Kate Chaney's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I support an Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, in principle. The universities...
I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I support an Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, in principle. The universities accord's final report makes a compelling case that our tertiary education system has lacked long-term stewardship, coordinated planning and a strong evidence base. It's a system that's too important to run on chaotic political and short-term policy. But here's the problem: this bill does not establish the ATEC the accord recommended. It establishes a body called ATEC, but it doesn't give it the independence, the authority or the capability that would justify setting it up at all. In its current form, it risks becoming a lightly rebranded branch of the department—additional bureaucracy for no reason—constrained, dependent and unable to do the hard, long-term work the accord envisaged. I support ATEC in theory, but I oppose this legislation as drafted. I'm not alone. My position has been shaped by consultation with higher education experts and university groups, and by close reading of the submissions made to the Senate committee inquiry. There's a consistent message across many of them: yes to an ATEC in concept, but no to an ATEC that cannot act independently, cannot publish freely and cannot build its own capability. In other words, if ATEC is not meaningfully different from the department then why bother? I'll be moving amendments to attempt to fix these defects, and if the government will not accept these essential changes then I'm unlikely to support this bill in its current form. Firstly, why do we need an ATEC at all? The universities accord's final report is blunt about the nature of the challenge. It says: Our tertiary education system lacks the coordinated, future-focused and evidence-based, decision-making capacity necessary for Australia's future success. This must change. This is not a theoretical complaint. The accord documents a pattern of policy drift, fragmentation and failure, not because universities are incapable but because the system has lacked an enduring steward with the remit and capability to plan across electoral cycles. Let me give some specific examples of fragmented and short-term policy that the accord identifies that a future ATEC would help deal with if designed properly. First is the failed Job-Ready Graduates scheme. The accord says plainly that this needs to be replaced. The central premise—using price signals to shift student course choices—has failed. It left some students facing extremely high contributions and debts that don't reflect their future earning potential, and it shifted the funding burden further onto students and away from government. At the same time, it reduced funding available to universities to deliver disciplines critical to future jobs and innovation, including science, engineering and mathematics. This is what short-term, politically driven policy looks like: a major reform implemented with insufficient evidence and follow-through, producing outcomes that undermine national objectives. A second example is a funding model that no longer delivers for Australians. The accord identifies that the current funding arrangements are limiting enrolments of students from underrepresented backgrounds, and are not able to support growth in the tertiary sector in order to meet our nation's skill needs. These examples point to the need for long-term, evidence based stewardship of the tertiary education system focused on outcomes for students and for Australia. This is why ATEC matters. But if ATEC is to solve these problems, it must be built as the accord envisaged—independent, expert and able to work across electoral cycles, not constrained to speak only when invited and not prevented from publishing uncomfortable truths. Let's look at what the bill actually does. It establishes ATEC as the steward of the higher education system. It will be led by three commissioners—a chief commissioner, a First Nations commissioner and a part-time commissioner—appointed by the minister and collectively expected to bring balanced experience across higher education, VET, governance, engagement and regional Australia. ATEC's functions include: negotiating mission based compacts with universities and tertiary education providers; consulting widely across the tertiary system; and providing advice and recommendations to Commonwealth and state and territory ministers about the tertiary education system on request of the minister. These mission based compacts between the ATEC and higher education providers are the main mechanism for sustained engagement with the sector. They allow each provider to show how its unique mission aligns with national, state and local priorities, and they set a limited but meaningful set of performance objectives agreed collaboratively. The ATEC will take a good-faith, proportionate approach, supporting improvements, varying terms where needed and only escalating if performance remains below expectations. There are some good parts of this. The most positive outcome of this bill is that it recognises that the ATEC is needed in principle. It accepts the accord's logic. But the accord did not call for another advisory unit inside the machinery of the department; it called for a steward that could provide robust advice, support evidence based decision making and planning, and work across political cycles with a long time horizon. If the bill doesn't deliver that then it fails its own justification. Now I want to talk about the amendments that were moved. I oppose the bill as drafted because it doesn't create the ATEC that Australia needs. Firstly, we need to provide the ATEC with autonomy and independence. The ATEC should have the ability to initiate and publish advice and recommendations on its own initiative, rather than solely at the request of the minister. Without this independence, there seems little point in creating a new organisation that largely duplicates the department's work. If it can only speak when asked and can only publish when approved then it's not an independent steward; it's an adviser on a leash, and this matters because the hardest issues in higher education reform are often politically inconvenient. Job-ready Graduates is a clear example. Operational autonomy matters too. Currently, the department controls the ATEC's staffing and contractor engagement, which could undermine the ATEC's capacity to build expertise and undertake independent analysis. That's not the design of an independent steward. This issue has been raised by a huge number of stakeholders, including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the Regional Universities Network, Science and Technology Australia, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne. As a result, I'll move amendments to: firstly, omit the requirement that the ATEC may only prepare reports and provide advice at the request of the minister, and ensure the ATEC can initiate and publish reports and advice itself; secondly, require the ATEC and the department to enter into an enforceable agreement that will specify minimum staffing levels and standards. The second area of reform is around the number of commissioners. As drafted, there's significant concern that three commissioners will not have the expertise across a diverse range of fields and areas such as higher education, VET, tertiary