries, both globally and domestically, and it will be some time before our economy fully recovers. Coming out the other side of the pandemic, we've entered an inflationary environment that puts immense pressure on consumers, businesses and governments. At the same time, we are embarking on a much-needed transition to a net zero economy. In this context, competition is more important than ever before. This transition will impact Australia's critical industries, consumers and small businesses in profound ways. New markets are on the horizon, and it is impossible to anticipate how they will emerge or develop. Competition can be a driving force for investment, dynamism and innovation. All are required to undertake this transition; therefore, it is critical we protect it by getting our competition policy reform right from the start. While most merger transactions do not harm competition and, indeed, provide many benefits, some can and do affect the competitive conditions of an industry. The growing trend of market concentration in Australia since the early 2000s is not one that we should continue to ignore. According to a 2023 report from e61 Institute, in seven per cent of Australian industries the top four firms had more than 80 per cent of the market share. I just want to repeat that. In seven per cent of Australian industries, the top four firms had more than 80 per cent market share. Compare this to countries like the United States, where only one per cent of the industries have a market concentration that high. Ultimately, however, my community and indeed most Australians don't need statistics to understand the problem. Whether it's electricity, health insurance or retail, the Australian economy is rife with examples of markets where a few big players dominate, and, as a consequence, consumers are arguably missing out while producers and suppliers are squeezed ruthlessly. We see this perhaps most acutely in the tech and supermarket sectors. In tech, a handful of companies are playing an increasingly significant role in our lives, influencing how we interact with each other and do business. I had a striking real-world experience when I recently tried to plug my iPhone into the jack of a Volvo that my friend owns. I received a message from my phone saying, 'This accessory is not supported by the device.' The Volvo was the accessory that the iPhone wouldn't accommodate! I was struck by Apple's market concentration and their ability to corner the market. Meanwhile, in the supermarket sector, Woolworths and Coles alone control about two-thirds of the market. Again, I've witnessed the implications of this personally, with many orchards in my home town of Coonabarabran forced to bulldoze their trees after the long-term local independent grocer was acquired by one of the two large supermarket chains. Part of the problem is the ability of large businesses to hollow out markets through targeted acquisitions. As multiple former ACCC chairs have acknowledged, Australia's current merger regime is not well placed to deal with this problem. Under the ACCC's current framework, companies aren't required to notify the ACCC of mergers, leaving the commission most often flying blind. Additionally, the ACCC reviews only a fraction of the mergers that happen each year—an average of 330 annually of the more than 1,000 mergers that occur. This gap leads to situations like that of Petstock, which grew through a series of small acquisitions into the second-largest speciality pet supply retail chain in Australia, unbeknownst to the ACCC. No wonder the former ACCC chair Rod Sims has described Australia's merger regime as the weakest of any country we compare ourselves to. These trends have consequences for us all. Recent decades have seen businesses increase the mark-ups to goods and services by more than two per cent. As CHOICE and the Consumers Federation of Australia put it, consumers pay the price of highly concentrated markets, including through higher prices, poorer customer service and lower product and service quality. In this context, I largely welcome this bill and commend the government for taking steps towards a regime that more effectively targets anticompetitive mergers while fast-tracking mergers that are pro-competition. It is a step towards a future focused economy that is diverse, efficient and welcoming of new market entrants. However, there are ways I believe this legislation, and competition policy reform more broadly, could be improved. Firstly, we must ensure that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission are adequately staffed and resourced to effectively manage the significant increase in assessments that will result from the changes outlined in this bill. Secondly, we must strengthen the ACCC's ability to block problematic mergers. Thirdly, we must ensure thresholds for notification capture all anticompetitive acquisitions. Finally, to truly improve competition and innovation in Australia, we must not only prevent anticompetitive mergers but also actively support small and emerging businesses. I'll go to the specifics of the bill before us. This bill will empower the ACCC as the decision-maker on all mergers. Under this new system, the commission would undertake an economic and legal assessment to determine whether acquisitions are likely to substantially reduce competition or be of public benefit. This would be tied to a mandatory notification system where acquisitions that meet a certain threshold would need to be referred to the ACCC for assessment prior to completion. These key thresholds are (1) when the Australian turnover of the combined business exceeds $200 million and the assets being acquired have either an Australian turnover of more than $50 million or a global transaction value above $250 million; (2) when a business with an Australian turnover of more than $500 million is buying a smaller business with a turnover above $10 million; and, finally, (3) all mergers by businesses with a combined Australian turnover of more than $200 million where total similar acquisitions over a three-year period have a cumulative turnover of at least $50 million. Importantly, the bill allows the Treasurer to adjust these thresholds in response to concerns from the ACCC about high-risk mergers. The commissions approval system would also be reformed with the goal of completing approvals in under 30 days for mergers that are determined not to pose a threat to competition, and these changes would also provide for the Competition Tribunal to review the ACCC's