Allegra Spender's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Domestic and Family Violence | Statements by Members | House debates
Australia is facing a national crisis in domestic and family violence. Intimate partner homicide rates are rising, not falling. In 2023-24, 46 women were killed by a current or former partner....
Australia is facing a national crisis in domestic and family violence. Intimate partner homicide rates are rising, not falling. In 2023-24, 46 women were killed by a current or former partner. That is one woman every eight days. One in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15. These are not just statistics. These are lives cut short, families shattered and communities left grieving. And the most confronting reality is this: the numbers are not improving; they are getting worse. We can see this crisis clearly. We do not need more evidence to tell us it exists. What we need is faster, more coordinated action. The government has taken some important first steps, including commissioning major reviews and agreeing to a national cabinet response and funding package in 2024. But the pace of progress does not match the urgency of the problem. What we have is a patchwork of recommendations and commitments, spread across multiple plans and portfolios, often without clear timelines, accountability or consistent reporting. The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's 2025 report provides a practical way forward. It recommends that the Commonwealth establish a dedicated implementation and delivery oversight mechanism to drive action and ensure that commitments are actually delivered. It doesn't sound complicated. It sounds like the sort of thing that might already be in place, but it's not. I think that this is really critical to making sure that we deliver on the commitments that have been made to people. This would map and track all Commonwealth plans affecting victims-survivors of domestic and family violence, including the rapid review response, the Closing the Gap agreement and the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. It would require regular dashboard updating to cabinet and ensure that addressing domestic and family violence is treated as a whole-of-government priority, not confined to one portfolio. The report also calls for strengthening the powers of the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission and establishing it as a statutory authority. This would give the commission the ability to compel agencies to provide data and information, improve transparency and ensure that implementation and funding decisions are properly monitored. Every one of us reads the news and feels the weight of these stories. The number of people in my community who have come into my office and told me stories of their experience—they are people you would look at and never know what they have been through and what their families have been through. We all know people who have lived through this violence. We teach our kids to recognise the warning signs. We talk about prevention and early intervention. Yet still the violence continues. If we are serious about ending this crisis, we must empower the institutions responsible for addressing it. This cannot be solved with silos or through slow, fragmented reform or yet another royal commission. It requires urgency, coordination and accountability. The evidence is in front of us. The recommendations are on the table. What is needed now is the action, the implementation that matches the scale of the crisis and the courage to deliver it.
Trust in Government | Grievance Debate | House debates
I'd like to talk today about trust and how to build it, particularly trust in government. The ANU Australian Election Study recently found that only one in three Australians believe that people...
I'd like to talk today about trust and how to build it, particularly trust in government. The ANU Australian Election Study recently found that only one in three Australians believe that people in government can be trusted to do the right thing. That is damning for all of us and something we desperately need to address. Also we're increasingly seeing a majority of Australians having a moderate or high grievance against government, business or the rich. And 64 per cent of Australians worry that government leaders purposely mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations. Finally, only 17 per cent believe that the next generation will be better off. We in this building should be worried about all these statistics. We do have a problem. The Prime Minister, early in his term, said that he did want to improve trust in government. He said, 'I don't expect to make Australians fall in love with question time, but I do want more people to have greater faith in the integrity of our parliament and its representatives.' That's a laudable aim, but my concern is that the government, particularly the Prime Minister, is not taking the steps required to build the trust that we need in institutions. I could use the next eight minutes and a half to have a go at the Prime Minister. But what I'm trying to do, and more interested in doing first, is outlining where I believe that trust can be built—how we can build back. We can complain about the government of the day, or we can actually try to lead by showing where we should develop these areas. There are five key areas that I believe we must work on to increase trust in our government and our institutions. These are around (1) transparency, (2) accountability, (3) strengthening our institutions, (4) delivering what we said we would and, finally, (5) the community and how they can be put back in the heart of government. Let me start with transparency. One of the things that surprised me, coming into parliament, was that the Public Service, or the work they do in the departments, was not accessible to me as a member of the House of Representatives. I'd thought that I would be able to talk to departmental people and see all the reports they write for the government. But no, because the Public Service is there to serve the government, and the government chooses what it releases and what it doesn't. Particularly, it makes that choice through things like the FOI restrictions that are currently placed on the release of documents. So my question is: how can we build transparency so that, as a member of parliament and, frankly, as a citizen you have access to what is going on in government? You can understand what recommendations are being made and what opportunities are being considered. People say that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I believe strongly that if you can increase transparency you can increase trust in government. There are things that the government and parts of this country do already—things like releasing ministerial diaries so that people don't feel that perhaps government are meeting with lobbyists more than they're meeting with citizens. I was speaking to a former leader in one of the states of this country and they said to me that actually releasing ministerial diaries made them aware of how much lobbying was going on by a particular group on a particular issue. We could make sure there's much more transparency about who's sponsoring lobbyists. Those are some of the things that could be really important. But I think it really goes to an attitudinal shift in transparency, perhaps like Audrey Tang in Taiwan, who I will quote a number of times in this debate. In Taiwan they have really pushed for radical transparency. I believe I'd be very excited to have a government where so much of what government does is released—where it's released by the rule rather than the exception. Instead, what we have in this government at the moment is that FOI requests disclosed in full have plummeted from 59 per cent in 2011 to just 21 per cent in 2023 and 2024, and refusals have doubled. First, change the attitude, change the FOI rules, change the laws around ministerial diaries and lobbyists, and go for radical transparency to build trust with the Australian people. Second is accountability. One of the things that I have said from the very start is: answer people's questions. That's what people expect from you. During question time, we spend over an hour every single day that parliament sits feeling like we are watching the government—in the main, not in all situations—skirt around questions through the cover of relevance, even though they're not answering a question, which sometimes is as simple as yes or no. If you want to build accountability, if you want to build trust then start by answering the questions and take them further. Be accountable to the weaknesses and the strengths of the things that you have brought in and recommended. Make sure that your projects are assessed. Before policies are put forward, give some KPIs, give some costings and then, three years later or however long it takes, come back, assess the project and the policy against its KPIs and its costings. That's what you do in business. That's about building accountability for the outcomes that you said you're going to achieve. If government is clear on what it's going to achieve and not afraid of assessing whether or not it has actually achieved that in a policy, then we will have better public debate. And frankly, I believe we will have better policies. Right now, we can't even get this government to be accountable to the things that it sets up. When there are big issues, sometimes people ask for reports by committee inquiries. The government has commissioned tens of these committee inquiries. It has responded so far to four committee inquiries within six months, which is what it's meant to do. It has 55 reports that are outstanding beyond the six-month mark. That is where the government could build trust—by building accountability. Third is institutions, and that is not only about building the strength of our parliament and ensuring competition in our parliament but also about making sure that people have trust in other institutions such as our courts and the Public Service. For a time, particularly when I was growing up, public servants were seen as providing frank and fearless advice. They contradicted ministers publicly about some of their interpretations or their work. They were brave because they were there to represent the public. Now public servants have become more the servants of the government as opposed to the servants of the people. How could you increase the transparency and openness of public servants to criticise, to share the information that they're putting forward to government? Again, you would build trust. If you can handle a criticism, you build trust. Australians really recognise this. In terms of competition in the parliament, make sure you have the rules that allow competition. Instead, last year the Labor government with the coalition passed rules to make it harder for Independents and minor parties to be successful in elections. That doesn't build trust; take those back. Access to institutions, the courts and those other institutions, should be free and fast. Only 42 per cent of Administrative Review Tribunal cases are resolved within 12 months. That's not a strength of institution, that is not justice delivered and that doesn't build trust. Deal with that. Fourth is delivering, because, ultimately, people trust people who do what they say they're going to do, and that applies to governments as well. We haven't seen quality or accountability from governments in the delivery of better outcomes for people. Make sure that people feel like the services that they're paying for are actually delivering better results; that will ultimately build trust. Finally, I'm going to talk about community. Audrey Tang, a person who has really driven enormous change in trust in Taiwan, said: We recovered from the trust crisis not by asking people to trust the government, but by encouraging public services to trust the people. And that comes down to community. Who are you asking? Who are you engaging? How is government listening and responding to the concerns of the community? Are there different and exciting ways that people around the world are doing this? Citizens' assemblies—a recent poll found that actually almost 50 per cent of Australians are open to citizens' assemblies to deal with possibly difficult issues. Maybe, at a certain level, if you have enough people—in some countries, if you have enough people to sign a petition, the government has to respond. That is, I think, a way that government can be accountable. When you do reviews and these parliamentary inquiries, how do we get everyday people, not just people with vested interests, to engage in these things? There are innovative ways to do this online. We have never actually had a world where it would be easier for us to engage the community and citizens in these things. This really comes back to the final point: trust matters. The strength of the Australian democracy, of our economy, of our institutions, depends on trust. It is eroding, and there are ways that we can deal with it. It is about transparency, accountability, institutions, delivery and community, and it is time this government took those properly into account.