education, governance and administration, stakeholder consultation, engagement, regional Australia and other important areas as well, including research, equity and access, and learning and teaching. As such, I will move amendments to introduce two additional part-time commissioners to bring the total number of commissioners to five. Again, this change is backed by a number of stakeholders: the Group of Eight, Regional Universities Network, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne. Thirdly, I'm going to introduce an explicit focus on research and research training. Research is central to Australia's economic strength, innovative capacity and international competitiveness. The accord identifies that our research system is under strain. We have low national R&D investment, weak innovation outputs, inadequate research training stipends and a need for a pathway to fund more of the full economic costs of research. The accord also explicitly calls for the ATEC to be a steward of the research sector yet the bill doesn't make the ATEC's research stewardship role explicit in the functions and advice framework. This is a serious omission. And, again, it's a problem raised by a large number of stakeholders. So I'll move amendments to allow the ATEC to prepare reports and advice in relation to research and research training to ensure the commissioners collectively possess experience in research and research training. The fourth area of amendments would allow the ATEC to consider student contributions. As it stands, the ATEC can provide advice on the efficiency and cost of higher education programs but it can only consider the cost of courses and programs borne by the Commonwealth not borne by students. You can't meaningfully talk about course costs and funding sustainability if you only look at the Commonwealth side of the ledger. Students pay a significant share and they need to be considered as well, so I'll move an amendment to allow the ATEC to consider student contribution amounts as well as Commonwealth contribution amounts. I also want to address the issue of international student caps. This bill provides the ATEC with the function to allocate international student caps for different universities and providers at the request of the minister. As I understand it from discussions with the minister's office, further legislation is required to provide the minister with the power to set enforceable caps for international students before ATEC can use this function, so this bill paves the way for future legislation that will allow those student caps. The government tried to introduce this power in—
Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence | Statements | House debates
The suspected murders of Leon and Otis Clune and the suicide of their parents in Mosman Park in my electorate have sent shockwaves throughout our community. It brings profound sadness but also...
The suspected murders of Leon and Otis Clune and the suicide of their parents in Mosman Park in my electorate have sent shockwaves throughout our community. It brings profound sadness but also anger, frustration and unfortunately some division. At the centre of this tragedy were two children whose lives were precious. They deserved safety, opportunity and the chance to grow into their futures. For young people living with disability who are, like all young people, forming a view of themselves, this is a terrifying story. To them, I say: this is an extremely rare event and there is no justification for it. Your life is precious. Your worth is inherent, unquestionable and equal. For families of people living with disability, this event may stir up anger, memories of your hardest moments or fears for the future. It's clear this tragedy has reopened conversations about how our society sees disabled people, how we support families and how we can prevent anyone from feeling alone or without options. The coronial inquest investigation is currently underway to determine the facts. This is likely to be followed by a coronial inquest so we can examine the broader circumstances that led to this crime. As we mourn the loss of this family, we must stand together, acknowledge the pain caused to so many in our community by this devastating event and recommit to protecting every precious life.
Disability Support Pension | Constituency Statements | House debates
Australians living with disability deserve dignity, independence and fairness. The current partner income test for the disability support pension undermines these fundamental human rights. The...
Australians living with disability deserve dignity, independence and fairness. The current partner income test for the disability support pension undermines these fundamental human rights. The DSP exists to recognise that disability can limit a person's capacity to work and earn an income. Yet, for tens of thousands of Australians, that support is reduced or removed altogether simply because they're in a relationship. This policy punishes people for having a supportive relationship and actively discourages autonomy. According to Department of Social Services data from August 2025, about 155,000 Australians receiving the DSP are partnered. Of these, 18 per cent report that their partner has an income. In many cases, these earnings are modest yet still significantly reduce or entirely cancel a person's pension. The same doesn't apply to parents' income when an adult with disability receives the DSP while living in their parents' home. Under current eligibility rules, a couple living together can earn just $380 in combined income per fortnight before the DSP begins to be reduced. Every additional dollar reduces the DSP further. This policy assumes that couples can simply pool their resources and that a partner can and should financially support a person with disability who cannot access the workforce. My constituents have told me about the impact of this policy on their ability to live with dignity and autonomy. I recently met Taylor and her partner, who were flatmates before beginning a de facto relationship. When they began their relationship, Taylor reported the change to Centrelink. As a result, her DSP was reduced to a nominal amount while Taylor's partner completed his PhD and undertook part-time work. Taylor no longer receives any DSP now that her partner has started working full time. Taylor and her partner would like to save for a home and start a family, but they say these goals are unachievable in their current financial circumstances. Another woman in my electorate told me her husband is an early career researcher whose income reduces her DSP to just $160 a fortnight. She has no financial autonomy. Her husband pays for everything, and she described feeling 'expensive to maintain'. She told me the experience is humiliating and deeply disempowering. Another constituent explained that qualifying for the DSP was an already exhausting and degrading process that results in a woefully inadequate payment once a partner's income is assessed. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates the cost of removing the partner income test would be approximately $250 million per year. This reform would benefit about 34,000 partnered DSP recipients who currently receive only a partial payment or none at all. In the context of the federal budget, this would be a reasonable and just investment. It would restore autonomy, reduce financial stress and recognise people with disability as individuals, not dependants.
