Zali Steggall's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Strata living is now a defining feature of Australia's housing system. Yet too often strata owners and renters are being asked to carry risks they did not create and cannot control. Almost half...
Strata living is now a defining feature of Australia's housing system. Yet too often strata owners and renters are being asked to carry risks they did not create and cannot control. Almost half of households in the electorate of Warringah live in strata. Apartments are central to how we meet our housing needs, manage density and support diverse communities, but strata residents are often locked out of opportunity to access clean energy rebates while being loaded with responsibilities and rising costs. In Warringah, I recently met with residents on a single street where five apartment buildings are all battling serious water ingress issues. These are families who bought homes in good faith. Yet years later they are still fighting developers, paying special levies, facing rising insurance premiums and living with stress, mould and uncertainty. They cannot sell. Some cannot safely stay, and they cannot compel accountability. And governments are abandoning them—are failing to be there for them. Strata residents are also being left behind in the clean energy transition. While around 30 per cent of standalone homes in Warringah now have solar, only three to four per cent of apartments do, and renters are almost entirely excluded. Unfortunately, we see time and time again that government policies are designed in a way that excludes strata. People want to electrify their homes whether they live in single dwellings or in strata. They want to cut their power bills, install batteries and enable EV charging, but they are blocked by complex governance, outdated strata regulation, high upfront costs and inconsistent government pathways, including local government pathways. For example, the New South Wales government's bond scheme to address building defects has also fallen short, shifting the burden onto owners with few tools for recourse. Australia is now racing to build 1.2 million homes. Many of those will be in strata and in medium-to-high density. Experts are warning that, without stronger standards and accountability, up to half of new apartments could have serious defects. We need to be focusing more on the quality of what is being built, not just on the nice-to-announce numbers when it comes to what is being approved or built. We need national consistency, transparent developer and builder ratings, stronger certification and a national recall scheme to support owners when developers dodge responsibility or go into liquidation. Too often, the property developer has moved on, the builders go into liquidation and it is the owners who are left carrying the debt and the serious consequences. So that means aligning federal leadership with state systems, fixing incentives and ensuring strata communities can access the many different programs, including energy programs—for example, the home batteries one that we hear about so often in this place. It also means supporting existing buildings, not just future ones, with fair insurance practices and access to low-cost finance for rectification of building defects when developers and builders are not available to take responsibility. Strata residents are not asking for special treatment. They're just asking for a fair system that works for them and recognises the very difficult situation they are all too often in compared to single-dwelling homeowners. I attended a workshop and roundtable in the North Sydney local government area, where so many were absolutely despairing at the financial circumstances they faced. They found themselves in the situation where the legal responsibility passed with them upon contract exchange. Developers move on—have made their profits—builders go into liquidation or build substandard buildings, and those left to pay for the rectifications to ensure they even have something liveable are the owners, who are left in the situation where the property they've purchased could be hundreds of thousands of dollars less in value—quite stark. They are left with hundreds of thousands of dollars of rectification costs. They are unable to sell, they're unable to live in it and they are unable to move. It was quite dire. The level of stress and anxiety was huge. So I urge the government to start focusing on the question of more equitable arrangements so that people living in strata situations have a fairer system.
Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. In recent times, federal governments have called royal commissions into veteran suicide, aged care, antisemitism and social cohesion. Last year, the Prime...
My question is to the Prime Minister. In recent times, federal governments have called royal commissions into veteran suicide, aged care, antisemitism and social cohesion. Last year, the Prime Minister said Australia faced a domestic violence crisis, with one woman being killed every four days. Will the government elevate the safety of women and children to the same level of urgency and attention by calling a royal commission into femicide and domestic violence?
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and the amendment on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 31), omit subparagraph...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and the amendment on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 31), omit subparagraph 80.2DA(1)(b)(ii), substitute: (ii) a spiritual leader who provides religious instruction or religious pastoral care; or (iia) a leader of a prohibited hate group (within the meaning of Part 5.3B); or (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 12), omit subparagraph 80.2DA(2)(b)(ii), substitute: (ii) a spiritual leader who provides religious instruction or religious pastoral care; or (iia) a leader of a prohibited hate group (within the meaning of Part 5.3B); or (3) Schedule 2, page 43 (after line 28), after item 2, insert: 2A Paragraph 5C(1)(d) Omit "there is a risk", substitute "there is a reasonable risk". _____ SHEET 2 (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (after line 31), at the end of section 114A.3, add: (7) In this section, a reference to race or national or ethnic origin includes a reference to race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability. It's impossible to properly scrutinise this legislation when it's provided to members only hours before debate. It makes a mockery of our responsibility to carefully scrutinise laws. Despite this, my serious concerns about the bill and the extremely limited amount of time, I've been able to at least draw out these four amendments to areas that are contentious and incredibly concerning. In seeking to act quickly, this bill grants the minister broad discretion with inadequate safeguards, weakens procedural fairness and sets a dangerous precedent that future governments could exploit. My concerns and amendments address three areas: the breadth of ministerial power, the lowering of visa cancellation thresholds and the narrowing complete definition of hate crime and consequently the prohibited groups to which it applies. As drafted, it enables a significant overreach of ministerial power, weakens procedural fairness and sets a dangerous precedent that may be exploited. In relation to my amendments, the revised bill circulated just recently is intended to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism, and that is something I would hope we are all united about, but the execution is flawed and unacceptable. The bill continues to define hate crimes narrowly, focusing on race, nationality and ethnic origin. I certainly welcome that, but it is clear that we have hate crimes that are done on the basis of faith, sexuality, gender, sexual orientation and disability. Why these are not included in the definition of hate crime for the purpose of prohibited groups I do not understand. I know that for many in Australia, in such a multi- faith country, that why hate crimes done on the basis of at least religion are not included is really quite astounding. So one amendment seeks to broaden the definition of hate crime—to expand it to include targeted people on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability. We know that hate does not stop at race or ethnicity. There is no justification for excluding those other communities. I know they are quite distressed at the moment at hearing the debate in this place and hearing that the government does not care about the hate that they face. Narrowing the definition of secular pastoral leadership—as drafted, the bill criminalises conduct by anyone providing religious or secular pastoral care. Secular pastoral care is not defined. That term has no clear legal meaning and no settled boundaries. I have consulted with academics and legal experts in relation to this. The amendment removes the concept of so-called secular pastoral care leader entirely and limits the offence to genuine religious officials or members of prohibited hate groups. With this change, the risk of unintended consequences—and, I would say, a constitutional challenge that would be an embarrassment for this government—is important. Finally, I come to the visa cancellation threshold. This bill changes the legislation in relation to the discretionary power of the minister to cancel a visa on the basis of a concern that someone 'would' commit an offence to 'might'. That dramatically lowers the threshold for cancelling a visa and for consideration—'might' is entirely speculative. On a balance of probability, you could say that, on the basis of a chance of one out of a 100, that is a might. 'Would' requires already slightly higher consideration. My amendment seeks to include that, where a minister seeks to cancel a visa based on speculation about what a person might do, they should at least make clear there must be demonstrable and reasonable risk. That is not an objective test. It invites arbitrary decision-making and broad discrimination. The amendment seeks to make clear a defensible standard—one that respects the rule of law while maintaining public safety.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 14), omit "only". (2) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 22), at the end...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 14), omit "only". (2) Schedule 2, item 11, page 12 (line 22), at the end of subsection 8(4A), add: ; (d) any criminal history or proceedings relating to domestic violence or AVOs issued in local courts. In relation to the legislation which sets out firearms background checks, these amendments seek to amend subsection 8(4A), relating to firearms background checks. The current bill indicates: … a firearms background check … may only take into account one or more of the following: (a) an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation of the individual under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979; (b) a criminal intelligence assessment (within the meaning of Part III of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002) … (c) the citizenship status of the individual. The amendments circulated seek to delete the word 'only' and insert an additional provision (d) to indicate that, amidst the domestic violence crisis that we have in Australia, a firearms background check should take into account any interim or final apprehended violence order or domestic violence related events. It is not acceptable that dangerous men or women have access to firearms when we have a domestic violence crisis. I do not understand why, if we are bringing legislation forward after the tragedy of the Bondi terrorist attack, we should not also be ensuring all Australians are safe, and that should include women being safe from domestic violence. I commend these amendments to the House to ensure that people should not be able to have access to licensed firearms if they have a violent history, especially in respect of domestic violence.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 comes before the House in the shadow of the Bondi terrorist attack. In the weeks since the tragedy, my office...