National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak in support of the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026. I'm honoured to speak on this legislation which places into...
I rise to speak in support of the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026. I'm honoured to speak on this legislation which places into statute the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People and establishes the national commissioner as an independent statutory officer. This is an important step. It is a step towards stronger accountability, stronger advocacy and, most importantly, better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people across the country. I commend, in particular, the minister—who's in the room—for the work that she and many other ministers have done to get to this point. As Noel Pearson has said, our strength comes from three threads—our ancient Indigenous history, our British institutions and democracy, and our history of multicultural achievement. This commission sits at the intersection of those threads. It reflects our responsibility to ensure that our institutions serve and protect all Australians, including the youngest members of our First Nations people. While the commission has existed in some form since 2024 and has been operational since 2025, this legislation strengthens its independence, formalises its powers and functions and provides clarity about its long-term funding and authority. This bill also fulfils a commitment made by the government under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. It is a significant step forward, and I commend the government for bringing it forward. But, more importantly, this moment reflects decades of advocacy from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, elders and organisations who have fought tirelessly for their children and for future generations. I want to particularly acknowledge the SNAICC, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, which has been advocating for this legislation which recognises the rights of Aboriginal children since 1991. Their persistence and leadership have been instrumental in bringing us to this point. It has taken us too long, but it is important that we're here now. Our progress to close the gap is too slow. In fact, we often go backwards. At the time of the 1997 Bringing them home report into the stolen generations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children represented one in every five children living in out-of-home care. Today, that figure is closer to one in three. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 5.6 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be subject to a child protection notification and 10.8 times more likely to be in out-of-home care or subject to a third-party parental-responsibility order. The Family Matters 2025 report found that we're still far from achieving target 12 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which aims for a 45 per cent reduction in the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care by 2031. Data from the Australian Law Reform Commission tells us the engagement with the child protection system is itself a risk factor for later engagement with the juvenile justice system and adult incarceration. On that point, target 11, which aims to reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in detention by at least 30 per cent, is also going backwards. There has been no improvement from the baseline. The latest data from 2023-24 shows the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people aged 10 to 17 in detention on an average day is 26.1 per 10,000 young people. This is higher than the previous four years. Currently, the minimum age of criminal responsibility in six states and territories is 10. I have long called for this to be raised, and I hope the state and territory governments will listen to recommendations made by this federal commissioner and their respective state and territory commissioners regarding this issue. Recently, Australia's human rights record was scrutinised by the Human Rights Council at the United Nations. There were serious concerns raised about our low age of criminal responsibility and rising incarceration rates. Our record was brought up countless times—specifically about the disproportionate impact on Indigenous populations. This is not good enough. Of course, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children grow up in strong, supportive and loving families and communities, but we cannot ignore these confronting statistics. We cannot ignore what they tell us about the systems that surround these children. Another key Closing the Gap commitment is target 4. By 2031, we aim to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children assessed as developmentally on track in all five domains of the Australian Early Development Census to 55 per cent. Nationally, in 2024, only 33.9 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children commencing school were assessed as developmentally on track across all five domains. This is a decrease from 35.2 per cent in 2018, which is the baseline year. Again, we are going backwards. Early childhood development is one of the strongest predictors of lifelong health, education and social outcomes. If we are serious about closing the gap, we must be serious about supporting children from the earliest years of life. I share these statistics not to paint a hopeless picture but to underline how important the work of the commission will be and how much support and cooperation it must receive from governments and agencies across the country. This bill does several important things. First, it establishes the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People as a statutory agency and formally creates the national commissioner as a statutory office. This ensures independence, authority and long-term accountability within our system of government. Second, it sets out the commission's functions and powers. The commissioner will promote and protect the rights, safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. The commissioner will provide strategic policy advice to government and support the implementation of key national frameworks, including Closing the Gap. The commission will identify systemic barriers and advocate for reform. It will be able to conduct research and inquiries, publish reports and engage directly with First Nations children, families and communities. Importantly, it will work to improve coordination across the Commonwealth, state and territory systems, which is essential if we are going to see genuine change. These bills also provide funding certainty, with $33.5 million allocated over four years from 2025-26 and ongoing funding thereafter. Finally, these bills provide clear accountability mechanisms. The commissioner will publish reports and provide advice to the minister, which must be tabled in parliament. This will help ensure transparency and maintain a clear line of sight between evidence, recommendations and government action. However, action must come from these reports and this advice. This commission is designed to support the delivery of the Closing the Gap commitments and align with Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children. In doing so, it will help ensure that the experiences and voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are not only heard but acted upon. Stakeholders have welcomed this reform. Catherine Liddle, the CEO of SNAICC, has said: … the National Commissioner can finally serve as it was always intended—a true accountability mechanism to ensure governments follow through on their commitments to our children and families. She has also emphasised that this legislation gives the commissioner 'the independence, authority and statutory powers needed to drive accountability and systemic change'. The commissioner herself has highlighted the importance of listening directly to young people. She has said this will give her the ability to talk to kids, bringing their young voices into parliament to hear about the systemic injustices happening. She has also said this can lead to inquiries and the ability for her as commissioner to make recommendations to parliament around these systems, with the data perspective and from the voices of the children. Listening to the voices of children is vital. It ensures that lived experience informs policy and that our institutions respond to what children and young people are experiencing on the ground. However, as I raised earlier, establishing the commission is only the first step. For this body to succeed, agencies must cooperate and the commission's findings must be acted upon. Its reports must not gather dust, and its recommendations must not sit unanswered. I draw the attention of particularly the government members in the House to the fact that more than 50 committee and inquiry reports across government that the government itself commissioned remain outstanding, without a response over six months. Only four were responded to within six months. That's not good enough, and it doesn't give me a great deal of hope, if we are setting up this new body that is going to report to government, that government is going to even respond to the recommendations, let alone act on them. If we are serious about accountability, which this body is seeking to be, the government must step up significantly in its efforts to respond appropriately and enact recommendations of various committee reports it receives as well as broader reports. We must ensure that, when independent bodies provide evidence and recommendations, governments respond in a timely and meaningful way. I therefore urge the government to commit to clear timelines for responding to the commission's reports and inquiries, and to set out transparent implementation pathways for the recommendations that follow. This legislation lays foundations for stronger advocacy, stronger oversight and stronger outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and young people. Now we must ensure that this foundation is matched by action. For these reasons, I support the bills.
Migration | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
We're here to talk about migration and integration. I'm going to focus mainly on integration because I think that is the urgent point in terms of the discussion today, given some of the earlier...