Labor Government | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is for the Prime Minister. Since you came to office in 2022, parliamentary committees have prepared 78 reports and hundreds of recommendations on policy areas ranging from domestic...
My question is for the Prime Minister. Since you came to office in 2022, parliamentary committees have prepared 78 reports and hundreds of recommendations on policy areas ranging from domestic violence to plastic pollution to gambling harm. Your government has only responded to four of these within the required six-month window. Fifty-seven reports haven't received any response at all. Why is the government consistently failing to respond to important committee recommendations? Why set up these inquiries if they're not going to go anywhere?
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. At its heart, this bill aims to improve access to health care and reduce costs by extending...
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. At its heart, this bill aims to improve access to health care and reduce costs by extending prescribing rights under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to authorised nurse practitioners. These changes recognise the essential role nurse practitioners already play across our health system, and I support the objective of improving accessible, affordable care. In a country as vast and decentralised as Australia, geography too often dictates health outcomes. In rural, regional and remote areas, the closest GP may be hours away. For older Australians, people living with disability, First Nations communities and vulnerable people, the barriers to safe, timely and affordable care can be even higher. When a nurse practitioner is already providing frontline care, it's both logical and safe to allow them to prescribe medicines within a clearly defined scope. While I support the intention of this bill, the success of these reforms will depend entirely on how the detail is implemented. Several stakeholders have highlighted that key elements, including approval conditions and scope of prescribing, are being left for future ministerial determinations. This means we're being asked to legislate a framework without yet seeing the guardrails that will govern it, and we're doing so before the Senate committee has delivered its report. This is not an ideal position for the parliament to be in and risks leaving questions unanswered for practitioners, patients and the broader health system. There are two areas in particular that I want to highlight. First, the scope of medicines available for prescribing must be sensible and safe. This reform should focus on routine, low-risk and clinically appropriate medicines, not those that carry higher risks of dependency or misuse. Schedule 8 medicines, in particular, should fall outside this expanded authority. Our goal here is to improve access, not to create unintended consequences for patients or the health system. Doctors are best placed to make decisions about these schedule 8 medicines, which are used for severe pain or conditions like ADHD and include opioids such as morphine, stimulants such as dexamphetamine, cannabis and certain benzodiazepines. Our goal here is to appropriately improve access. Second, the definition of 'authorised health practitioner' must be precise. Nurse practitioners play an invaluable role, but it should be absolutely clear that they will continue to practise within a collaborative, medically supported model of primary care. This is how high-quality care already functions and the regulations should reflect this reality. Ambiguity helps no-one, not practitioners, not regulators and not patients. These are not objections to the reform; they are a request for safeguards to ensure it delivers what it promises—better access without compromising safety or fragmenting care. This bill has the potential to move us meaningfully towards a more equitable health system but only if the detail is done well. I urge the government to engage openly with the findings of the Senate committee, once available, and to ensure the regulations are transparent, evidence based and clear. Australians deserve a health system that's accessible, safe and equitable. This bill can contribute to that goal if we get the implementation of it right, and I'll continue to engage constructively with the government to ensure that that happens.
I move: That the House: (1) condemns the attempted bombing on January 26 in Boorloo (Perth) that targeted First Peoples and their supporters; (2) notes that the Western Australia Joint Counter...