decisions. Finally, the bill would establish a public register of all mergers and acquisitions, providing all of us a clear line of sight on how our markets and suppliers are developing. As a result of these reforms, there's a lot to like about this legislation. It improves oversight for both large acquisitions and the accumulation of smaller creeping acquisitions, it makes an effort to balance this new oversight with efficiency under a faster approval process for unproblematic mergers, and it allows for the thresholds to be flexible over time. I've noted that the ACCC currently only assesses a small proportion of mergers, however, and this reform will be a significant change for the commission as it deals with the potential for more assessments and a commitment to faster approvals. The government has argued that the increased resourcing given to the ACCC will be commensurate with the increased workload, and the January 2026 commencement date will give the commission time to prepare for the transition. This may be true, but it isn't guaranteed. We're talking about the biggest merger reform in nearly half a century. The transition will have to be managed properly to prevent a blowout in costs and delays for government and business alike. Historically, the ACCC has been unable to prevent many large mergers. In fact, just last year, the commission blocked the ANZ bank from a $4.9 billion takeover of Suncorp's banking arm, only to have their decision overturned by the Competition Tribunal. The same thing occurred in 2017 with the merger of Tabcorp and the Tatts Group. This is not to say that the oversight of the Competition Tribunal is a bad thing, but it does suggest that the two organisations are not always aligned on principle, and it's unclear what that means for the ACCC's ability to effectively block what it may deem to be an anticompetitive acquisition. More importantly, the thresholds in this bill may not capture several kinds of concerning mergers and acquisitions. Under this framework, for example, businesses with a combined Australian turnover of less than $200 million will not need to report unless the business or assets being acquired have a cumulative Australian turnover of over $50 million over a three-year period or a global transaction value of about $250 million. That is already quite a high bar, but the real problem here is that these thresholds don't consider the size of the market a business is operating in. For large high-turnover markets like medical insurance or electricity retail, these thresholds may be reasonable, but, if the market is smaller, numbers like $200 million may represent a much higher percentage of total market activity, and businesses with significant market share may fly under the radar. We know that the government was considering a market concentration threshold during consultation, so I've got to confess that I'm disappointed to see that it's absent from this bill. Overall market share is a much better indicator of the problem we're trying to prevent than simple monetary turnover. Similarly, the thresholds don't consider regional market concentration. Again, I speak from personal experience. Having grown up in regional Australia, I'm aware of the limited choices that consumers sometimes face. There might only be one bank, one grocery store and one petrol station in the whole town. Under this legislation, mergers could potentially be used to corner a market in an entire regional area while staying under the notification threshold. The threshold also wouldn't stop large companies from gaining an early advantage in markets by acquiring early-stage companies who don't yet have a high turnover. The obvious example is Instagram. When Facebook bought Instagram, the company had no revenue. If this purchase happened in the Australian context, this bill wouldn't have required that to be referred to the ACCC. Clearly parts of this legislation could be strengthened. Instead of it simply allowing the Treasurer to adjust these thresholds over time, we should aim to get them right from the beginning. We need merger reform that tackles market share, early acquisitions and geographic considerations. Finally, I'd like to speak about the role of small business in the context of these reforms. To truly embrace competition, we must do more than simply regulate big mergers. We need to actively support new and established small businesses. According to the Bureau of Statistics, 2023-24 saw a 1.4 per cent decrease in the number of Australian businesses with one to four employees, while businesses with five to 19 employees remained relatively stagnant with only a 0.4 per cent increase. This is reflected in the GDP figures. In 2006, small businesses contributed 40 per cent of our GDP; now that number is 33 per cent. Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Bruce Billson described Australia as 'sleepwalking into a big corporate economy'. To increase competition and drive an efficient, diverse economy, we must consider measures to support these small businesses, especially in their early stages. There are many ways we could do this, from expanding the digital learning and practical support tools available online to increasing tax offsets for new small businesses. Of particular relevance to competition reform, however, is the need to implement a ban on unfair business and trading practices which harm small businesses and discourage investment. When there is a power imbalance, big businesses in Australia can impose harsh commercial arrangements or behaviours on smaller ones. Singapore, the United Kingdom and the European Union all have laws that explicitly ban this kind of unfair practice, and Australia should follow suit. In short, we should be using all the tools at our disposal to build a competitive economy with a thriving small business sector. I commend the government for bringing this bill before the House to improve Australia's management of large mergers and acquisitions, but I also encourage the government to make sure not only that the ACCC is resourced to handle this transition properly but also that the thresholds truly prevent mergers from slipping through the cracks and that, ultimately, we support new small businesses to create a truly future focused economy for all Australians.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I rise again in support of the amendment moved by the member for Indi. I've just got to say how sensible the member for Indi and her team are in terms of how they approach not only this piece of...