We're here to talk about migration and integration. I'm going to focus mainly on integration because I think that is the urgent point in terms of the discussion today, given some of the earlier comments that have been made. But firstly, briefly on migration, I think it's perfectly appropriate for us to have a conversation about the levels of migration. They have concerned a lot of Australians, and a lot of Australians are legitimately worried about house prices, about young people being locked out of homes and about infrastructure not keeping up with our population—100 per cent very fair questions. There are also very fair questions in terms of what pathways are available to people and making sure that those pathways are appropriate. I think those are really important questions. But I really want to talk about integration, because what we say about this in this House does matter. I feel very strongly about this, particularly as an incredibly proud daughter of a migrant—my mum's family. The reason why I think this is really important is that we have a country that is one of the most diverse in history, and that is a remarkable thing. I don't think it's easy to have a country as diverse as this country is. I think we need to take that responsibility carefully. Part of that responsibility is treating people with the dignity of the individual, which is actually a deeply Western value. It's a deeply liberal democratic value: you have a moral authority based on you as a human. Your moral authority and your role in life don't depend on your ethnicity, your ethnic origin, your religion, your sexuality or anything else. It comes down to you in terms of your responsibility and in terms of your character. That is what this country is based on: the moral authority of the individual. That is something that we have to focus on when having these sorts of conversations, because there is an implication—I'm not going to make assumptions about what is deliberate and what is not, but I look at the people who are watching this debate today, and I think of the people at home. Every Australian who is in this country, who is willing to live by our values, who commits to the words of our citizenship pledge, which I'm delighted often to hear said by people—those people deserve our respect, and they deserve our support, and we can learn and thrive from their difference as well as the contribution that they make to Australia. I think we just have to keep coming back to the individuals rather than to blanket groups who try and other and dehumanise parts of our community. I think we need to build a modern version of the Australian story, because we have this Gallipoli myth about who we were back in 1914. We are a very different nation from then and, frankly, a much greater nation from then. To see the world, you don't need to travel the world; you can actually experience the world here in Australia. I think that is a wonderful thing and is something that I enjoy enormously. I see a version of Australia which represents the breadth, the depth and the diversity of our country and can unite around inclusivity rather than hark back to a past which excludes a whole bunch of Australians. If you exclude a whole bunch of Australians, you know what? We are not going to get back to that cohesive Australian country that some would like us to get; we are going to be more divided than ever. I think it is up to us now, as a country, to build on that inclusive version of Australia and to accept that we have Australian values. We expect people to live by the rule of law. We expect people to live by our Australian values, but those Australian values encompass the view that your safety and your acceptance are not dependent on your ethnicity, your sexuality or your religion. It is down to you and your contribution to this country. As I said, as a child of a migrant, I couldn't be more proud to be part of this country. I couldn't be more proud of my mother's contribution to this country as a migrant. The member for Kennedy referenced Bondi. I could not be more proud that people like Ahmed Al Ahmed made a huge difference in people's lives by saving them, because he did not look at religion or anything else. He stood up for Australian values, and I am proud that he is part of this country. We have to be very careful how we lead this, because this is a special country. It is not easy to be this diverse, but we can do that. That means having a version of Australia that we can all buy into.
Cost of Living | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Treasurer. Australians are worried about inflation. There's been a lot of arguing in this House about whose fault it is, but the question I'm being asked is: what is the...
My question is to the Treasurer. Australians are worried about inflation. There's been a lot of arguing in this House about whose fault it is, but the question I'm being asked is: what is the government actually going to do about it? Australians are scared by the prospect of interest rate hikes, they are scared by their bills going up and they feel that the cost-of-living relief doesn't actually get to the heart of the problem. So the question is back to you: what will the government do about it?
Economy | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that the: (a) Consumer Price Index rose 3.8 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025, up from a 3.4 per cent rise in the 12 months to November 2025; (b)...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that the: (a) Consumer Price Index rose 3.8 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025, up from a 3.4 per cent rise in the 12 months to November 2025; (b) Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) warned last year that the Australian economy could not sustainably grow faster than 2 per cent without running into inflationary pressure; (c) RBA has downgraded Australia's medium term productivity growth forecasts to just 0.7 per cent, per year; and (d) Government undertook an economic reform roundtable with progress made on areas including nuisance tariffs and environmental approvals; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) introduce stronger impact assessments, scrutiny and executive accountability for identifying and discontinuing costly and ineffective regulation; (b) rein-in Government spending, reinstate fiscal rules, reform the Charter of Budget Honesty and make ministers and departments more accountable for blowouts in budget measures; (c) identify how technology and artificial intelligence can support better provision of public services and government effectiveness; and (d) recalibrate Australia's patchwork of climate and industry policies to a framework that transitions the economy at the lowest cost. Australians really saw with a heavy heart the increase in interest rates last week and the increase in inflation in the past couple of months. This is of real concern to all Australians. The big question is: what do we do about it? I'm making the argument that we need to have stronger action on spending restraint. The government needs to step up on this. But, long term, we also need much more powerful action on productivity reforms if we are going to permanently address what we are seeing right now, which is that, if the economy starts to speed up, inflation will pick up and then the interest rates will have to go up again. There was a bit of a debate between the major parties last week on whose plans were worse for the economy and under whose circumstances spending would go up more. Everybody is partly right. But the truth is that where we are right now is not where we need to be. Spending needs to be addressed in its own right on the basis that it has grown far too fast. It's now at 26.9 per cent, which is the highest percentage of GDP for many years outside of the pandemic. That public sector spending is not consistent with a strong private growth economy given the current issues with productivity in the economy. So what can we do on spending? First is bringing in those fiscal rules and reinvigorating the Charter of Budget Honesty, which has been ridden roughshod over by both the major parties for a period of time. We need to have a set of rules that basically say, 'You can't grow government spending faster than the long-term growth rate of the economy.' Then it is about the difficult choices in pulling back government spending and making sure that, for every dollar we spend, we're actually getting the best possible outcome. A big area I see this in is infrastructure spending. The government has a pipeline of over $100 billion, with $32 billion overspent at the moment because of the confluence of public-sector and private-sector demand. Frankly, a whole bunch of those projects don't even have a strong business case to back them in the first place. I'm someone who has really significantly backed climate change policies, but they have to be done on a lowest-cost basis. For instance, the EV fringe benefits tax is an area where I think we should be pulling back, because there are cheaper ways of lowering carbon in our economy than through that tax. Then the other question is: how do we make better outcomes with every dollar that we spend in the public sector? This is where the government has been very slow to move on using, for instance, AI and automation to better deliver public services. It took them 3½ years to give us an AI plan, which I've read, and it is not very good on the detail. Frankly, this is the opportunity to deliver better outcomes for the community without putting more pressure on government spending. I think this is the area where the government really needs to be much, much, much more ambitious. Then it really comes down to how we help the private sector and the non-market sector drive productivity over time. The problem with driving productivity is that it's not a fast turnaround. I respect that the government has done some important work on things like the nuisance tariffs, the passing of the environmental laws and construction codes. Those are all useful things that the government has done. But it takes time to move productivity along. Again, that means going faster and harder and recognising that these benefits will take time. This is an area where the government has said it will step up, in reforming regulations and measuring effectiveness in terms of regulatory burdens on business. But it's been around six months now since the productivity roundtable, and we're no closer to having concrete measures of how the government is going to do this. I haven't seen any stronger incentives for the government, in putting in the system, to say, 'This is how we're going to make it easier for people to do business.' It has to translate into real-world action on the ground. There's a lot of goodwill. I believe there's a lot of desire to do the right thing, but there's got to be pressure and a drive that we haven't yet seen from the government to really make a difference in these areas. The government is also unwilling, it seems, to really, properly look at industrial relations reform. It has changed a lot of industrial relations in the last three years. There are many benefits to workers, but there have been no assessments of the relative cost to productivity and how to find the right balance there. I think this is where, if the government is serious about productivity, it could go back to the PC and say, 'Assess IR on the basis not of ideology but of benefits to workers, costs to productivity and how we get the right balance.' It is an area where I do want to see the government, frankly, be more ambitious. Finally, it is making sure that governments give quick answers to businesses, because agencies like the ATO and others take a long time to deliver answers. That is a problem for the government, for the productivity of businesses.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I support the amendment put forward by the member for Berowra in relation to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I think the point that the member just...