I move: That the House: (1) condemns the attempted bombing on January 26 in Boorloo (Perth) that targeted First Peoples and their supporters; (2) notes that the Western Australia Joint Counter Terrorism Team, consisting of the Western Australia Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, is investigating the incident as a potential terrorist act; (3) acknowledges the serious harm this has caused and expresses its solidarity with all those impacted by this event; (4) further notes that an attack against First Nations people is an attack against all Australians; (5) notes that for many First Nations people, January 26 is a day of mourning and that an attack on this day, at an Invasion Day rally, represents a serious escalation of racial violence against First Peoples; (6) further condemns all acts of violence and racism against First Peoples, and stands in solidarity with First Peoples against rising racism and hate directed at them; (7) affirms that this Parliament's recent condemnation of racially motivated hatred unambiguously includes racism directed at First Peoples; (8) further notes that the Federal Government has a duty to equally protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence; (9) further acknowledges that First Peoples in Australia continue to face entrenched racism, racially-motivated hate and threats of violence, and that any instance of this is unacceptable and must be addressed; and (10) calls for governments to continue to take urgent action to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against First Peoples. I thank the House for allocating this time in the parliamentary schedule to discuss this motion, and I thank Senator Thorpe for preparing the words of this motion. This is the first sitting day since the incident at Forrest Place occurred, and it is so important that we acknowledge it, reflect on it and offer support to those affected. On 26 January, a peaceful Invasion Day rally in the heart of Perth was violently targeted in what police are now treating as a potential terrorist act. A homemade explosive device, a bomb, was thrown into a crowd of people—families, young people, elders, community leaders—who were simply exercising their democratic right to gather, listen and be heard. We now know that only luck prevented a mass casualty tragedy. An attack on a peaceful protest strikes at the core of our democracy. Our system depends on people being able to express views, including uncomfortable ones, without fear of violence or intimidation. This is not a privilege; it's a cornerstone of our democracy. Any act intended to frighten people away from participating in public debate is an act that threatens the health of our civic culture. We must also recognise the particular context of this event. This rally was attended predominantly by First Nations people and those who stand in solidarity with them. First Nations communities continue to face systemic racism and marginalisation which shapes how this incident is understood and felt. Violence does not occur in a vacuum. It lands differently on communities already carrying the weight of intergenerational trauma and ongoing inequity. Jim Morrison, Noongar elder and head of Yokai, reminded me today that not long ago Aboriginal people were not allowed to gather in the city of Perth. They were not permitted past Newcastle Street. That context makes it even more important that we fiercely protect the right of First Nations people to gather and protest in our streets. At a time when the strength of our social fabric is being tested in so many ways, maintaining social cohesion has never been more important. Acts like this don't just harm individuals; they undermine people's sense of belonging and safety. When a marginalised group is targeted, the ripple effect extends far beyond those who are physically present. People begin to question whether they feel safe participating in public life, in gathering, in advocating or even just in being visible. After an attack like this, it is so important that the parliament sends a clear message that attacks on First Nations people, as with attacks on any Australians, will not be tolerated and will be pursued with the full force of the law. For many Australians, particularly First Nations people, 26 January is not a day of celebration but a day of reflection, grief and remembrance. It's a reminder of dispossession and the enduring impacts of colonisation. That a violent act occurred during a peaceful gathering on that difficult day only heightened the sense of distress. Last week I spoke with a constituent who attended the rally. He shared with me the confusion and fear that swept through the crowd. He explained how profoundly vulnerable they felt. They were doing something entirely lawful and peaceful, yet suddenly they felt like targets. They did not understand why they were being asked to move, and the traumatic history of relations between Aboriginal people and police made them fearful and suspicious. Many in my community have also expressed concern about the limited mainstream visibility of the incident and the dismissal of racism as a factor. When a serious act of violence that appears to have targeted a racial group receives minimal national attention, it raises legitimate questions about consistency in how we perceive threats, how we categorise them and how we respond. Australians want to trust that violence is condemned wherever it occurs and whoever the victims are. That consistency is essential to building and maintaining social cohesion. I welcome the joint investigation by WA police, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and I urge those involved in the investigation to act with urgency. Their coordinated effort is vital to ensure the full circumstances of this shocking incident are understood and that appropriate charges are pursued using the full range of federal and state offences that apply. But as important as law enforcement is, our response cannot stop there. We must consider what this incident means for social cohesion in Australia. Cohesion is not something we can take for granted. It requires leadership that brings people together, that encourages understanding and shared purpose and that resists attempts to inflame or divide. Violence aimed at supressing participation has no place in our democracy, and neither does indifference. We have a responsibility to acknowledge harm and to stand with all communities who feel targeted or unsafe. We also have a responsibility to commit ourselves to a more cohesive future, one where differences are aired respectfully and where all Australians feel they can participate freely in our shared civic life. For these reasons, I commend to the House the motion to condemn the attempted bombing, to acknowledge the serious harm that this has caused, to stand in solidarity with the First Nations people affected by this attack and to condemn all acts of violence and racism against First Nations people and all people.
I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Member for Curtin immediately moving a motion relating to the Boorloo (Perth)...
I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Member for Curtin immediately moving a motion relating to the Boorloo (Perth) bombing attack; (2) debate on the motion continuing immediately; (3) no amendment to the motion being permitted; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 15 (after line 14), at the end of section 114A.4, add: Decision reviewable by ART (6) A decision by the AFP Minister under this section is reviewable by the...
I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 15 (after line 14), at the end of section 114A.4, add: Decision reviewable by ART (6) A decision by the AFP Minister under this section is reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This amendment introduces a provision to ensure that the AFP minister's decision regarding hate groups is reviewable on its merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This bill introduces a significant power for the AFP minister which needs safeguards against misuse or mistake. We have to make laws for bad governments, not assuming that we will have good governments, and, when we look overseas, we can see authoritarian figures are rising. Banning organisations is a typical strategy of authoritarian figures, and frequently associated with democratic backsliding, so we need to ensure that a power like this has sufficient safeguards. Some safeguards do exist—the agreement of the Attorney-General and judicial review of the AFP minister's decision about whether the proper process was followed—but it explicitly exempts the application of procedural fairness, so there is no right to be heard. If someone believes that their group has been wrongly designated a hate group, this amendment would give them the ability to seek an ART review of that decision on its merits.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Like everyone else, I'm disappointed by the short timeframes provided to engage and consult on complex and important legislation. This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism...