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 comes before the House in the shadow of the Bondi terrorist attack. In the weeks since the tragedy, my office has heard a consistent and deeply troubling question from the community: how did the attackers gain access to firearms? The government repeatedly tells Australians we have some of the strongest gun laws in the world, and many on this side have repeatedly said that, but the laws are only strong if they are maintained, enforced and fit for our modern reality. Since Port Arthur, these laws have been steadily eroded through complacency, inconsistency and a failure to keep pace with technology. Australians can own firearms for legitimate recreational and occupational purposes, but ownership must always be matched with strong modern safety provisions. What concerns my community is the growing number of firearms held in dense urban areas and the simple question that follows: how many guns are actually in our communities? In 2026 Australia still does not have a national digital firearms register; instead, we rely on a paper based system. That is ludicrous. You have to renew your passport or your drivers licence, but we don't have a digital register of gun ownership. It's outdated, ineffective and, quite frankly, just unacceptable. Without a proper digital system we do not truly know how many guns exist, where they are and who has access to them. At a time of heightened social tension, increasing online radicalisation and a domestic violence crisis, this failure has very real consequences. We know that we need to act decisively, and I commend the government for doing this, but the process of this legislation is simply unacceptable. There has not been proper consultation, and there has not been time to properly review this legislation and assess whether it's actually strong enough. The people in Warringah, overwhelmingly, want stronger national gun laws. They believe that firearms should not be in dense urban communities and that women escaping domestic violence should not have to fear that their former partners have access to firearms or licences. While we receive assurances constantly from police and government, the system fails when, ultimately, that violence remains. We know we need to act decisively. We need strong changes. I commend some changes, but we absolutely need to do more when it comes to this. For more than a decade, gun lobby groups have sought to weaken our firearms laws. We've seen proposals to normalise expanded firearm use, including attempts to enshrine a so-called 'right to hunt' and to broaden access under land management frameworks. This bill sits within a broader and ongoing responsibility to put public safety ahead of political pressure. While there are strengthened controls at a federal level, particularly around the importation of firearms, we must also confront the growth of domestic firearm manufacturing in Australia. Production accelerated during COVID, largely beyond federal oversight. This is an area that requires stronger regulation by state and territory governments to ensure accountability and safety. We must ensure all Australians are safe from gun violence. We know from domestic violence allegations and interim AVOs that these areas should also be considered when it comes to background checks. This is not the USA; this is Australia. We want genuinely strong gun controls. While I will support this legislation, I urge the government to go further and ensure that background checks properly assess the risk and safety of all Australians.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Today we grieve with the families of those murdered at Bondi Beach, we stand with those still fighting to recover from their injuries and we state clearly and unequivocally that antisemitism and...
Today we grieve with the families of those murdered at Bondi Beach, we stand with those still fighting to recover from their injuries and we state clearly and unequivocally that antisemitism and terrorism have no place in Australia. Just over a month ago, on the first night of Hanukkah, a festival of light, resilience and hope, our nation was shaken by an act of antisemitic terror at Bondi Beach. Fifteen innocent people were murdered. They were Adam Smyth, 10-year-old Matilda, Boris Tetleroyd, Boris and Sofia Gurman, Reuven Morrison, Edith Brutman, Marika Pogany, Dan Elkayam, Eli Schlanger, Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Alexander Kleytman, Tibor Weitzen and Tania Tretiak. Each name represents a life cut short, a family devastated and a community grieving. In the days that followed the attack our community came together. Bondi, Manly and Warringah are beautiful, iconic Sydney beaches, and the communities surrounding them share a similar way of life and values. After the attack my electorate expressed its deep solidarity with the people of Bondi and the Jewish community. A condolence book was organised by a constituent, Rodin Genoff, outside of St Matthew's church in Manly and later presented to the Jewish community. On 21 December the community came together again for a vigil on Manly Beach, standing in unity to honour the victims, support the injured and affirm that hatred will not define us. This vigil was organised by Northern Beaches local Paul Casper, and I thank him. I also attended a very moving memorial ceremony at Bondi held by the National Council of Jewish Women Australia alongside the Governor-General, fellow parliamentarians, community leaders and women from many backgrounds. I want to acknowledge the work and incredible support of Lynda Ben-Menashe and the National Council of Jewish Women Australia for their leadership and care in bringing people together at a time of deep grief and their advocacy for an Australian society that is safe, equitable and inclusive for all women and girls. I'd also like to acknowledge Rabbi Mendel from the Cremorne Synagogue, who has been a steady and compassionate presence for our community and who spoke to me about the importance of continuing to support those still in hospital and recovering with their families, because in addition to those killed, dozens more were injured and 42 people were taken to hospital across Sydney. These victims have not only physical wounds but deep psychological trauma. While this condolence motion has focused heavily on those who paid the greatest price and made the greatest sacrifice, we must keep present in our minds all those that are continuing to live with the trauma and the consequences of very severe injuries. I've spoken to members of the Jewish community and have heard heartbreaking stories of deeply traumatised witnesses, including children who cannot sleep at night and who keep reliving the moment of horror in their heads and parents who are stuck with how they help their children. This event has devastated families and shaken the confidence of Australians, especially Jewish Australians, to gather in public spaces and practice their religion freely and safely. The rise of antisemitism in recent years has led many Australians in the Jewish community to feel unsafe. It's common for Jewish Australians to report feelings of fear and insecurity when simply going about their daily life, such as dropping children off at school in the morning or attending public events. I have attended previous Hanukkah events and other Jewish events at the Cremorne Synagogue on a number of occasions, and it's impossible not to notice the intense security presence outside. We, as Australians, must ask ourselves: 'When did this become normal in a multicultural, multifaith society like ours?' If we allow antisemitism to grow unchecked, we fail not only Jewish Australians but all of the democratic values that define us as a nation. If we are serious about standing with Jewish Australians, we must make sure our commitment extends beyond words. We must include long-term support for survivors, for families who are grieving and for frontline healthcare workers who continue this care every day. I want to acknowledge the incredible courage of so many, on that horrible day and continuing, and those who were injured, as were so many, through their courage—in particular, Probationary Constable Jack Hibbert, just 22 years old. Finally, I would like to ask everybody: in the Jewish tradition, there's a big call for a mitzvah—an act of responsibility, an act of kindness. There's a campaign for everyone to do one mitzvah. I've been asked by Rabbi Mendel to remind all members of the House to keep urging so many members in our communities to collectively do these acts. They are powerful. Whether it is checking on a neighbour, volunteering, supporting survivors or standing visibly against hate, if we all stand together, and be visible, we can actually make a difference and make sure that Jewish Australians, like all Australians, feel safe in Australia.
Income Tax | Constituency Statements | House debates
Australia's support system and tax system should make it easier, not harder, for our older Australians to keep working. But, instead of rewarding their contribution, the Work Bonus now punishes...
Australia's support system and tax system should make it easier, not harder, for our older Australians to keep working. But, instead of rewarding their contribution, the Work Bonus now punishes them with sudden tax hits, pension losses and complex rules. At a time when we are relying on their skills and experience, the system is pushing them away. That's wrong, and it undermines the very workforce we need to strengthen. We need to tackle age discrimination in the workforce and have more incentives in place for older Australians to continue working where they can and if they want to. I met recently with Mary and Joseph, two Warringah local residents. They're hardworking age pensioners who are living this reality. Mary teaches English at TAFE. She rents, owns no assets beyond an old car and cannot live on the pension alone. When extra classes are available, she's happy to take them, but every additional dollar above the income limit reduces her pension by 50c. Worse, if she crosses the income threshold of just $52,759, even by just a few hundred dollars, she's hit with a tax bill in the thousands and goes backwards. The stress of these unpredictable penalties make her hesitate to take on extra work when it's available. This is not an isolated case. It reflects the broader systemic failures of this system. Other TAFE teachers have reported similar struggles—feeling forced to retire despite rising rents and living costs. We hear a lot in this place about the need for productivity and the fiscal impact of an ageing population. This means that we need a more flexible support and welfare system that works for our changing economy, ensuring older Australians can work without the fear of unpredictable tax bills. This should include the flexibility to manage rising rents, cost-of-living pressures and reduced retirement savings. We must act to keep our system fair by lifting and smoothing-out de facto thresholds; reviewing income-test taper rates; aligning pension, Work Bonus and tax settings; and ensuring that the ATO hardship provisions are flexible for low-income welfare recipients. A fairer system will deliver greater dignity, choice and help strengthen our economy. I've written to the government and the minister about this issue that we have to be able to smooth out. It just makes no sense that, when we have shortages, the people who are willing and able to continue contributing by taking on those extra shifts go backwards because as soon as they go over that threshold, the tax bill they get hit with is in the thousands, which they simply can't meet because of the cost of living and everything else being tight. I urge the government; I hope the minister will respond and meet with me to discuss this very urgent issue.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. I have to wonder whether government MPs have genuinely read this legislation when they start talking about how this is...