I support the amendment put forward by the member for Berowra in relation to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I think the point that the member just made is a fair one. The objectives of the body should reflect what ordinary people see as the role of universities. I think they are pretty well reflected in ways that I think most people would understand. I think that is appropriate. I don't think it's in conflict with anything that the government is seeking to achieve, but I think it is adding to it in a useful and constructive way. A point that I added—and I'm grateful to the member for being open to the addition—was particularly around the linkages between business and industry and universities. I think that this is a part of the tertiary sector more broadly that can be much, much better. I am thinking particularly of two aspects of that. One is better preparing our young people for work by driving that connection between business and universities and the working world—not just business but also the non-market sector—because when our students go into the world of work, which is increasingly competitive and where we are seeing young people struggling to get on that first rung on the ladder, we need to do the best we possibly can so that they are well prepared. That, I think, supports that connection. The other part of deepening those connections that I think is really critical is ensuring that the wonderful research of our tertiary institutions, which is in many cases is absolutely world-leading, is then translated into productivity and innovation outcomes in industry and the wider economy. Again, I think seeing how other countries in the world do this and doing this much more effectively are ways that this can be strengthened, and I think those should be clearer objectives of the sector to really drive those connections.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and...
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. Many in this House will have wonderful memories from their time at university—a time of discovery, of independence and of learning not only about the world but also about ourselves. For many Australians, it is the first time they are away from home, the first time they encounter ideas that challenge them and the first time they start to imagine the contribution they might make to our country. That sense of possibility is what our higher education system should offer every Australian—the opportunity to learn, to grow and to build a future. Higher education is vital to Australia's future. As our fourth-largest export, it is a driver of national prosperity today and the foundation for tomorrow. It underpins economic growth, social mobility and research capability, and it strengthens our democracy through critical thinking and civic participation. My community cares deeply about access to high-quality education and a system that is sustainable, future focused, fair and accessible to all. One in 13 Wentworth residents are currently enrolled in tertiary study, and around 70 per cent of our community hold a tertiary education—one of the highest rates in the country. But we must ask ourselves whether the system is still delivering on the promise that higher education has long represented in Australia. For decades our tertiary system has opened doors. It has equipped generations of Australians with the skills to strengthen our economy, enrich our community and deepen our democracy. Yet for many young Australians today that promise feels increasingly fragile. Student debt is rising and opportunity can feel more distant. Around three million Australians carry student debt, with the average balance exceeding $27,000. In many disciplines, student contributions have risen sharply over time, leaving graduates with debts that can shape life choices for years, from where they live to whether they start a family or buy a home. The student experience has also changed very significantly, particularly after COVID. I know that, having spoken to many students and families in my electorate, this is a real concern to students and their families—that the great experiences that many of us had in the 1990s and earlier in the 2000s are not being replicated by the current university system, and, particularly, that connection that so many of us got from our colleagues and classmates in universities is not being replicated in the current university sector. These issues feed into, more broadly, issues in terms of productivity and social mobility. They go beyond just education. If we want a dynamic, innovative and cohesive society, we must ensure that learning and opportunity remains within reach, remains relevant and remains engaging for our young people. The universities accord was frank in its diagnosis. It found that tertiary policy had lacked clarity and long-term stewardship. I agree wholeheartedly. Australia needs a more coherent and innovative tertiary system—one that allows students to move easily between vocational education and university and to have prior learning recognised, one that builds strong partnerships with industry to translate research into real-world outcomes, and one that partners very strongly with business and employers to make sure not just that our students are learning the foundation skills to enable them to think critically but also that they are equipped, when they join the workforce, with some practical skills and the skills that the business community and the wider community are saying are in demand. We want a system that harnesses emerging technologies to deliver excellence in teaching and learning, one that innovates to be the best in the world and one that supports Australians to upskill and reskill throughout their lives and recognises that a three-year degree is no longer a set-and-forget approach to education but that this is an ongoing dialogue. Finally, we want a system that delivers a rewarding and enriching experience for students, because students still need to be at the heart of our universities and in many cases students do not feel that, and the evidence bears this out. Establishing an Australian Tertiary Education Commission is an important step towards that coherence and towards accountability. A national steward able to take a long-term view of the system can help ensure that policy is guided by evidence rather than by short-term pressures. But, for that promise to be realised, the design of the commission matters. If we do establish this commission, this has to lead to change. It has to lead to long-term, evidence based change. I do have some really significant concerns that the current design of the commission means that the ability to achieve the changes that Australians want is compromised. Firstly, as to independence, the accord envisaged a body capable of providing robust, evidence based advice, yet, under this bill, the commission can generally only provide advice or publish reports when asked by the minister. It must also take into account ministerial priorities in performing its functions. If the commission is to identify emerging risks, warn when funding settings are failing and think deeply about the future of tertiary education, it really should have the ability and capacity to initiate work within its remit and publish its findings independently. Secondly, as to resourcing, on paper the commission is independent, but in practice its staff will largely be drawn from the Department of Education. The danger is that, instead of building new capability, we risk rebadging existing resources and adding administration without actually adding capacity. Finally, as to remit, the accord was highly critical of the Job-ready Graduates package and called for a more coherent and equitable student contribution system. Many expected ATEC to play a central role in that reform. If the commission is to provide meaningful advice on sustainability and fairness in higher education funding, it's got to go beyond just looking at the government funding for higher education and also consider the full picture, which includes the impact of student contributions and debt on access and opportunity. These are not simply minor design questions. They go to the heart of whether the commission can do the job it is being asked to do, which I do believe is important. At the same time, the sector has waited a long time for clearer stewardship, and many accord reforms depend on having a body like this in place. I support the accord, and I support the principle of an ATEC. However, I support the amendments put forward by Kate Chaney, Monique Ryan and Julian Leeser. They strengthen this bill. They deal with many of the design flaws that I have highlighted in my speech. I think the government should look carefully at these amendments, and I think this is an example of where strengthening our democracy is strengthened by broadening participation in the contest of ideas. This bill could be strengthened. I believe this bill should be strengthened, because we do need a university system that opens doors, not closes them, and a system that fuels ambitions, not burden. We do need a system that ensures every Australian, regardless of background, can experience the transformative period of discovery, independence and learning that so many of us in the House remember so well. But we have a lot of work to do here, and we need this commission, if established, to be as strong and robust as possible. There is more work to be done on this bill.
Milano Cortina Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games | Statements by Members | House debates
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina have well and truly kicked off, and I'm incredibly proud to see several athletes from Wentworth competing for Australia on the slopes and the ice. Even...
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina have well and truly kicked off, and I'm incredibly proud to see several athletes from Wentworth competing for Australia on the slopes and the ice. Even more exciting is that all of them are making their Olympic debut. First, double congratulations to Jason Chan and Holly Harris, representing Australia in ice dance. Having come agonisingly close to selection for Beijing 2022, the perseverance and dedication they have shown since first competing together has been rewarded with their selection this time. Emma Bosco will be representing Australia in two events at these games: moguls and dual moguls. After returning from a serious knee injury in 2020, Emma has consistently improved with each international outing, demonstrating remarkable resilience. Phoebe Cridland becomes the first ever Winter Olympian from SCEGGS in Darlinghurst. This is a huge achievement, and I know the entire SCEGGS community will be backing her this time. Finally, Ally Hickman, one of the youngest members of the Australian team at just 16, is competing in snowboard, slopestyle and big air. While Ally narrowly missed progressing to the final after heats this morning, I'm sure we'll be seeing much more of her. Each of these athletes reflects the dedication, discipline and determination that leads to every Olympic moment. They carry not only the Australian colours but also the pride of their families, coaches, schools and communities. So congratulations to all the athletes from Wentworth and all the athletes competing for our country in these games.
Fiscal Policy | Adjournment | House debates
I'm in the House to talk about something a bit unusual, something I never thought I would be talking about in the House, which is one of my favourite biscuits: Tim Tam. But I do want to explain...