Like everyone else, I'm disappointed by the short timeframes provided to engage and consult on complex and important legislation. This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, was introduced an hour ago. The committee inquiry was way too short, with the report only tabled today, and this bill will be passed tonight with debate curtailed. This makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. In the time available, I've looked at whether the bill would do four things: address the unacceptable normalisation of antisemitism, reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks, deal fairly with the rise of hatred and violence against all groups, and strike an appropriate balance with important freedoms. Firstly, on the normalisation of antisemitism, this bill is a step forward. In the year to September 2024, antisemitic incidents increased by more than 300 per cent. This is not who we are, and it's important that the law shows that antisemitism is unacceptable in Australia. No matter what you think about the actions of a foreign government on the other side of the world, demonising someone for their race or culture in Australia is not okay. This bill tries to send this message by making racial hatred an aggravating factor in sentencing in a number of Commonwealth crimes, by increasing penalties for existing offences about promoting violence, by creating more serious offences for preachers and spiritual leaders and for people trying to radicalise children under 18, and by making it easier for the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel or refuse visas for people intent on spreading racial hatred. Bigger penalties will not stamp out antisemitism. In fact, no change to the law can, although the vilification laws that have been removed from this bill would have been a good addition and went no further than the current WA law does. But, even without them, this bill does send the message. Secondly, will the bill reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks? Possibly to a small extent. We will never be completely safe from terrorism, but we can address the means and the motivation. The gun reform laws passed this morning are an improvement, limiting the means. Dealing with antisemitism is also an improvement to address motivation. The bill also aims to deal with the groups that organise and facilitate hate and violence by allowing the minister to list organisations as hate groups if they prepare, plan or advocate for hate crimes related to race or national or ethnic origin. It will be a criminal offence to be associated with such a group. But these are limited steps forward, and they come at a cost. Criminalising organisations is a big step. Thirdly is protection for other groups. This bill does little to ensure that we make Australia safe for other at-risk groups. Many of the new provisions relate to race, national or ethnic origin, which won't address Islamophobia or threats to the LGBTQIA community. This is why I strongly support the amendment that will be put forward by the member for Wentworth to expand protections to other protected groups defined by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, disability and religion. If we're going to deal with the fraying of social cohesion, we should be protecting all groups from those who seek to spread hatred. It makes no sense to have different levels of protection for different groups. Fourthly, does it strike an appropriate balance against important freedoms? The speed with which we've had to review these laws and the lack of time for serious public consultation means there is some risk here of unintended consequences. For example, I can see that there could be circumstances in which the minister wants to act quickly, but criminalising organisations with the right to be heard specifically exempted and no merits review is a significant power that could be misused in the future. With the democratic backsliding we're seeing in the US at the moment, it's not too hard to imagine. That's why I'll be proposing an amendment to ensure that a decision made to list a group as a hate group is subject to a merits review. In conclusion, the process of passing this bill is very poor. But, despite it not extending protections to other groups and lacking some important safeguards, I will be supporting it because it sends a message to arrest the normalisation of antisemitism, and it may reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks by criminalising the structures that could support these attacks. Building social cohesion will require more than a change of law, but this is a start. Importantly, I'm glad to hear that an amendment will be agreed to in the Senate for a two-year review of this rushed legislation. I will drop my proposed amendment to this effect, to ensure this review, because it will happen in the Senate. It's essential that we review the impact and adequacy of this bill after the conclusion of the royal commission. Thank you.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
In the eight years I lived at Bondi Beach, I loved the mix of people that you would see on your average Friday night: surfers; city girls catching up in bars; blokes doing laps of the strip in...