I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. I have to wonder whether government MPs have genuinely read this legislation when they start talking about how this is going to help small businesses. To be very clear, this Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill is only going to apply to tap beer. So all those small businesses with bottles will not get the benefit of this. So maybe pause and reflect as to why it is that the government is picking and choosing within the same industry. Only the big hotels and associations, like RSLs, and all those that have beer on tap will get a freeze in the excise. Small breweries that bottle will not get this. I am not sure that they are aware of the distinction that is happening. Right now across Australia, and sharply felt in Warringah, our independent brewing and distilling industry is in the grip of what many describe as a recession. This industry is integral to our small-business ecosystem and yet, like many small businesses, it is being squeezed from every direction—pandemic-era debt, inflation, rising input costs and an increasingly burdensome excise tax. Last September, together with follow crossbench MPs, I wrote to the Treasurer calling for urgent relief for distilleries and breweries, proposing to reduce the impact of the alcohol excise on distilleries. This bill takes a small step in the right direction. It's a welcome pause in draught beer excise indexation, but what about everyone else in this industry? Why is it that only the big players that have access to the tap contracts within the hotels and RSLs are having access to this freeze on excise indexation? It leaves behind distillers and barely touches the structural issues facing small brewers, and the government has not given any explanation as to why. There should be no arbitrary policy divide between breweries and distilleries. They're all small manufacturers. They both employ locally, they both enrich our communities and they all deserve a fair go. The government has decided to pick and choose winners rather than extending this support to the whole industry. I have to ask: why is it that the government is only choosing, essentially, to assist an industry that has lobbying power and access to the doors of ministers? From my point of view, I care about small business and I care about making reform and making these kinds of support measures fair to ensure all small businesses have access to them. Warringah is home to an incredibly vibrant brewing and distilling community—from Freshwater Brewing, Dad and Dave's, 7th Day Brewery and Broken Bay Brewing to the iconic Manly Spirits and all the creative makers throughout Brookvale's independent precinct. Our independent brewers and distillers bring together the Warringah community. It's because of them that we have community events such as BrookieFest, an annual precinct-wide street party. They employ locals—young people getting their first job, skilled brewers, hospitality workers and delivery drivers. They support local artists, food suppliers and tourism. When one of these businesses closes, the loss ripples far wider than just the venue. And yet those local brewers and distilleries in Warringah have expressed to me that, while they recognise the positive intent of this legislation, it's practical impact on small independent breweries is likely to be minimal to zero unless they change their operations, because it will only apply to tap draught beer. This is because tap access in pubs and clubs is locked up by long-term contracts with multinational brewers. A 2017 ACCC report confirmed that a significant portion of taps in venues—including many of the venues that I have heard listed by previous speakers, particularly government backbenchers—are tied up by multinational brewers in long-term contracts. The ACCC report confirmed that a significant proportion of taps in venues are tied to exclusive or near-exclusive supply deals. Therefore, many small breweries are unable to benefit from draught-specific-excise relief regardless of this bill's pause on indexation. Another challenge left completely unaddressed is the competitive barrier affecting growing brewers as they exceed the excise remission cap. Brewing and distillery businesses in Warringah have voiced their frustration at the sharp increase in payable excise as they grow beyond the cap, which erodes profitability. Additionally, the indexation freeze does not extend to bottled or canned alcohol. So, again, we're talking about picking and choosing. One Warringah brewer has already ceased packaged wholesale production because the indexation freeze only applies to draught beer, not cans or bottles. Others tell me they're approaching the excise cap, and they worry about the steep cliff once they pass it. So how did we get here with such a complex system? Excise on beer and spirits is indexed to the CPI twice a year. Since 2020, excise has risen nearly 20 per cent during the same period. So, thinking about 2020, in five years it's nearly been a 20 per cent increase already. At the same time, for these small businesses, energy prices have surged; hops has increased by more than 50 per cent; malt has risen by nearly 20 per cent in a single year; utility costs have almost doubled; and refrigeration, transport, storage and finance costs have all ballooned. In just two years to April 2025, 51 independent breweries have closed or entered voluntary administration. They are the small businesses you all talk about. This is a sector worth nearly $2 billion annually to the economy, and, with the right policy settings, distillers could become a $1 billion export industry by 2035. We cannot let short-term piecemeal measures undermine what should be a thriving Australian manufacturing success story. We need a comprehensive strategy. Yes, a pause on draught beer excise indexation is welcome. But it doesn't fix the problem for small business and small breweries. If you really want to give small businesses a fair go, anticompetitive practices in tap contracts need to be looked at, as well as the steep excise cliff once producers exceed the remission cap and the exclusion of distillers. Again, we have thriving boutique gin distilleries in many areas around the country, yet they don't get any of the assistance that the Hotel Association seems to be able to get for tap beer. We have to look at how we're going to help everyone within this sector—including, in relation to the exclusion of distillers, the rising input costs that continue to outpace revenue. I've already pushed for broader and fairer reforms, including through my letter to the Treasurer, through amendments and through consultation with Warringah's brewing and distilling community. They are pleading for the government to make this fair reform, not just piecemeal and picking at favourites. A thriving brewing and distilling sector should be ambitious, innovative, sustainable and supported by a government that is willing to create conditions for small manufacturers to grow. The temporary pause in beer excise indexation is a reprieve for some breweries, but it isn't the long-term solution that alcohol producers of all kinds have been calling for since the pandemic. Broader measures should be taken to address the anticompetitive nature of the beer industry and ensure that the long-term sustainability of the brewing and distilling industries is safeguarded. To ensure that these issues are brought to the fore, I move second reading amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) our local independent breweries and spirit distilleries are in crisis; (b) brewers and distilleries carry a huge financial burden, from growing inflationary pressure to the price of energy, and issues around staffing and the rising cost of alcohol excise taxation; (c) excise on beer and spirits has increased by more than 17 per cent since 2020, adding significant strain on our brewers and the spirits industry; (d) according to the Independent Brewers Association, at least 51 independent brewing businesses entered voluntary administration or closed in the two years to April 2025, as mounting costs and rising excise made it harder to stay viable; (e) Australia's spirits tax remains indexed to CPI twice a year and is one of the highest spirits taxes in the world; and (f) while this Bill provides relief in taxation for draught beer it does not extend this assistance to these other producers; and (2) calls on the government to: (a) freeze indexation of all alcohol excise taxes until at least 1 August 2027; (b) index the excise remission cap annually in line with inflation; and (c) extend the deadlines for payback of excise debt to the ATO". I urge government members to have an internal discussion about why you are only picking certain areas of beer to protect or to assist with this excise freeze. The amendments that I propose recognise that the struggling brewing and distilling industries need assistance. They acknowledge the ongoing financial strain. This bill ignores so many distillers entirely. These amendments call on the government to freeze indexation for all alcohol excise until 1 August 2027, not just those that have the passes to come into parliament to advocate on behalf of their industry. They call to 'index the excise remission cap annually in line with inflation' and 'extend the deadlines for payback of excise debt to the ATO'. We need to be assisting these small businesses rather than taking a stick to them and creating an even more anticompetitive environment by assisting the big players that have access to the on-tap contracts. While I welcome that some measure has been introduced, please do the job properly, make it fair and consistent, create a competitive field for all businesses and, genuinely, put good legislation through this place.
Dowse, Ms Sara | Statements by Members | House debates
The 16 days of activism on domestic and family violence is a timely reminder that gender equality is still unfinished work. Progress is possible only because we stand on the shoulders of the...