I rise again in support of the amendment moved by the member for Indi. I've just got to say how sensible the member for Indi and her team are in terms of how they approach not only this piece of legislation but every piece of legislation that we see come into the House. There are very few members in this House that have a higher level of integrity than the member for Indi. When you hear the member for Indi suggest that the best way for a piece of legislation to be scrutinised is by an independent parliamentary committee, you can actually pretty much guarantee that she knows what she's talking about. This is a member that has been involved in developing bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is a member who has argued, since she joined parliament, for increased levels of integrity in this place. But, for those who are at home wondering why you wouldn't just go to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I want to explain the structure of parliamentary joint committees in this place. What usually happens in a parliamentary joint committee is that the party of the government of the day dominates the committee. They have the most numbers on the committee. In fact, every committee in this place, bar one—and that is actually the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission—will be chaired by a member of the government of the day, and the deputy chair will be from the opposition of the day. In the case of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is a great committee—I think we should have it; we should be very transparent around it—the truth of the matter is it was originally tasked with looking at the results of the 2022 election, an election which created the largest crossbench in the history of the Australian parliament, and that crossbench has the largest number of Independents in the history of the Australian parliament. Yet, interestingly, for those playing along at home, there wasn't an Independent on that committee until the member for Curtin joined the committee on the last hearing day. For all of the hearings prior to that, there was not a person of an independent political persuasion involved in the assessment. And, in fact, when the report was tabled by what we call JSCEM, the member for Curtin, the only Independent member of that committee, lodged a dissenting report. She provided commentary around where she felt things were heading in the right direction and where things can be improved. In an environment where we do the best we can—and I believe everybody in this place comes to the questions we have in absolute good faith—the truth of the matter is, when we're looking at something as important as this, we should be able to delegate to an independent statutory review. That's where the member for Indi has nailed this recommended amendment to the government. At the end of the day, this legislation has not had a lot of light during this debating process. If we could go back to our communities and say, 'If nothing more, at least we know in 12 months it will be independently reviewed,' then I think the Australian public could take some faith that there will be somebody other than the major parties looking at how this is functioning. Question unresolved.
I rise in support of the amendments just moved by the honourable member for Indi, because, when all is said and done, she has really hit the mark when it comes to the heart of what is the key...
I rise in support of the amendments just moved by the honourable member for Indi, because, when all is said and done, she has really hit the mark when it comes to the heart of what is the key issue here. People like myself have copped a lot of criticism in this parliament because of the amount that was spent to see the seat of North Sydney turned Independent. In part, that's because there is no doubt about how much money was spent in North Sydney. The seat is fully accounted for in terms of what was invested. We do not, even under the current system, have the same line of sight when it comes to the major parties. We do not know what the major parties spent to win Macnamara. We do not know what the major parties spent to win in Bradfield. All we know is the combined campaign spending. I actually find it pretty extraordinary that, when you go to look at the returns during the 2022 election year, there are members currently sitting in seats in this House that have a zero next to their name in terms of how much money was spent in their electorate during the 2022 election. How does that work? What we've seen in what the member for Indi has brought forward here is a complete acknowledgement. We're very happy to see expenditure caps introduced, as long as the expenditure caps are the same for everyone and that the transparency around that expenditure is the same for everyone. I thank the member for Indi for continuing this fight. She has very clearly articulated the upside of looking at this piece of legislation through what she's proposing. I would welcome the government seriously considering this amendment as a true show of faith that they are looking to create an equal playing field, not just embed a political duopoly.