In the eight years I lived at Bondi Beach, I loved the mix of people that you would see on your average Friday night: surfers; city girls catching up in bars; blokes doing laps of the strip in their muscle cars; families of all faiths picnicking on the grass; tourists, fresh off the bus from the airport, feeling the sand between their toes; and Jewish locals walking quietly to shul. It was sometimes rowdy, but it was usually civil. It was the messy promise of multiculturalism and optimism that made me feel proud to be Australian. The horrific antisemitic attack on 14 December was an attempt to break that promise—to frighten and divide us. Just as September 11 was an Islamic extremist attack at the symbolic heart of American capitalism, this was an attack at the symbolic heart of Australian pluralism and inclusion. It was an unspeakable horror to target Jewish Australians on the first night of Hanukkah, while they were celebrating the triumph of light over darkness. It confirmed the worst fears of Jewish Australians, who'd witnessed a rise in antisemitism in recent years, and it will remain a stain on our collective conscience. Today is about remembering and honouring those who lost their lives on that day, as a step towards ensuring it will never happen again. I would like to express the deepest condolences, from myself and my community of Curtin, to the families, friends and communities of the 15 people who were killed that day. Each of their lives tells a story of kindness, connection and courage. They were parents, grandparents, children, brothers, sisters, neighbours and friends who gave to their communities, who built lives here, who loved and who were loved. Today we speak their names and remember them. Boris and Sofia Gurman, married for 34 years, showed incredible bravery on the night, confronting, tackling and disarming one of the attackers, saving countless lives. Rabbi Eli Schlanger, who dedicated his life to community and family, served as a rabbi for 18 years and was head of the Chabad mission in Bondi. Boris Tetleroyd, described by family as a warm, generous and deeply sociable man, was someone who loved conversation, connection and helping others whenever he could. Reuven Morrison's daughter said of him: 'Everyone who knew him knew the incredible man that was just too big for this world—the light that he added, his absolute immense and endless generosity, his sense of humour.' Marika Pogany was a dedicated volunteer and delivered more than 12,000 kosher meals on wheels. Rabbi Yaakov Levitan was a deeply respected member of Sydney's Jewish community and served as secretary of Sydney Beth Din, the rabbinical court. Peter Meagher—'Marzo'—was a retired police detective and deeply valued member of the Randwick rugby club. His family have said: 'He was a cherished brother, husband and uncle whose kindness, generosity and love touched everyone who knew him.' Tibor Weitzen was a beloved grandfather and husband and a cherished member of the Bondi Chabad and Russian Jewish communities. He was killed while trying to shield a family friend. Alexander Kleytman had endured the horrors of the Holocaust as a child. Alex was killed while courageously shielding his wife during the attack. Frenchman Dan Elkayam was beginning to build a future and a family in Australia. His family have said: 'His smile could light up any room. He was pure joy—a beautiful and humble soul.' Adam Smyth was a kind and generous father of four children, caught in the attack with his wife, Katrina. Tania Tretiak was a grandmother attending Hanukkah with her family. She spent her final moments shielding a child from gunfire, displaying unimaginable courage. Ten-year-old Matilda was given the most Australian name her parents could think of after migrating from Ukraine. There is no greater tragedy than a life cut so drastically short. Edith Brutman was described by her family as a woman of integrity who chose humanity every day. She met prejudice with principle and division with service. As we remember these 15 people, we cannot let those who seek to divide us and sow fear win. Instead, we honour the courage and care of so many that day, first responders and bystanders alike, and recognise the Australia we choose to be in these acts. As Rabbi Eli Schlanger's cousin said: The world is a good place, and it's filled with billions of good people. We have to believe that the billions of good acts can dispel the darkness. Faith leaders have asked that we do a mitzvah—an act of kindness—to honour those who we have lost. This act of light in the face of violence is a demonstration that, like Edith Brutman, we can and will choose humanity every day and that we can overcome antisemitism and all hatred and division. May their memories be a blessing.
Valedictory | Statements | House debates
On the last scheduled sitting day of the parliamentary year, I couldn't be prouder of the constructive, positive and accountable way my community and the crossbench have contributed since the...
On the last scheduled sitting day of the parliamentary year, I couldn't be prouder of the constructive, positive and accountable way my community and the crossbench have contributed since the start of the 48th parliament. After eight weeks of parliament, the crossbench is already showing its impact. We've had some good wins this year already. The crossbench rigorously interrogated the EPBC bill, collectively proposing 119 amendments. The House knocked back 118, but I was pleased that one of my amendments was accepted—to improve the transparency of the offsets fund. Tomorrow morning we're expecting the bill to come back from the Senate with additional amendments, originally proposed by the crossbench in the House, to protect forests and prevent fossil fuel projects from using the national interest process. Additionally, after fighting for the huge number of older Australians who are waiting, we saw 20,000 home-care packages brought forward ahead of the delayed implementation dates. After repeated demands by the crossbench in the last parliament, the Treasurer agreed not to tax unrealised gains in the new superannuation laws. After I'd tried to split the education bill to ensure the integrity of the higher education system without an international student cap, the government saw sense and did the same thing. After advocating for tax reform in the last term, it's now finally on the agenda, and, after its inclusion in the Economic Reform Roundtable, momentum is building. After I called for the establishment of an Australian AI safety institute to identify risks and support policymakers and regulators, the government announced a similar body would be established. As the government tried to undermine our freedom-of-information laws, it was the crossbench that proposed and debated amendments, drawing attention to the dangerous signs of increasing secrecy. It's now languishing in the Senate. Part of being a constructive crossbench is finding ways to improve or refine legislation. In the last eight sitting weeks, the crossbench has introduced 160 amendments to 10 pieces of legislation, drafted in consultation with experts