The 16 days of activism on domestic and family violence is a timely reminder that gender equality is still unfinished work. Progress is possible only because we stand on the shoulders of the women who paved the way. Earlier this month my team and I had the pleasure of celebrating one of those very remarkable women, Sara Dowse, an extraordinary volunteer who turned 87. Sara is a prolific author, feminist and visual artist. Her novel West Block was one of the first works of fiction set in Canberra, and her book Sapphires won the 1995 ACT book of the year. But it was her career in public service that was truly ground breaking. In 1972, under the new Whitlam government, she was seconded to the office of then Minister for Labour, Clyde Cameron, where she championed equal pay, child care and part-time employment. Following this, Sara became the inaugural head of the first women's unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, a role which earned her the nickname Supergirl from the media. Under her leadership, the unit evolved into what we now know as the Office for Women. She then served under Prime Ministers Whitlam and Fraser, and she later shaped the ALP's women's policy for the 1983 federal election and led platforms such as expanded legal aid, family court jurisdiction and the ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Today, Sara has a formidable part to play in the ever-growing story of Warringah. Her's is a prolific story with passion, and I thank her for her incredible passion.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I thank the minister for that clarification, but it does raise a pretty concerning red flag. It does mean that sectors like documentaries or children's content could fall off the map completely...
I thank the minister for that clarification, but it does raise a pretty concerning red flag. It does mean that sectors like documentaries or children's content could fall off the map completely over the next four years for the government's having failed to ensure that there is streaming investment in those sectors. What could very well result from this is a complete loss of those Australian stories from our screens because of decisions by international streaming companies to only focus on dramas. Then what will have happened is that we will have in fact failed to protect, through this legislation, and to save Australian stories across the full gamut of what is required to support stories. The storytelling is so important, but there's also the cultural identity and why it is so essential that we continue seeing Australian content. There is the importance of preserving the jobs and the industry in this sector, and there is also making sure that that diversity of content is made. So what assurance, then, can the government give that those in sectors such as children's programming and documentaries will not completely disappear over the next four years while we wait for the review period?
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 27), after section 121FT, insert: 121FTA Object of Part An object of this Part is to ensure that...
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 27), after section 121FT, insert: 121FTA Object of Part An object of this Part is to ensure that subscription video on demand services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories, by making balanced genre investments across culturally significant genres, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content. This bill ensures that streaming services contribute fairly to the Australian screen sector, supporting our stories and our creative workforce. I start by thanking the minister and the government for their engagement and for acting on this longstanding commitment to protect the screen industry. I appreciate the government's engagement on the bill and willingness to discuss concerns that have been raised by local constituents, members of the industries and members of the screen industry as well as streamers. I've met with a number of streamers; I have Stan located in my electorate, and I have met with a number of others. We know the sector requires investments across culturally significant types, including drama, children, documentary, arts or education content. These different types of content help to define Australia's identity. They tell our stories, reflect our lived experience and create shared cultural touchstones. We know drama gives us stories that last, whether that's Mystery Road, The Newsreader, Total Control, Love My Way or Black Snow. These are shows that Australians gather around and remember for decades to come. Despite quotas being placed for commercial broadcasters, investment in drama, documentary and children's content has been falling significantly. Children make up almost 20 per cent of the population. They require specific content that reflects their world, one that is age-appropriate, educational and distinctly Australian. It's critical for their early education and social development and for building a sense of belonging. Yet the children's sector has been amongst the hardest hit by declining investment. The amendment I've circulated seeks to amend the objects to make very clear the intent, which I understand has been indicated by the government, that the investment and this requirement on streamers be across all types of content, from drama to documentary to children's content. It amends the objects clause with a new part 8C of the bill, to clarify the intention of the bill to ensure that streaming services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories by making balanced genre investments across all types mandated in the bill, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content. This amendment would embed the bill's purpose explicitly into the legislation and would ensure that ACMA's oversight and compliance align with the overall intention of the bill. This is significant, given the broad discretion in the bill for ACMA to make the rules. ACMA's oversight needs to align with parliament's clear expectation that investment be balanced across all culturally significant genres and that Australian stories remain central to our screen environment. The bill is an important step to guaranteeing Australian stories and voices on our screens. It recognises that investment in a broad range of culturally significant areas is important for the strength of our national identity. However, we need to safeguard that intent. The framework must be implemented with clarity, accountability and ambition. We can't afford to get this wrong. I've heard from the minister that there will be a review period and that, in four years time, we will assess whether spending has been balanced across all types of content. But, when the screen industry employs over 60,000 Australians, drives a huge amount around creative export and shapes how we Australians see ourselves in our place and in the world—at a time when investment is so critical in these areas and has been falling so dramatically—this amendment just seeks to make sure that it is clear around the intention that the investment should be across all types of content. We know the stories matter. They deserve to be told, to be seen and to be supported by a system that values their contribution to our economy, our identity and our shared future. And, whilst I know that speeches can be meaningful and explanatory memoranda are meaningful in assisting ACMA in assessing—especially in four years time, when the review occurs—I think it is very important to give a very clear direction to streamers as to the objects and the intention of the government in this legislation: wanting there to be investment across all sectors. We can't just assume it will be done. By making it explicit in the objects, we make clear the expectation of investment across all areas. I had wanted to move amendments around specific subquotas, but I understand the legal difficulties around that—but that is why I submit that this objects amendment is the best way forward.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I welcome the government finally delivering on their promise to implement the local content obligations on streaming providers. It's an ambitious and progressive reform designed to safeguard our...
I welcome the government finally delivering on their promise to implement the local content obligations on streaming providers. It's an ambitious and progressive reform designed to safeguard our cultural identity, strengthen creative industries and ensure global platforms contribute their fair share, with Australian screen jobs, children's content and cultural representation very much at stake. We are so lucky in Warringah to have a vibrant community of screen industry professionals: writers, directors, documentary makers, producers and emerging creators. In August, I met with a group in the industry who explained frankly the impact that the industry has felt under the current status quo. It was dwindling investment, shrinking commissioning opportunities and a deep fear that, without legislative obligations, Australian stories would disappear from our screens and through streaming platforms. These Warringah professionals are talented, innovative and determined, but they are under real pressure. Without legislative obligations, the ecosystem that sustains Australian storytelling is at breaking point. From hearing those stories, I launched the Save Australian Stories petition, which called on the government to fulfil the promise they made—first at the 2019 election, 2022 and then 2025—and to ensure that Australian content remains visible, accessible and adequately funded. The support was clear. Within a month of launching the petition, we reached more than 13,000 signatures from people across the industry and across Australia. Australian broadcasting has long relied on local content quotas to ensure Australians see themselves reflected on screen. But, while traditional networks continue to shoulder obligations, global streaming platforms—now dominant in Australian households—have operated without equivalent responsibilities. Labor repeatedly promised to introduce Australian content obligations for streaming platforms, yet this was languishing and nothing was happening. For years the sector has been left in uncertainty. Consultations were held again and again, alongside discussion papers, roundtables and expert panels. All the while, investment in Australian content dwindled. Now what we know is that there were some 60,000 Australian screen jobs at risk without these legislative quotas. Representation is slipping. Women and under-represented creators hold only 34 to 36 per cent of key creative roles. Modelling shows that this could fall to two per cent within two decades without mandated investment. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill proposes that streamers with more than one million Australian subscribers must invest either 10 per cent of total program expenditure or 7½ per cent of Australian revenue into new Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content. This must be a floor, not a ceiling. I've previously called for more investment—for up to 20 per cent of streamers' revenue to be the investment—which is aligned with international best practice and the needs of our industry. I've discussed with the government where they landed and asked, in fact, for modelling to show whether or not this would result in an uplift in investment to the industry to preserve those 60,000 jobs. It's unclear, but it is felt that there is fluctuating spend from year to year. Some streamers are good players and do invest. Others are not investing at all, and so they will see an uplift in their spend. On balance I will accept the government and the department's briefing or indication that this should result in an increase in spend but also a balancing out of these fluctuations. The government's proposal holds some warning that it may not be sufficient to address the scale of decline or rebuild the Australian screen sector, but I acknowledge this is a step forward. Currently, Australia risks becoming a backdrop for foreign projects, with little genuine Australian representation on our screens. This matters because we know that every dollar invested in the screen sector delivers around $3 to $4 in broader economic benefit, generating jobs, attracting international investment and bolstering the sector's credibility and capabilities. Not only does Australia's local screen production sector benefit directly from secure and guaranteed investment in Australian content; postproduction services, distributors and exhibitors do too. Other industries benefit indirectly with screen production such as tourism, hospitality, building, construction—so many areas. It's not just a cultural policy; it is a smart economic policy. This bill is a significant step forward, but we need to make sure the obligation balances investment to sustain and build the industry while making sure streamers can continue to operate with regulatory certainty. We need to make sure there is balanced investment across all types of product. The bill introduces investment requirements across Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content, but there isn't a subquota or requirement across those different types. While this is necessary, the bill has not included subquotas around drama, documentary or children's content, to be more specific. There's no real guarantee of balanced investment across those different types—and we know it is necessary. Since quotas were removed from commercial TV, Australia's children content has almost evaporated. In the 2007-08 financial year, there was a total of 200 hours of children's content on Australian TV. In the 2023-24 financial year, that dropped to an all-time low of just 35 hours of children's TV content. The collapse is occurring despite the extraordinary global success of Australian programs like Bluey, a show that has become a cultural phenomenon, beloved worldwide, proving beyond doubt that Australian's children content is not only viable but exceptional. To address this, I'll be introducing an amendment that would reflect the intention of the bill that balances investment across all types and is expected. This would be an amendment to the objects, to ensure that that indication is clear. Regulatory certainty is essential. While the bill provides a mandate for ACMA to determine how compliance would be achieved, this provides little reprieve for streamers who are trying to navigate this new obligation. It's not about resisting the obligations; it's about ensuring that industry has predictability, a stable operating environment and clarity on how compliance will be monitored, measured and enforced. To this end, last month I met with Netflix and the Australian and New Zealand Screen Association. I also met with Stan, which has shown strong leadership as an Australian owned platform. Stan has commissioned some of Australia's most distinctive local series and illustrates the importance of locally committed platforms. Both streamers stress the need for an effective obligation framework which requires stability, predictability and clarity around the requirements. It allows the broadcasting industry to plan ahead, commissioning pipelines and compliance systems with confidence. Any uncertainty around enforcement, definitions or reporting frameworks risks discouraging rather than encouraging investment. The government must ensure ACMA's regulatory approach is not only strong but also transparent, consistent and properly resourced. We need to make sure Australian owned production companies are the beneficiaries of this. We must avoid a scenario where increased investment flows predominantly to foreign owned production companies operating in Australia at the expense of locally owned, independent Australian producers. To genuinely strengthen the Australian screen sector, policy and regulation must ensure that new investment supports the Australian businesses, creative talent and cultural perspectives that anchor our national storytelling. If implemented with care, foresight and proper oversight, this bill can be transformative, setting the new foundations for an ambitious, progressive and accountable future for Australian screen content. We need clear, funded enforcement capability. ACMA must be resourced to enforce obligations and investigate ownership structures, including international corporations operating behind the corporate veil. There needs to be a reasonable transition period. Streamers have argued that the 60-day window to select revenue or expenditure obligations is too narrow and that the government should consider extending this. Of course, for them, there are also the questions around the definitions, the period of review and the fluctuating. I am absolutely sympathetic to their concern that there is a long pipeline of commissioning projects. For them, the fear is that this new obligation will change some of their forward planning. We need accurate investment reporting. Streamers' expenditure must reflect net private investment only and not be inflated by federal or state funding through the producer and location offsets. This must be removed from the definition of 'expenditure'. For new legislation like this, we need to make sure we have a robust review period to consider whether it's working or whether it has had unintended consequences. The government has proposed a robust four-year review to consider whether or not, by that time, we would need to be doubling the requirements for subquotas for children's and documentary content visibility and requirements for Australian titles and supporting Australian owned production companies. The point is, essentially, without being too specific in this round and on this legislation, in four years time, the government will look to see whether the things that we're warning of now have come to pass. That's why I would urge the government to consider the amendment that I will be moving to the objects to make sure that there is clarity on all streamers to comply with that need for diversity of investment. Supporting Australian owned production companies is important. We have to avoid a scenario where increased investment flows primarily to foreign owned companies operating in Australia behind corporate veils. I welcome the government introducing this bill—the Australian screen industry cannot survive in its current form—but, let's be clear, it's well overdue. There is some complexity. There hasn't been broad consultation on where the bill has finally landed, and there are concerns from all involved as to how it's going to work in application—whether or not there is going to be sufficient certainty around the definitions of Australian content—and about some of the issues that I've touched on in terms of what will be included in that spend. Let's make sure this legislation marks the beginning of a more ambitious, progressive, accountable and optimistic future for Australian storytelling. We know, if we go back to where this all started, the importance of safeguarding our culture and Australian stories on our screens. As more and more households turn to streamers for their content and their entertainment, we have to make sure there are good Australian stories being told. Streamers like Stan have been putting in great content—some of my favourite shows of recent years have been from there—but we have to make sure that all platforms are contributing to this incredible industry and make sure that we keep saving Australian stories.
Gambling Advertising | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's recently reported retreat from banning online gambling advertising would be a terrible sellout to Peta Murphy's legacy and a failure to...
My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's recently reported retreat from banning online gambling advertising would be a terrible sellout to Peta Murphy's legacy and a failure to protect the millions of Australians whose lives are ruined by relentless gambling advertising, which preys on vulnerable Australians. If the report is true, gambling harm will continue to increase unchecked. So is it the government's position that relentless gambling advertising online, on vulnerable Australians, is acceptable?
Gas Industry | Private Members' Business | House debates
I rise to support the motion from the member for Bradfield. Australians deserve a fair, affordable, transparent and predictable energy system and not the export distorted market that we have...
I rise to support the motion from the member for Bradfield. Australians deserve a fair, affordable, transparent and predictable energy system and not the export distorted market that we have today. This motion highlights an underlying truth in Australia's energy debate—Australia does not have a gas shortage problem. We have lots of gas, but, instead of prioritising our domestic markets, we allow companies to exploit it for great profit. We do not need more gas approvals. What we need are rules that ensure gas in Australia stays for Australia and that we fast-track transition off gas for households, where electrification is much more efficient, affordable and better for their health and their wallets. We don't need more gas; we just need to be smarter about where we use it, what we have and who we prioritise. It's been ten years since we started exporting LNG. We now export around 80 per cent of the gas that we produce. A small group of LNG exporters control 90 per cent of our proven and probable gas reserves. You will hear them crying poor and complaining about transition, and the ads on radio and TVs have accelerated—all talking about the natural benefits of gas and how gas is part of our transition and we should all need it. What they don't say is the price that Australians are paying. Australian users of gas have been paying the price of poor policy. Instead of benefiting from their natural resource, domestic users are forced to compete with international markets. Since 2015, consumption for gas in eastern Australia has fallen by 32 per cent, but prices have tripled. Pressure on our domestic households and business remains unacceptable. Australians pay four to seven times more for gas than other large gas-producing nations, including the US, Russia, Qatar and Canada. According to ACOSS, people on low incomes bear the brunt of this, spending five times more of their income on energy than high-income earners. This is not a market that's delivering for Australians. In 2023-24, Australians paid more than four times on HECS or HELP debts than our gas companies did on PRRT. Instead of rules to protect our domestic requirements, exporters have strong incentives to maximise exports. Projects like Santos's GLNG project in Queensland have siphoned gas from the domestic market to fulfil export commitments. It is wrong. For too long governments, have been applying temporary bandaid solutions to avoid shortfalls, building an energy system reliant on fossil fuels and continuing to let the gas industry shape policies long after the science shifted. However, as the government looks to reform the gas market, we must recognise the broader climate reality—1.5 degrees is not just a goal; it's a threshold, beyond which things will change dramatically. Here we are, the week after COP30, and very little was achieved. Gas driven by methane emissions is a major contributor to global warming. Australia's methane accountability is jeopardising our emissions reduction targets. We still do not have proper accounting, measuring and monitoring of methane emissions from LNG facilities. We know methane emissions are expected to account for 68 to 95 per cent of Australia's targeted emissions by 2035, and, unfortunately, Australia continues to underreport methane by as much as 60 per cent, according to the International Energy Agency. We cannot fix the gas market while ignoring the parallel climate failure that it represents. Last week, I sent an open letter, alongside 100 other leaders from across politics, academia, NGOs and business, to the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to sign on to the Mutirao road map. The pledge would look to construct a phase-out of fossil fuels. I'm pleased to hear that, over the weekend, Australia signed up to the declaration, on a just transition away from fossil fuels, recognising the need to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible. With the lack of funding received by Australians on the PRRT—I was strongly opposed to the way the government structured that legislative change—I look forward to hearing from the government on how they propose to now meet these new commitments. There are many inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in the Australian system that we can talk of—in particular, the diesel fuel tax credit. I support this motion because it moves us towards a fairer, more secure and more climate aligned energy system—simple measures and ones that the government should have the political will to pursue. Now the government must act with ambition and integrity to ensure reforms actually deliver for Australians.