I'm in the House to talk about something a bit unusual, something I never thought I would be talking about in the House, which is one of my favourite biscuits: Tim Tam. But I do want to explain why that is relevant and, I think, extremely relevant to the business of the House. The government has established a host of specialist investment vehicles to direct public funds into priority areas, like renewable energy, housing, agriculture and exports. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund was established in 2023 to diversify and transform Australian industry. But the question I ask, particularly in the economic times that we have right now, is whether these funds are actually doing what they were sold to do—filling funding gaps, crowding in private capital, addressing market failure and building sovereign capability that would not otherwise be built by the private sector. And, when I look at recent decisions, I struggle to see it. Take Arnott's. The National Reconstruction Fund contributed $45 million to a $1.75 billion refinancing. There was no obvious funding gap. Government provided less than three per cent, and the rest came from private markets on commercial terms. The deal was oversubscribed, suggesting public funds actually crowded out private capital rather than attracting it. Market failure? It's hard to identify. Arnott's has operated successfully since 1865. Supporting Australia? Arnott's has not been Australian owned since 1997 and has been owned by US private equity firm KKR since 2019. So what are taxpayers actually getting? It seems that, since the 2019 KKR leveraged acquisition, Australians are actually paying 60 per cent more for homegrown Tim Tams. 'Timflation' is outpacing the consumer price index threefold. The NRF says that investment will expand production, but the funds merely refinance existing debt tied to past investment. But the terms of the deal have not been released, so scrutiny is limited. This is part of a broader pattern that does concern me: questionable investments across specialist investment vehicles, unknown contingent liabilities under the Capacity Investment Scheme and increasing industrial bailouts such as Whyalla and Tomago. There is a role for government in industry policy, but it has to be extremely disciplined, targeted at genuine market failures like climate change, where the market is not already operating effectively, and opportunities for technology spillovers that build national capacity. I am concerned, and not just about the price of Tim Tams. I'm concerned that discipline is slipping. I have competitive businesses and sectors coming to my doors and asking for money. Someone this week said to me: 'Allegra, other sectors are getting money. We employ people too. Why aren't we getting any?' That is of extreme concern to me. When businesses believe that their competitive advantage is not innovation or productivity but their ability to secure government cheques, capital shifts away from doing what it does best, which is allocate efficiently to opportunities. Government capital, where it is trying to solve market failure, should be directed to those areas in which the private market otherwise wouldn't invest or wouldn't invest at the scale of the opportunity. And this is where we want private capital and public capital really to work in concert, but only where it's actually going to make a real difference. We do not want the private sector moving away from investment in R&D, electrification, digitisation and capacity building into how it can more effectively lobby in Canberra. That weakens productivity and distorts the economy. The Productivity Commission has already outlined clear guardrails for modern industry policy. We should be following them. With deficits forecast for a decade and households under pressure from inflation and interest rates, every dollar needs to be tested. Does it expand productive capacity? Does it unlock innovation, or does it entrench unproductive investment? This is a cost-of-living relief government has to be focused on. The cost-of-living relief will only come from improving productivity and, really, effectively, supply-side changes. Undisciplined spending today only makes Australians worse off tomorrow. And, again, who pays for it? With government predicting deficits for the next 10 years, the generation who will pay for it are the generation who are coming—that generation where they have fewer workers compared to the working-age population, where they are already more indebted when they finish university and education, and where housing is more out of reach. We should not be burdening them with investments that do not benefit the public.
Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise in support of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. Millions of Australians interact with digital assets in some form, as developers, as investors and as users....
I rise in support of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. Millions of Australians interact with digital assets in some form, as developers, as investors and as users. As this form of payment technology becomes more ubiquitous, it will become part of the lives of many more of us. But, until now, anyone buying or selling digital assets in Australia has done so in a regulatory grey zone that has offered little protection for users and a lack of certainty for legitimate digital asset platforms. This bill is a critical step towards addressing this lack of regulatory clarity, and it comes not a moment too soon. Actually, one of the major criticisms—probably the biggest criticism—I have of this bill is the time that it has taken us to get here, because I think the need for this bill has been urgent and one that I've been pushing for since the previous parliament. This bill amends the Corporations Act and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to create a regulatory framework for digital asset platforms and cryptocurrency exchanges. It defines digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms as financial products and ensures these platforms are regulated according to Australian financial services law. This regulatory clarity will be a significant enabler of Australia's burgeoning digital assets industry. The Tech Council of Australia estimates that, with the right regulatory and policy settings, digital assets could contribute $60 billion per year to Australia's GDP. The digital assets sector is also paving the way to modernising our financial infrastructure, and it has the potential to strengthen Australia's competitiveness as a technological and financial hub in the region. As technology changes, our regulation needs to be nimble to keep up. Our regulation should not get in the way of progress but, rather, create the appropriate guardrails to seize new opportunities. Credible firms, and firms that are trying to do the right thing, just want to know the rules they play by. Investors want confidence in the platforms on which they are buying and selling cryptocurrencies. Consumers want to be confident that they are reasonably protected from harm, regardless of whether the financial product they invest in is traditional or digital. I support this bill because I think it is an important forward step on all these fronts. Digital innovation is also a critical driver of productivity growth. This is a puzzle that Australia is struggling to solve, but it is essential if we are to ensure our economy continues to grow and our living standards continue to rise. Bringing digital asset platforms under the existing Australian financial services licence, AFSL, framework is a sensible way to regulate this emerging industry in a way that fosters growth without government getting in the way. This framework is well regarded and is well understood, and it allows us to apply the principle of 'same risk, same regulation' to new technologies and products like digital currencies. My electorate of Wentworth is home to many of these firms and the business leaders who are spearheading the growth of Australia's digital asset sector. These are legitimate and innovative financial firms who want the industry to be properly regulated so that Australian businesses like them can clearly distinguish themselves from less scrupulous operators who risk undermining public confidence in the industry. In a time when many of our tech entrepreneurs and innovators are looking overseas for better growth opportunities, we need to give them every reason to stay. Giving regulatory certainty is an important step in the right direction. That said, there are opportunities for the government to do more to foster the innovation and growth of our digital asset sector. One way would be to grant ASIC the power to recognise digital currency regulatory arrangements of foreign countries, like the UK and US, as being equivalent to ours. This would open a huge door to those markets for Australian digital currency exchanges and coin issuers. It will also significantly improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of digital currency transactions in and out of Australia. Finally, while I acknowledge it is outside the scope of this piece of legislation, I also urge the government to continue to focus closely on how it can best protect Australians from the potential harms of digital currencies. Specifically, it is critical to consider schemes that will fall outside the financial services regulatory framework that this bill provides. For example, operators that directly issue speculative tokens to the public as part of so-called 'pump and dump' schemes do not hold client assets, so they would not be covered by this regulation, while still posing a risk to the unassuming buyer. I encourage the government not to set and forget this legislation but rather to continue to work to foster the growth of the digital assets sector in Australia while mitigating potential harms to consumers. These will evolve and our regulatory environment should evolve with it. Industry stakeholders I've spoken with welcome the much-needed regulatory certainty this bill will give and interpret it as an important signal that the government is shifting its posture to being pro-industry and pro-innovation. Digital assets have the potential to become a valuable and innovative sector of the Australian economy, and I'm glad to see the groundwork laid for its continued growth. For these reasons, I support the bill. Sitting suspended from 13:27 to 16 : 11
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow...