and stakeholders. As a comparison, the opposition has introduced only 18 amendments to five pieces of legislation. The crossbench has introduced 10 private members' bills, ranging in topic from climate to gambling to ebike regulation to responding to robodebt. These put pressure on the government, showing that change is possible. My private members' bills were to ban AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material, and to clean-up data harvesting in the postal voting process. Both demonstrate issues with clear solutions that the government needs to implement, but, of course, the most important thing to me is ensuring that the voice of our community is heard in Canberra and that the people of Curtin feel informed and engaged in our democracy. Since May, I've made eight Curtin submissions to committee inquiries, including recommendations on economic reform, productivity, aged care, Thriving Kids, net zero, the FOI Bill and electoral laws. We've held community events with Saul Griffith on electrification and Ken Henry on tax reform, a grants-writing workshop and an innovative online event using a new AI powered tool to all together community views on negative-gearing and CGT reforms. My community liaison team, Joe and Felicity, continue to go above and beyond for the constituents of Curtin, and, in the last five months, they have helped more than 250 people with their concerns with aged care, Centrelink, immigration and child support, as well as responded to nearly 2,000 emails. I'm so grateful that our team Chaney volunteers keep showing up—from a river clean-up to doorknocking and public pop-ups. On this last day of parliament, I want to particularly thank some team members. This year I farewelled Tony Fairweather and Louise Jones, who were foundational members of Curtin Independent and followed up with operational roles in my first term. Their integrity, vision, strategic insight and willingness to turn their hand to whatever was needed made the last three years and two campaigns possible. Thank you, Tony and Louise. My senior policy adviser Katherine Parkinson has been by my side since day one, making significant personal sacrifices, leaving her young children to travel with me across the country for every sitting week for 3½ years. I could not have survived these years without her humour, her intellect and her loyalty, and I will miss her terribly as she moves into her next, less travel-intensive, role. I'm hugely grateful to my whole team, my husband, my three kids, my extended family and the nearly 1,000 volunteers who gave up their time this year to keep Curtin independent. I'm also very grateful to the people of Curtin for the opportunity to represent them. Thank you for showing we can do politics differently in 2025. I look forward to 2026.
Housing | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is for the Prime Minister. The average house price has gone from four to nine times the average income in the last 25 years, locking younger Australians out of a home. If this...
My question is for the Prime Minister. The average house price has gone from four to nine times the average income in the last 25 years, locking younger Australians out of a home. If this government is trying to address the housing affordability crisis, are your policies aiming to increase, plateau or reduce house prices?
Gambling Advertising | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are asking why the government has failed to respond to the Murphy review's unanimous recommendation to ban gambling ads. No-one in this chamber...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are asking why the government has failed to respond to the Murphy review's unanimous recommendation to ban gambling ads. No-one in this chamber is seeking to ban gambling, despite what you've said, and when asked about reform you list actions that were announced before the Murphy review. Many members of your own party support an ad ban. Why won't you allow a free vote on a ban on ads for online gambling?
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
When I was in my early 20s, I was renting in Sydney, working hard and loving my life and my friends. Once a week I sat down with my boyfriend and we watched The Secret Life of Us on TV. I loved...
When I was in my early 20s, I was renting in Sydney, working hard and loving my life and my friends. Once a week I sat down with my boyfriend and we watched The Secret Life of Us on TV. I loved it. I felt like Claudia Karvan and Samuel Johnson could easily have been my friends. They sounded like my friends, lived similar lives and dealt with similar issues. We looked forward to Monday nights and chatted about it at work. It became part of the language and culture I shared with my friends and it brought us together. Later, as a parent of young kids, turning on Justine Clarke and Jay Laga'aia on Play School provided the window I needed to get a load of washing out, tidy up or lie exhausted next to my toddlers for a moment. I didn't want my kids to learn to talk with an American accent; I wanted them to understand, embrace and share our unique Australian culture. Although my kids were too old for Bluey, I've watched it with my nieces and nephews and seen the same thing in today's toddlers. Bluey shows the best of us, reflecting our culture and values in a way that reminds not just kids but also adults who we are. Only a few years ago I loved watching Tim Minchin's Upright, a road trip across Australia that ended with a homecoming to Cottesloe, in my electorate of Curtin. The trees, the architecture and the vibe bring these stories into our lives and make them real to us. As our TV viewing patterns have changed, with far more choice, global content and streaming services, our cultural references are becoming more fragmented. We have fewer of these common cultural touchpoints, these collective Australian experiences that bring us together. Some of this is inevitable and positively reflects that we now accept a much broader range of ways to be Australian, and we have endless global choices available to us. But it also comes at a cultural cost, and this cost is not inevitable. TV stations are required to include some Australian content, which is how we get to hear more of our stories. But, until now, streaming platforms have not had this requirement, and this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, fixes that. This bill is a significant and long-awaited reform. It's a milestone for Australia's cultural life. I commend the government, and Ministers Burke and Wells in particular, for delivering the decisive action that Australia's screen sector has needed for far too long. The bill introduces for the first time a clear and enforceable Australian content requirement for the major streaming platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video—the services that now dominate how Australians watch television. If a streaming service has at least one million paying subscribers in Australia, it will be required to spend more on new eligible Australian programs—either 10 per cent of its total program expenditure