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 191, page 82 (line 20) to page 83 (line 8), omit paragraphs 84A(2)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) a reasonable estimate of...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 191, page 82 (line 20) to page 83 (line 8), omit paragraphs 84A(2)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and (b) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and (2) Schedule 1, item 191, page 83 (line 15), at the end of subsection 84A(2), add: and; (e) the climate-related disclosures reported in accordance with Australian Standard AASB 52 Climate-Related Disclosures. (3) Schedule 1, page 93 (after line 28), after item 215, insert: 215A At the end of section 130 Add: Duty of care (6) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations. (4) Schedule 1, item 223, page 95 (after line 15), after subsection 133(7B), insert: Duty of care (7C) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations. (5) Schedule 1, page 95 (after line 27), after item 224, insert: 224A After section 133 Insert: 133A Action must not hold an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk (1) Despite any other provision of this Part, the CEO must not approve an action, if CEO is satisfied that: (a) disclosures under section 84A(2)(e) would demonstrate an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk; and (b) as a result, the action could materially impact matters of national environmental significance. (2) The CEO must consider the greenhouse gas emissions information for the action for the purposes of subsection (1). (6) Schedule 1, item 551, page 307 (after line 7), after section 474D, insert: 474DA Appeal against environment protection order (1) A person against whom an environment protection order is made may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction against the making of the order. (2) The lodging of an appeal does not, except to the extent that the court otherwise directs in relation to the appeal, operate to stay action on the order appealed against. (3) After hearing an appeal, the court may: (a) confirm the order, or (b) modify or rescind the order. (4) In making a decision on an appeal, the court is to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the public interest. (7) Schedule 1, item 588, page 343 (line 4), after "Part 3.", insert "In determining whether an impact is an unacceptable impact, the cumulative effect of multiple actions that are regulated under this Act must be taken into account.". The amendments seek to integrate the existing climate-related financial disclosure into project assessment and approval processes. I should note these are disclosures that have been legislated by the government. So this is something they have supported and advocated for in other contexts. Fundamentally, we cannot have an environmental legislation that is separated from climate impacts of proponents. Inherently the two are interconnected. The Albanese government's insistence on claiming that climate impacts are not relevant to protecting the environment and biodiversity in our environment—that they are with dealt elsewhere through other legislation—is simply wrong and highlights that it is not serious about protecting the environment and arresting biodiversity loss. Nature does not experience climate and environment separately, neither should our laws. Every decision on our land, water and biodiversity is also a decision about the impact on our climate, which is then also an impact on our environment. Financial regulators APRA, RBA and the Climate Change Authority have all warned of climate risks to the economy, such as stranded assets and rising insurance costs, yet environmental assessments under this bill proposed by the Albanese government ignore these realities. My amendments would require proponents to include climate-related financial disclosures in their applications, something that businesses are already familiar with; and require decision-makers to ensure projects do not pose unacceptable climate-related transition or financial risks—that is, become stranded assets. This is a financial viability consideration, not a climate consideration. Amendments (3) and (4) would embed duty of care into our environmental protection legislation. It would introduce a legislative duty of care to protect children and future generations from the impacts of climate change. This follows the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment, where the court initially found the minister owed such a duty, though it was overturned on appeal due to the legislation. This amendment fixes the problem. The proposal responds to public support for the reform, including the duty of care bill which attracted over 400 supportive submissions. The amendment clarifies that, under the EPBC Act, the minister must act with reasonable care not to cause harm for future generations when approving projects. Enshrines the principles that today's decisions must not endanger tomorrow's citizens. Amendment (7) would ensure that cumulative environmental impacts are properly assessed under the EPBC Act. It seeks to prevent the project fragmentation that we see too often, where large developments are split to avoid scrutiny and proper assessment of their true impact. The amendment would ensure an evaluation where the combined projects collectively cause unacceptable harm—that is, habitat loss, water degradation. The change reflects recommendations from the Samuel review, which found the EPBC Act's project by project approach insufficient. By including the requirement in primary legislation, it ensures it cannot be delayed or weakened later. The amendment aims to halt the incremental degradation of ecosystems and enable informed, transparent and responsible decision-making. Amendment (6) would introduce and establish a clear right of appeal for any person subject to an environmental protection order. This is important for business. The amendment adequately balances efficiency with accountability and procedural fairness so that businesses and proponents can gain certainty and a fair process if they need to challenge a stop work order. In summary, these amendments aim to embed climate accountability into financial environmental approvals, to establish a duty of care towards future generations, to strengthen environmental governance by considering cumulative impacts and to provide a fair appeals process for environmental protection orders. Collectively, they promote a sustainable, transparent and responsible framework for decisions-making that aligns economic development with Australian environmental and climate goals. It's disappointing to see how little participation in this process members of government have engaged with. To all MPs, especially members of LEAN who go to their communities with claims of being here for climate and protecting the environment: I urge you to consider the amendments that are being debated today. They are all seeking to improve legislation that is inadequate and will fail in its stated purpose to protect the environment. It is essential that, in this place, we have an informed debate and we test this legislation. It is disappointing that the government is choosing to ignore so many people trying to improve this legislation, but I hope that in the other place improvements will be made.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Freedom-of-information laws exist so that government decisions can be scrutinised and governments can be held to account. They are very important. They are an integral part of the commitment to...
Freedom-of-information laws exist so that government decisions can be scrutinised and governments can be held to account. They are very important. They are an integral part of the commitment to the rule of law to facilitate access to information held by institutions and advice given to government. They are essential to hold power to account. In a representative democracy, the public and their representatives cannot make informed decisions without the best available information, and the public is entitled to know when government is not acting in the public interest. My concern with the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, which is before the House, is that there's nothing in this bill that achieves those aims—in fact, to the contrary. This bill was drafted without consultation, introduced without transparency and designed in a way that rewards secrecy. At a time when public trust in government is already low, this legislation seeks to make it harder for Australians to access information and easier for government to hide it. This is not reform; this is regression. The bill currently before us represents the biggest reform proposed to the freedom-of-information laws since the Hawke review in 2013. Freedom-of-information laws were introduced back in 1982 to give Australians the right to access government papers and documents and see how decisions are made and why—what the basis was, what information was available and what advice had been given. But, since then, we have seen successive governments erode those rights. We know that freedom of information is an area that is in need of reform. I don't dispute that. But it's really important, when you're talking about an instrument that holds government to account, to make sure that that reform is done transparently, with good consultation, and that we actually achieve the goals of creating a system that shines light on decisions of government, not one that increases secrecy. The system remains characterised by significant delays attributed to extensive processing time, and it's shrouded in added secrecy. For the public, I would give you the comparison that it's as if there is a prima facie approach of blocking the provision of information: see if the request will go away, block it for as long as you possibly can, and then eventually papers might be released, but there's so much blacked out that it's ridiculous. The latest FOI annual report from the government shows that, during the first two years of the Albanese government, there were about 21,000 requests determined per year, the lowest rate since the Gillard government. And now, instead of addressing the issues—and there are issues in the system—the Albanese government has introduced sweeping changes that will tighten access even further and increase secrecy. The government has raised concerns that the FOI regime is being overrun, and it has made allegations such as AI bots and foreign interference, but the documents provided in the inquiry in the other place show there's no evidence of this, so the justification that has been given for this legislation just has no proper foundation. The other reason the government has given is that the Public Service fears freedom-of-information requests and that this has a chilling effect on the advice to government from the Public Service due to fear that a freedom-of-information request will release documents or work done by the Public Service. Again, no evidence has actually been put forward by the government to substantiate this. In fact, that is contrary to the very requirements on the Public Service. The public Service Act requires frank and fearless advice in the public interest. In fact, the 2019 Thodey review, which quotes Peter Shergold's 2015 report, includes recommendations to strengthen