I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow authorised nurse prescribers who meet strict criteria to prescribe certain pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The types of medicines that can be prescribed will be clearly specified by the minister, and there will be appropriate safeguards in place. This includes oversight by the Professional Services Review, which will now extend to PBS prescribing by authorised nurse practitioners. These changes are not radical; they are sensible, evidence based reforms that flow directly from the recommendations of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce and the Scope of Practice Review, both commissioned by the government following the 2022 election. At its core, this bill recognises something that many Australians already know to be true: our nurses are highly skilled professionals and are more than capable of working to the full extent of their training and expertise, and we want them to. Empowering healthcare practitioners, particularly nurses, is essential for our healthcare system to remain resilient in the face of an ageing population, rising rates of chronic illness, a growing mental health crisis and increasing demand in regional and rural communities. These pressures are not going away; if anything, they are intensifying, and we cannot meet these challenges by relying on outdated modes of care. We must be innovative in the ways we deliver health care, and we must make better use of the resources and talent we already have. Even if our healthcare system didn't have these constraints, I would still support this bill because it allows nurses to work to the full extent of their capacity, and does that in a safe way for patients but also in a way that gives professional satisfaction for nurses. These highly trained individuals, these important members of our community, should have the satisfaction of being able to work to the full extent of their training and their capability. That reason alone is enough to support the bill, but at the same time this will provide important support for our healthcare system. This will mean that patients and members of our community can more easily access the health care they need when they need it, and that is another incredibly important reason to support this bill. We know there is international evidence that these models of care can work safely and effectively around the world. I've seen some of this personally, in my own experience working in the UK healthcare system. I believe this bill strikes the right balance. It expands the scope of practice while maintaining strong safeguards. That's what I think Australians want from us. They want to feel safe, they want to feel in good hands when they go to a GP service or to any of our hospital or healthcare services, but they also want to make sure that our nurses, who we respect and whose care we value, get to work to the full extent of their practice. Let's be honest. There are a couple of other things. For those people who might be nervous about this bill, it expands the scope of practice, but it does have strong safeguards. Only appropriately qualified nurse prescribers will be authorised, and there will continue to be oversight to ensure prescribing is safe, appropriate and accountable. This reform will not solve every challenge facing our healthcare system, but it is a practical and necessary step in the right direction. It reflects the trust that we have in our healthcare workforce, supports better patient outcomes and helps build a more flexible and sustainable healthcare system for the future. For these reasons, I support the bill.
I second the motion and I rise to speak in support of it. I unequivocally condemn the horrendous attack against peaceful protesters marching in Boorloo/Perth on 26 January and acknowledge the...
I second the motion and I rise to speak in support of it. I unequivocally condemn the horrendous attack against peaceful protesters marching in Boorloo/Perth on 26 January and acknowledge the deep fear, anger and grief that this attack has caused, particularly for Indigenous people but also for Australians right across the country. For decades, protests on 26 January, often referred to as Invasion Day marches, have been held every year. This year, in capital cities and regional towns alike, tens of thousands of people gathered peacefully. They gathered to recognise the suffering of Indigenous Australians, the enduring impacts of colonialisation, the trauma of stolen generations, ongoing racism and the devastating reality of deaths in custody. In Boorloo, around 2,500 people came together peacefully. Families were there. Children were there. People were marching peacefully to express their support for Indigenous Australians, exercising a fundamental democratic right and calling on the government to do better. At approximately 12.40, it is alleged that a homemade explosive device was thrown into that crowd, landing among women and children. By sheer luck, it did not detonate. This was not a hoax bomb. This explosive was reportedly packed with ball bearings and nails to deliberately inflict maximum injury and death in that peaceful crowd of families. This bomb reportedly failed only because of a faulty fuse. The thought of what could have happened is horrifying. Police confirmed that, had this bomb exploded, this could have been a mass casualty event. It should not be an image that any community has to imagine, and it should stop every one of us in our tracks. Tragically, Australians now find it easier to imagine the horror of terrorism. Many Australians are understandably afraid that hatred has motivated another attack—this time on the Invasion Day protest. Australia is a nation woven from many sources. First Australians trace their history on this continent back 70,000 years, but most Australian families have come to this place through migration. The strength of Australia is, to paraphrase Noel Pearson, braided from ancient Indigenous history and culture, British institutions and multicultural achievement. Binding us together is a shared tolerance that accepts the rights of all to practise their faith, enjoy their culture and express their opinions in a way that accepts difference and acknowledges the reciprocal rights of others. This attack on this march was not just an attack on a protest. It was an attack on our shared values; on the right to gather peacefully without fear, hatred, racism or violence motivated by racial hatred; and on the safety of Indigenous Australians to simply stand together in a public space. I welcome the fact that the Western Australian Joint Counter Terrorism Team is now investigating this incident as a potential terrorist attack. That acknowledgement matters because it reflects the seriousness of what occurred. But acknowledgement is not enough. Differences of opinion are inevitable. For some, 26 January is a day of mourning; for others, it is a day to come together and celebrate. We must make room for both. I am a very proud Australian, but I recognise that, for many Indigenous Australians, the celebration of Australia Day is a painful reminder of the impact of colonisation on their people. For some Australians, the Invasion Day protests are an affront to their national pride. But we must accept these differences and recognise the importance of the rights of all to express their views. This is something I think all Australians can unite on. We and everyone in this country should be able to gather peacefully without any threat or fear of violence. We cannot tolerate those who turn difference into extremism and violence. We must ensure that free speech does not become an excuse for speech intended to generate hate and excuse violence. We must ensure that we have effective deradicalisation programs in place to steer vulnerable people away from radicalisation. We must ensure that our police and security forces have the necessary tools to prevent this violence before it happens. Those protections must extend to all Australians, including, absolutely fundamentally, our Indigenous Australians and their allies, who were targeted at the Invasion Day rally in Boorloo/Perth. We must act. We must stand with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and we must ensure that no-one in this country is made to fear for their life simply for exercising their democratic rights.
Antisemitism | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Radical extremism, Islamist and other forms, is a threat to Jewish Australians and all Australians, as we saw so devastatingly in Bondi on 14 December. We...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Radical extremism, Islamist and other forms, is a threat to Jewish Australians and all Australians, as we saw so devastatingly in Bondi on 14 December. We have had deradicalisation programs in place for many years, but extremism is still taking root. How does the government measure the current effectiveness of these deradicalisation programs, and how effective are these programs at all? We have the Richardson review and part of the royal commission coming up, but is the government planning to take any other actions in terms of deradicalisation in particular before then?
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 12), omit "distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "distinguished by race, nationality, national or ethnic...
by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 12), omit "distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "distinguished by race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes". (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the race, or national or ethnic origin, of the target person or the persons in the target group", substitute "the race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes". (3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 28), omit "the particular race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "the particular race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes". (4) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 28), after item 11, insert: 11A After subsection 16A(2AAD) Insert: (2AAE) In subsections (2), (2AAC) and (2AAD), association with another person includes: (a) being a near relative of the person; and (b) living with the person on a genuine domestic basis; and (c) having a formal business or employment relationship with the person. I rise today in support of the bill, but also to put forward amendments. I'm introducing an amendment to part 3, the aggravated sentencing factor. This provision is a matter which must be considered by the court when sentencing persons for federal offences if the factor is relevant and known to the court. This factor is whether the offender's conduct was motivated by hatred of another person or group and, if so, whether that hatred was because of the person's belief that the target person or target group are distinguished by race or national ethnic origin. I support this provision. A federal offence which has been motivated by hatred, especially on the attributes which are inherent to an individual or group, is an offence which deserves additional punishment upon consideration of the court. In a time of unprecedented antisemitism, particularly directed to those in my community and across the country, and in the wake of the abhorrent attack on 14 December, we must take action to show that hatred is not acceptable and draw bright lines—and this is a fitting way to do so. However, I remain concerned that the groups designated within this provision are too narrowly defined. Consideration of this hatred should not be limited by race, or national or ethnic origin. Hatred can be enacted through violence and crime against members of our LGBTQIA+ community, for example; those with a disability; and those from religious communities. As I've said previously, the Jewish community has not asked for special treatment in relation to these bills and I think that is really relevant. Given what has happened in my community, I wouldn't be standing in this space on this without having spoken to the Jewish community. What they have said to me is that we need to protect all Australians from hatred and vilification. We need to draw bright lines across this country and we need to make sure that everybody feels that they are equal in front of the law. I really cannot understand why the government, in this case, would bring in what I think is an appropriate piece of legislation but then, in terms of this part of the bill, not apply it consistently. That is actually inconsistent internally with the rest of the act. So just from the point of view of good governance this is bad, because we have laws applying to some in some ways and not in other ways. I think that it is not good for the message that we're trying to send the country: that we are all equal in front of the law and that hatred matters to everyone. While, again, I have very much stood for and fought for antisemitism protections in the last parliament and in this parliament, I have always done it in consultation with the Jewish community. They have said, 'Don't single us out; make sure that this is protection for everyone.' I raise this particularly because I represent the biggest Jewish community in the country, and I think I probably represent the biggest LGBTQI+ community in the country as well. I'm going to read something that someone sent to me about this: 'For much of my life I was a senior banking executive. Due to my public role, I attracted the attention of a man who sought to destroy my life. I am a gay man, and the hatred and homophobia he directed to me over a number of years was of an order that Chief Justice Lucy McCallum said she had never seen. He sent thousands of emails to everyone I knew—family, board members, colleagues, associates. He left multiple phone messages every day; came to my home and workplace; generated pornographic and other images of me; and accused me publicly of all manner of terrible crimes and so on. I was forced to sell my house, move jobs, resign from several boards and more or less live as a hermit for some years, with security guards accompanying me. That is the case for some people in our community.' I have been there and have talked to Jewish community members who are afraid to go out in their country and do not know if they will ever be safe again. As a parliament, we have to fight for that, but we need to fight for the safety of all Australians. The targeting of hatred against any Australian should not be acceptable to this parliament. The laws need to apply broadly and equally so that those people are not forced to go through this, and to recognise that the hatred against them does not matter as much. I think that is actually better for the social cohesion of our country rather than worse.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise today to speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. These are modest changes in this bill, but they are necessary. But let...