the obligation on the Public Service to act and provide frank and fearless advice in the public interest. Neither of those two previous reviews has had its recommendations followed up, introduced or moved into that act yet. In fact, secrecy will do nothing to implement those recommendations or help meet that requirement on the Public Service, because in fact now there will be no way of checking that the Public Service is giving frank and fearless advice in the public interest. The government has introduced this bill under a pretext that it will modernise the freedom-of-information system to enable more efficient and better-quality decisions or that it will help foster public trust in government decision-making through transparency and access to information. What a load of rubbish! Every group, from media to not-for-profit groups, has called the government out on that claim and argued that there is nothing in this bill that will achieve that goal. In fact, it's been unanimously rejected. Groups from the Centre for Public Integrity to the Law Council are all arguing that the government, through this Freedom of Information Reform Bill, is actually increasing secrecy and reducing accountability. Instead, what this bill does is to impose new application fees that will deter ordinary Australians from lodging requests. It expands cabinet exemptions, and that is the most concerning aspect because it will shield even more decisions of government from public scrutiny. I haven't heard a single member of the government give a valid reason why that expansion should go ahead—why we should be shielding more of the decisions and not having access to the underlying documents that are necessary to properly hold government decision-making to account. In fact, this directly contradicts the 57th recommendation of the robodebt royal commission, which specifically stated that cabinet confidentiality should only apply where it is reasonably justified in the public interest. Instead, the government here is expanding cabinet exemptions—in complete contradiction—to cover any documents that were shared in the drafting of cabinet documents, which is precisely the opposite of what Commissioner Holmes recommended. Now, I was in this place when the Labor Party, then in opposition, cried blue murder around the coalition and the whole scandal of robodebt and did great work to then expose the horrors of robodebt. But now, seated on the government benches, it is doing the very thing that the commissioner has said not to do. Expanding the cabinet exemption is not going to result in transparency and accountability of decision-making; it will do the very opposite. The government claims that the bill looks to better the balance between open access to information and the interests of protecting the proper functioning of government. But this legislation is adding new grounds of refusal, giving departments more power to withhold information. How is that increasing or improving the balance as to access and open information—as to holding government to account? The bill looks to amend the objects provision to expand a level of discretion that explicitly recognises that the core reasoning for the Freedom of Information Act involves a balancing of the competing interests of open access to information and the essential interests of government. As to this change that the government is now proposing, the Law Council—we're not talking about some overly progressive organisation that shoots from the hip and makes outrageous comments; we're talking about the Law Council here, which is looking at the proper accountability of government and the proper functioning of laws—said in a submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill that safeguards to protect essential interests are good and required. But they already exist in the act. There has been no evidence put forward by the government to suggest that the current safeguards are not adequate and operating as they should. In fact, what is being proposed is really an attack on the underlying purpose of the freedom-of-information regime and its call to a responsible and representative democratic system of government. The bill also prohibits anonymous requests, and it's done on the basis that somehow this is a national security issue—that we have foreign actors and foreign nations issuing these secret and anonymous freedom-of-information requests—but, again, no evidence of that has been provided. The bill, in prohibiting anonymous requests, could endanger whistleblowers and silence legitimate inquiries. We know whistleblowers laws still have not been fixed up to provide protection. We know accountability matters. Australian voters care about transparency and accountability. It's just so disappointing to see the way the government is going about this legislation and what it is proposing to do with freedom-of-information laws. It's deeply concerning. The government has claimed this is important due to the increase of bots, automation and international interference, but no-one is buying that argument. The public is under no illusion—this is about increasing secrecy and decreasing government accountability. Even the process of how this legislation has found its way to the House is telling. These reforms were developed without public consultation—no exposure draft; no engagement with civil society; no opportunity for media organisations, integrity experts or transparency advocates to comment, to really try and fix this, to actually build a freedom-of-information system that is genuine and has integrity. It's a secrecy that allowed robodebt to fester for so long and shielded wrongdoing. And that cost lives. Many in this place would have gone to their communities, calling out the horrors of that; yet now here we are, entrenching a system that will increase secrecy. We should have learnt, and government should have learnt, from that experience—from robodebt—that we need more transparency and more accountability, not less. There is a better way to improve the freedom of information system. First, we can engage in an independent review and genuine consultation with experts and the public, before introducing reforms through a freedom of information bill. Second, we can remove the anonymous request provision and, instead, consider establishing a mechanism whereby an applicant can make an anonymous request through an independent intermediary, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Third, we have to review cabinet exemptions, aligning them with the public interest, not political convenience. These are the kinds of reforms that would restore trust, reduce delays and promote transparency, and that's what Australians expect and deserve. This bill, as it stands, sends a dangerous message: that secrecy is acceptable—that transparency is optional. So that is the message we will take from the Albanese government, from all the members of the government: that transparency is optional—that holding government to account on its decision-making on the advice it receives is optional. Already, by others—not even just those here in this place—the Albanese government has been described as one of the most secretive in modern history, refusing more freedom of information requests than it fully grants, and this bill doubles down on that trend. It is deeply disappointing, and I cannot, in good conscience, support this legislation. Debate adjourned.
Milsons Point Post Office, Domestic and Family Violence | Grievance Debate | House debates
I rise to share some very welcome news and a big win for our community. After strong local advocacy, I'm delighted that the Milsons Point post office will remain open. This outcome is a testament...
I rise to share some very welcome news and a big win for our community. After strong local advocacy, I'm delighted that the Milsons Point post office will remain open. This outcome is a testament to the power of community action. When people come together, speak up and persist they can make a real difference. Earlier this year, members of the Milson Precinct reached out to my office, deeply concerned about the unexpected and sudden announcement of the proposed closure of the local post office. Along with communities from Kirribilli, Milsons Point, Lavender Bay and residents of Greenway, James Milson Village and the Port Jackson Tower housing complexes, they coordinated an advocacy campaign to save this important community asset and access to vital services. On behalf of the community, I wrote to and met with Australia Post to understand the issue and to ensure that these vulnerable residents were not left without access to vital services. In fact, it was the detail in this procedure that was important. Upon becoming aware of the change of the rental conditions of the premises in which the Milsons Point post office was located, which is held by New South Wales Transport, I followed up in writing with the government and the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Transport in New South Wales, John Graham, and requested that they reconsider the tender process to allow Australia Post to remain at the Milsons Point location. As I said, I briefed the Prime Minister—who I would say is Kirribilli's most well-known resident—and the government about the circumstances of the proposed closure. In that respect, I'd like to thank the Prime Minister and the government for their engagement and support with both the Minister for Transport, John Graham, and the CEO of Australia Post, Paul Graham, for hearing our community's concerns and for engaging and ultimately resolving this issue. My team attended the large community forum held at the local church to discuss the issue at the outset. There were some 400-plus attendees, highlighting how important this issue was for the community. We then attended a further local precinct meeting to hear from the community and followed up with Australia Post to ensure that the community were able to be heard. All the while, my constituent liaison officer in my office, Nilmini Panditharatne, to whom I have to give a special shout-out and say thank you, kept in constant contact, ensuring that we continued to advocate for the post office to remain open. It truly is a community win and a testament to the coordinated, respectful, determined effort of all involved. Another issue I want to raise is the domestic and family violence roundtable that I hosted recently. Earlier this month, I held this roundtable with many of our leading organisations and not-for-profits in Warringah. We heard from those on the front line in our communities, such as Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, Mary's House Services, Women & Children First, Women's Resilience Centre, Dalwood Splistead Service, LocalKind Northern Beaches, St Vincent de Paul and Lighthouse for the Community. These providers play an immense role, providing shelters, crisis accommodation and also practical support such as funding for car registrations, laptops, food banks and clothing and connecting affected families with legal and immigration services. We heard from those working in the mental health space, such as Mentoring Men and Lifeline Northern Beaches. These organisations help to shift attitudes, rebuild confidence and address the trauma before it becomes another statistic. Importantly, we heard from the local primary health network, who work with preventive and crisis centres to make sure that women and children escaping domestic and family violence get the mental health and wellbeing support they require. We also heard from local residents and advocates, both men and women, who shared their ideas and lived experience. The roundtable highlighted what we already knew: our crisis centres are in crisis and our mental and primary health services are under incredible strain. Northern Beaches Women's Shelter accepted 12 women per day in 2020. The demand is now up to 70 per day. Last year they were able to house 273 women and children, but had to turn away some 584 women. These are the women who are attending the service, but we know that there are so many more who don't even report or come to services, and they don't receive support for fear of retribution. These services are relied upon by the community. As pointed out by the Women's Resilience Centre, many women can feel uncomfortable going to police. We know 78 per cent of women never report violence to the police, and too often funding is tied to reporting. There is a question around the way funding is allocated in New South Wales for the Staying Home Leaving Violence program, because it is often tied to whether or not reports have been made. With increased demand, grant funding is simply not sufficient. This is an issue where it's not just a question of: more money has been spent by the government, so why is the problem not getting better? The problem is that we're still underfunding this sector. There were five key outcomes of this roundtable. First, crisis centres are overwhelmingly providing funding assistance for women who are escaping domestic and family violence but who may be tied to their partner, meaning that they're unable to access JobSeeker and family benefit payments. This is a question when they are here on partner visas and, as a result, the non-profit organisations are having to meet the support for these women, whereas we should normally be able to get them into our systems. I've raised with the minister's office that, in circumstances of domestic and family violence that involve partner visas, we need to be able to move these women onto visas that would enable them to access support so that our not-for-profit organisations are not carrying the financial burden. I look forward to trying to find a solution to this problem. Second, greater support for children who are escaping violence is needed. Crisis centres need the right scaffolding to support children. Their needs are different to those of their parents. This includes appropriate housing and other practical support—clothes, books and school supplies. We know, for example, the 10 sessions of GP mental health are proven to be insufficient to effectively respond to the situation, in particular for children impacted by the situation. Third, at the heart of the crisis is housing. Greater funding is needed for crisis housing and looking at different opportunities to redevelop existing infrastructure, such as aged-care facilities. There is a lack of real data on DV numbers and available housing. New South Wales, I was shocked to find out, has no centralised domestic violence housing vacancy managing system. It is up to each individual organisation to find out whether there is housing and source it. This is a simple fix: having a database to ensure that happens. It creates extra administration burden on crisis centres that are already understaffed and struggling. They have to spend time calling around, connecting with other centres for availability for women who need shelter. Surely we can have a centralised domestic violence housing vacancy management system. Better discretion for organisations to distribute funding as they see fit was also called for, especially with accommodation to meet high rental costs in Sydney. Currently, the way funding is allocated to these organisations has so much regulation and so many rules around it. They can't apply it in a discretionary way to short-term accommodation to make up for shortfalls in crisis accommodation being available. That was an overwhelming call as well. The fourth point was the implementation of specialist domestic and family violence courts that have expertise in dealing with victims of domestic family violence. We have specialist courts for other areas. Why do we not have a specialised court for domestic and family violence? Having come as a barrister from the family law sector, there is no doubt that domestic and family violence is prevalent across many areas. We should have a specialised stream in our courts to deal with this issue so that we have specialist decision-makers with the proper training and understanding. The fifth area, most importantly, is, obviously, that prevention needs to be addressed if we are going to have any hope of achieving the goal of eliminating domestic and family violence and at least reducing it substantially. We need the urgent implementation of the rapid review recommendation, especially around delay or reduction of alcohol delivery times that were increased during COVID. That's already been implemented by the ACT. We need to ban gambling advertising. The link between gambling and alcohol and increased domestic violence numbers is really clear. I urge the government to implement recommendations of the Murphy review and to start acting on these known social harms. We need men to be part of the conversation, especially those who are calling for change. An organisation that I've met with, Mentoring Men, are desperate for funding. They can't get any funding. And yet, this is an organisation that has grown out of mental health support but is now playing a role in domestic violence. They can have the peer-to-peer, man-to-man conversations to start calling out this scourge. There's so much more to be done.
Climate Change | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government's National Climate Risk Assessment highlights that climate change is costing the Australian economy more than $40 billion per year and...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government's National Climate Risk Assessment highlights that climate change is costing the Australian economy more than $40 billion per year and this cost is predicted to rise to at least $73 billion, or 4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2060; and (b) current policies to protect our communities from climate change remain inadequate with spending on climate resilience and adaptation remaining too low; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) lift climate adaptation spending to 0.25 per cent of GDP; (b) establish a National Climate Adaptation Authority to oversee the implementation of the National Adaptation Plan; (c) facilitate better funding for local governments to strengthen resilience against climate change within their communities; (d) build strong private-public partnerships with the insurance industry that reduces underlying risk through enforceable, publicly funded resilience measures and transparent hazard data; (e) ensure that climate resilience projects and measures are undertaken in collaboration with First Nations; (f) broaden the safeguard mechanism to include all sectors across the economy are mitigating climate risks; (g) further ensure that polluting companies pay the social and environmental cost of the carbon they emit; and (h) reform the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to ensure Australians get their fair share from their resources. Climate change is already costing Australia more than $40 billion a year and, on our current path, that burden could climb to at least $73 billion, or some four per cent of GDP, by 2060. Mitigation must accelerate through rapid reduction of emissions. Ignoring the mounting risks for our communities is recklessly negligent. The status quo is leaving communities defenceless in the face of mounting risks and, too often, without the safety net of insurance. We must lift adaptation investment, make 'polluter pays' a reality and equip local communities with the tools to stay safe, insurable and prosperous. Last Friday, I held a climate resilience emergency forum here in Parliament House. The forum gathered representatives from industry, academia, unions, government, think tanks, local councils and health to discuss the impact of the changing climate across our economy and, most importantly, how we can adapt and how we can pay for it. The cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of preparing for the future. In fact, delaying action will cost lives. The current approach from the government is piecemeal, reactive and underfunded. Alongside other things, the motion calls on the government to invest a quarter of a per cent of GDP, or $4 billion, a year in climate adaptation. This investment will enable a triple dividend of climate adaptation to our economy and to Australia by avoiding losses from climate disasters, driving economic benefits, affordable insurance, new and better jobs and improved infrastructure and it will bring massive social and environmental gains. The government's national climate risk assessment confirms that some climate risks are already baked in. The bill for inaction is mounting. The government currently invests only $250 million per year in adaptation, which is woefully inadequate. Traditional economic models understate the risks and the social and economic cost. The modelling from UNSW's Timothy Neal, who presented at the forum, warned us that outdated economic forecasting models have lulled policymakers and governments into complacency. Traditional economic forecasts only predict minor global GDP losses, but Professor Neal's work suggests the real damage could be as high as 40 per cent of global GDP by the end of the century on the current emissions reduction trajectory. Our national cost-benefit test must be updated. Meanwhile, the insurance protection gap is widening, construction costs are higher and we continue to rebuild in high-risk areas without resilience and adaptation backed into rebuilding codes. Local governments, which are on the front line, are financially stretched, competing for short-term grants when what works is place based, long-term adaptation. We have the plans on paper. What's missing is the scale, certainty and accountability to deliver them. The outcomes from Friday's forum are measured and economy-wide. They are calling for, firstly, predictable and adequate investment in adaptation by committing to $4 billion, or a quarter of a per cent of GDP, to offset the two per cent of GDP it's already costing us. This should be locked in over forward estimates. Secondly, they are calling for adaptive leadership that embeds climate resilience across our economy through a national climate adaptation authority to implement the forthcoming National Adaptation Plan, coordinate across jurisdictions and monitor implementation. Thirdly, they call for helping local governments with the cost of adaptation by lifting financial assistance grants from ½ a per cent to at least one per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue, which is around $400 million per year, to ensure place based adaptation and implementation. Fourthly, we need to invest in nature, as it is our greatest ally in adaptation and resilience, by updating nature based solutions. The fifth is on funding Indigenous land and sea management, which we know would deliver climate and social dividends. Sixthly, we also need to update our National Construction Code to embed resilience, expand cyclone and flood standards by risk, not postcode, and ensure transparent hazard data. It is incredibly concerning that the Albanese government has committed to a freeze of the building code. Seventhly, we need to build public-private partnerships with insurers to reduce underlying risk and lower premiums. Finally, we need for those that are causing the damage to pay for the adaptation by ensuring a 'polluters pay' social and environmental model. We know that through CBAM, reform of the PRRT and so many other measures we can ensure polluters pay for adaptation.
Local Content Broadcasting | Questions without Notice | House debates
To the Prime Minister: Manel Lopez is a sound technician in the film industry with over 25 years' experience. He wrote to me: 'I've reached the point where working in the industry is...
To the Prime Minister: Manel Lopez is a sound technician in the film industry with over 25 years' experience. He wrote to me: 'I've reached the point where working in the industry is unsustainable. I'm at the end of my resilience. Mentally, financially, the situation has taken a huge toll on me and my family. This is happening all over the country. We need local content quotas, but we needed them five years ago. It was a promise that Labor took to the election. For many of us, it's almost too late.' Will the government make good on its repeated promises to legislate local content quotas on streamers and save these Australian jobs?