I rise today to speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. These are modest changes in this bill, but they are necessary. But let us be completely honest: neither this bill nor any of the actions of the parliament to date will eradicate antisemitism or keep the Jewish community safe in the future. There is much, much more work that needs to be done. The fourteenth of December is one of the darkest days in modern Australian history, and it is a day that my community, Jewish and non-Jewish, will never, ever forget. Fifteen innocent people were violently murdered while celebrating their Jewish faith, customs and community. It was an attack on Jewish Australians and it was an attack on all of us as a country and all of our Australian values. We know that violence does not start with weapons. It starts with words. It starts with hate. I acknowledge that in this bill there are some important steps to deal with the spread of hate, which leads to the spread of violence. I support the bill. I support the aggravated offences measures, particularly for hate preachers. I support the strengthened measures in relation to hate symbols. I support the actions in relation to hate preachers, and I support the fact that the home affairs minister now has the framework to proscribe certain groups—which should include, in my mind, groups like the National Socialist Network and Neo-Nazis and Hizb ut-Tahrir, who openly spread and promote virulent antisemitism as well as vile hatred against other groups in our country. These groups do not merely offend; they normalise dehumanisation and incitement. Their rhetoric corrodes our social fabric and creates a condition in which violence becomes possible. But let's be honest: this bill does not get to the heart of what I believe we need to do as a country. There is extremism in Australia. There is Islamic extremism. There is Neo-Nazi extremism. These ideologies are a direct threat to Jewish Australians, and they are a threat to all of us. But this is not only a question of immediate security; it's also a profound challenge to our social cohesion. When parliament fails to address the direct causes of extremism and hatred, entire communities end up carrying the blame for the actions of a violent, extreme minority. This is what deeply concerns me about the current trajectory of our national conversation. Muslims and migrants are increasingly made to feel suspect by association. By failing to confront hateful individuals and ideologies directly, we drift towards a culture of guilt by association rather than accountability. We know that radicalisation thrives in environments where blameless people are persistently blamed, excluded or treated as inherently suspect. This is the consequence of a parliament that has failed to legislate clear standards of behaviour and failed to draw strong lines between what is offending, what is disagreeing and what is directly promoting and inciting hatred in our country. I talk to the coalition here because the coalition has rightly spoken up on antisemitism very strongly for the last two years, and I commend it for that. But, when it comes to actions, it has not followed through, and the coalition could have and should have supported laws against vilification that the Jewish community called for before 14 December and is calling for even more strongly now. We do need to protect the Jewish community. I have had people come up to me constantly, saying: 'How is it possible, Allegra, that somebody can call for the final solution to the Jews without this being an offence in this country? How can people hatefully target the Jewish community in their words, when we know that words lead to action, without this being an offence in our country?' We do have stronger laws, but they are a patchwork across our country, and this is the opportunity for the federal parliament to lead. But I do believe that the coalition has really stepped back from what the Jewish community has deliberately asked you for in this case, and that is a terrible shame. So when I hear the words—and I hear them constantly, and I think they are well meant—saying there is no place for extremism and that we need to stamp this out, my question is: what other mechanisms are you saying we can use now? You have rejected something that the Jewish community has been calling for for a long time. I put that forward in the previous parliament, and you also rejected it then. The final thing I want to say is that we have a long road ahead of us. The security of the Jewish community is absolutely critical. The antisemitism envoy's packages and the actions taken there are absolutely critical. The royal commission is critical. But we also need to lead a better conversation in this country about how we disagree well, and I think that means drawing bright lines against hatred.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Bondi Beach was perfect that Sunday: hot, clear skies, cool waves and people excited for the coming holidays. Around the country, and especially in Wentworth, Jewish Australians were coming...
Bondi Beach was perfect that Sunday: hot, clear skies, cool waves and people excited for the coming holidays. Around the country, and especially in Wentworth, Jewish Australians were coming together for the start of Hanukkah. Chabad Bondi had celebrated Hannukah at Bondi Beach for years—a joyous, open celebration of music, face-painting, donuts, games and light. I left Bondi Beach with my family just an hour before the horror began. Sunday 14 December was one of the darkest days in modern Australia. One part of our community—Jewish Australians—was murderously targeted. It was an attack on them and an attack on our Australian values. Our country will never be the same, nor should it be. The question is who we become now—how we honour the memories of the 15 beautiful people we lost and how we honour and care for the dozens who are physically injured, the countless who can never forget the trauma and bloodshed of the day, and the families who will live with the scars forever. Every person we lost that day was a precious gift to their family and their community. Simple words are inadequate to express their light. But saying the names of those we have lost has a special place in Jewish culture. People are not gone if we continue to say their names and remember them. Rabbi Yossi Friedman tirelessly led the reading of names for 30 days at Bondi Beach, and I'll continue that here. Cherished community member Edith Brutman; adventurous young traveller, Dan Elkayam; Boris Gurman and Sofia Gurman, who instinctively and courageously tried to stop this atrocity; Alex Kleytman, who survived the Holocaust but died in the country where he sought refuge; Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, who chose a life of devotion; former police officer and community stalwart, Peter Meagher; Reuven Morrison, who lost his life courageously challenging the gunmen; caring grandmother Marika Pogany, who delivered meals to those in need; Rabbi Eli Schlanger, a giver, and someone I was lucky enough to know personally, whose goodness and warmth I experienced firsthand; Adam Smyth, a local father, husband and friend; Boris Tetleroyd, a gentle, much-loved man and gifted musician; Tania Tretiak, who died shielding a child from gunfire; Tibor Weitzen, a great-grandfather who gave out lollipops at Bondi Chabad; and, finally, 10-year-old Matilda Britvan, a light. May their memories be a blessing. In the words of the poet Zelda: Each of us has a name given by God and given by our parents. As parents, we often name our children for our hopes. The hope for Australia captured in Matilda's name is heartbreaking. How badly we have let down her parents and her family. How badly Australia failed the Jewish community that day. When I think about the terrorists who attacked that Sunday, it's easy to despair. But then I think of the other stories of the day. I think of Boris and Sofia, a couple in their 60s who tried to stop the gunmen with their bare hands, whose courage leaves me in awe; of Reuven, who took on the terrorists only armed with a brick; of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a Syrian refugee who saved many lives by disarming one of the attackers; and of Chaya, a child herself, who put her body in front of other children. I think of so many who risked their lives to protect others: locals, surf lifesavers and guards, young CSG guards, police, first responders, Hatzolah and tireless healthcare workers. Some of those people are in the galleries here today. Thank you, each and every one of you, for what you did when it really mattered. Many recount the long-ago stories of Gallipoli as exemplifying the Australian spirit. I believe the stories of Sunday 14 December deserve to be cherished equally. That is the modern Australian spirit, one of courage and care. I saw that care in the quiet procession of thousands of people—locals and people who had travelled for hours, schoolchildren, sports teams, people alone and in groups, people of all faiths—laying flowers to say: 'We are devastated too. You are not alone.' I saw the care in the Paddle Out of Thousands, with the beach lined by surf lifesavers, strangers hugging, and local businesses giving coffee to first responders and flowers to mourners. I saw the care in the tears and stories that we shared at the memorial and our mitzvas. I saw our kind, melting-pot Bondi community trying to process the destruction with care for one another. One Jewish woman told me that the light she found in the darkness was that people she had not heard from in decades reached out simply to say, 'I am with you.' We will not let the terrorists win. Australia promises that your safety and acceptance do not depend on your religion, your ethnicity or who you love. I am proud of that promise. But we must make it real for Jewish Australians, who belong here too. There have been Jews in this country since the First Fleet. Their contribution across our institutions and endeavours is boundless. They are our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues, yet many of them no longer feel safe or welcome. Security fences and guards around Jewish schools and synagogues are normalised. When I attended the bat mitzvahs of my school friends, we walked straight through the front door. Now, as a local MP, I encounter guards and barriers at almost every Jewish school or synagogue I visit. When I think of how we must change, I look to an Australia where we don't need those guards. We don't know how long it will take, but it violates our Australian compact when a community has to pray, congregate or educate behind security. We must not tolerate it, and we must not tolerate the violent extremism that makes it necessary. Antisemitism has become normalised in this country in a way I never thought I would see. This includes a friend of mine being sworn at as a South African Jew when asking someone to inch their car forward, and an eight-year-old girl being abused at the lights because she's holding the hand of her Orthodox father. As one mum said to me, 'How do I explain to my kids that so many people hate them?' When Jewish Australians tell me they are thinking of leaving this country, where they were born, it is a tragedy for all Australians. As a parliament and as a country, we need to be both strong and soft right now—strong in confronting the hate that drove the attack, resolute against violent Islamic extremism and all types of violent extremism, and clear eyed and fact based about what it will take to keep the Jewish community safe; and soft so that we do not lose our common humanity in our strength. If we meet difference with suspicion rather than with curiosity, the terrorists will truly win. This work belongs to all of us, in all our workplaces, universities, schools and home and online spaces. It is not the work of weeks but of years. My commitment to the families of Bondi is that I won't move on from this when other people do. Australia is one of the most diverse societies in human history. It is remarkable, but it is not easy. Social cohesion must be consciously built. Each of us, including everyone in this House, must personally reflect on how we contribute to that cohesion, and each of us must do better. We will disagree passionately, but we owe it to one another to disagree well. We must not dehumanise one another. We cannot fight hate with hate. As Rabbi Ulman reminded us on the last night of Hanukkah at the vigil on Bondi Beach: Darkness is not defeated by anger or force. Darkness is transformed by light … People are angry now, and rightly so. But, in his words, Australia must become a nation 'where kindness is louder than hate, where decency is stronger than fear'. This was the most violent attack of hatred in modern Australia. I do believe that we as a country can emerge more united, more steadfastly committed to our common values and our shared humanity, than ever before. The stories from Bondi show us the way. The courage and the care of those Australians show us the way. This is what we owe those we have lost. This is how we honour their blessed memories. As Rabbi Ulman reminds us, this work is urgent. Let us not wait for tomorrow. Let us start today. I thank the House.
Parliamentary Procedure | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Many constituents complain to me that question time is 'question time', not 'answer time'. That is driven by the standing orders that don't actually force...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Many constituents complain to me that question time is 'question time', not 'answer time'. That is driven by the standing orders that don't actually force real answers from the government. They say to me that it means that we don't hold the government to account in the same way that they expect us to in this House. I ask the Prime Minister: have you considered reforming question time to give a greater expectation of answers and a narrowing of relevance so we can get better answers in this House?
Menczer, Ms Pauline | Statements by Members | House debates
Last week, I was honoured to attend the unveiling of a bronze statue of Pauline Menczer, which overlooks the waves of Bondi Beach. Born and raised by the beach, Pauline is Bondi's only world...
Last week, I was honoured to attend the unveiling of a bronze statue of Pauline Menczer, which overlooks the waves of Bondi Beach. Born and raised by the beach, Pauline is Bondi's only world champion surfer—winning the title in 1993. But her path to that achievement was far from smooth. Pauline told us at the unveiling about how she battled sexism, homophobia and debilitating rheumatoid arthritis, and, unlike her male counterparts, she received no sponsorship support. Her success is a testament to her extraordinary resilience and determination. She said, 'If you don't have sponsors, you can't offend them when you speak your mind.' Initially, Pauline didn't want a statue, but she was convinced to have one because she could see the role it would have in inspiring the next generation of female sportspeople. Only six per cent of statues in New South Wales are women and most of them, apparently, are royal women. It's important that trailblazing sportspeople like Pauline are also immortalised in our public spaces. This public statue has been a long time coming—not just for Pauline and her partner, Sam, but for the Pauline in Bronze campaign led by Christopher Nelius, who has been pushing tirelessly for this recognition for over five years. I want to thank the artist, Cathy Weiszmann, and Waverley Council for helping to secure this perfect location. I'm so proud that the Wentworth community and visitors alike will be able to see Pauline in her place overlooking Bondi, and I know her legacy will continue to live on in the dreams of the next generation of women surfers.
Social Cohesion | Constituency Statements | House debates
Australia's one of the most successful multicultural nations, and Wentworth reflects this richness in every one of our schools. Our students come from more than 100 cultural and linguist...
Australia's one of the most successful multicultural nations, and Wentworth reflects this richness in every one of our schools. Our students come from more than 100 cultural and linguist backgrounds, with the largest Jewish community in the country alongside a large LGBTQIA+ community and various multicultural and multifaith communities. But diversity alone does not guarantee belonging. In recent years, school leaders and students have raised concerns with me around exclusion, prejudice and rising antisemitism in particular against the Jewish community, as well as broader social pressures that our young people face. These concerns lead to ongoing discussions with principals throughout 2024 and 2025 which made clear that the next step had to be student led. That is what brought us to Wentworth's first student led social cohesion roundtable, hosted by Rose Bay Secondary College last week. School leaders emphasised that meaningful change must come from the ground up. As principal Cathy Archer said, 'We can talk a lot as school leaders, but if we want something meaningful to come out of this, we need to lead with the students.' The roundtable brought together 37 students and school leaders from nine public, private, independent, faith based and non-faith schools, supported by facilitators from Together for Humanity and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. Both organisations helped create a space where students felt safe to speak openly, disagree respectfully and explore how trust can even be built when views differ. Students told us that learning how to disagree well is a skill they urgently need. One group from a faith based school described how eye-opening it was to learn about diversity within neighbouring schools, including active LGBTQIA+ groups and cultural clubs that helped students feel welcome. They reflected on how microaggressions affect not just the Jewish community but also Islamic students and people of different races and cultures and on how seeing other models of inclusions 'opened my eyes to how many different ways of belonging can be supported.' Another group said it was so rare to have the chance for deeper conversations with peers from different schools and social backgrounds. One student said to the roundtable that 'it got me thinking about how we can solve these problems in our school and in our community.' Another said that the most powerful lesson was learning to step outside your own bubble and approach others with empathy. Rabbi Zalman Kastel, founder of Together for Humanity, noted the burden placed on young people who face racist jokes and reminded us that while they show great resilience they should not have to carry this responsibility alone. By the end of the session, the optimism in the room was clear. Students began imagining practical ways to build bridges, strengthen belonging and support young peers. Early next year, we'll bring them back together for a co-design for a shared initiative in 2026. Young people show that when they're trusted and heard, they can lead with courage, clarity and compassion, and that gives me great hope. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:09 to 16:20