for Australia or 7.5 per cent of its Australian revenue. These eligible programs include the backbone of Australian storytelling—drama, children's content, documentaries, arts and educational programs. Streamers can equip their obligations over a three-year cycle, recognising the lumpy, project based nature of screen investments, and they must report annually to ACMA. Crucially, the bill brings streaming services into line with the free-to-air and subscription broadcasters who have carried these obligations for decades. In short, the bill guarantees that no matter which remote control Australians pick up, Australian stories will remain at their fingertips. This reform is not just a technical fix; it's a cultural safeguard and a cultural opportunity. For decades, Australia's local content rules have ensured we can hear our own voices and see our own communities, histories and quirks reflected on screen. But audience habits have changed dramatically. More and more Australians watch content through streaming platforms, and those platforms have had no requirement to invest in Australian stories. This gap has left our screen sector increasingly vulnerable. Production has slumped, local commissions have declined and a highly-skilled workforce—actors, directors, writers, crew, editors, musicians and creatives—has faced deep uncertainty. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance described today's reforms as 'a vital lifeline'. They stressed that the new content requirements will deliver safe and secure employment opportunities and offer real hope to thousands of creative workers who rely on a stable and sustainable production sector. Screen Producers Australia called this 'a landmark day', the result of more than a decade of advocacy built on the simple principle that Australian stories deserve a guaranteed space in our media landscape. As SPA put it, without clear local content rules, the ready availability of imported content risks drowning out our own voice. Of course, this is about audiences too. Australians want Australian stories. They want stories that reflect our identity, humour, complexity and diversity. They want programs that understand our communities because they come from our communities. This bill honours that. There are some small improvements that could be made to this bill. I'll be supporting the amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth to exclude the amount of the producer offset from qualifying expenditure in order to prevent international streaming services from artificially reducing their Australian expenditure. That amendment would also ensure that Australian companies, rather than international companies, retain important intellectual property rights over the new Australian programs. It requires that the streaming services report on the subgenres of their new Australian programs to promote broader assessment and monitoring and to help key sectors of the screen industry, like children's programming and documentary production. I urge the government to seriously consider this amendment. To conclude, this is good, thoughtful, balanced legislation. It recognises that Australian stories are not just entertainment; they are part of the fabric of who we are. They help us understand ourselves and each other and they allow the world to understand us. The government have listened to extensive consultation and years of advocacy and acted, and I commend them for that. I strongly support the bill and the amendment being introduced by the member for Wentworth. I look forward to seeing it strengthen our culture, creative industries and national identity for years to come.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendments circulated in my name: (1) Page 9 (after line 25), after clause 17, insert: 17A Review of methodology for calculating amount of restoration contribution charge (1) The...
I move the amendments circulated in my name: (1) Page 9 (after line 25), after clause 17, insert: 17A Review of methodology for calculating amount of restoration contribution charge (1) The Minister must cause a review of the methodology for calculating the amount of restoration contribution charge to be undertaken every 2 years. (2) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within the period (if any) prescribed by the regulations. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be published on the Department's website within 20 days after receiving the report. (2) Page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add: 19 Methods prescribed by regulations (1) The method for working out the amount of restoration contribution charge that is prescribed by the regulations must take into consideration the following matters: (a) administration, such as ecological assessment, entering into a legal agreement to secure the site, rates and taxes that are applicable, and the cost of meeting reporting requirements; (b) forgone use, such as the opportunity costs for landowner due to forgone uses; (c) management, such as the cost of implementing the management plan during the maintenance period, including labour, materials and equipment; (d) insurance and risk, such as for infrastructure or equipment, such as fencing, and for unforeseen circumstances that may impact offset delivery). (2) If the regulations prescribe a method for working out the amount of bioregional plan registration charge, the regulations must take into account the matters in subsection (1). These amendments are about a critical but largely unexamined element of the EPBC reforms: how we price environmental offsets. If we get the price wrong, the entire system will fail. Offsets are meant to restore nature. But if the cost of environmental damage is not reflected in the price paid, offsets don't work. Across Australia we've seen what happens when offsets are underpriced. Developers pay a small fee, their projects go ahead, and governments are left with the impossible task of finding enough land, time and money to make nature whole again. The result is a growing ecological deficit—an environmental credit card that never gets paid off. Under these reforms the amount a developer pays into the offsets fund will be determined by a method set out in regulations. My concern is that, without strong legislative guidance, that method could again undervalue the true cost of restoration. That's why I'm moving these amendments that require that the method for setting this restoration contribution charge takes into account the full range of real-world costs involved in delivering a successful offset. When we talk about restoring ecosystems, the price isn't just the cost of planting a few trees. Restoration is complex, risky and expensive. My amendments ensure that the calculation of the offset price must consider a range of factors, including: the costs of establishing, maintaining and monitoring projects, which are the practical, on-the-ground expenses of doing the work; the costs of identifying suitable sites, including the time and expertise required to find land that actually supports restoration; the costs of acquiring that land, including stamp duty and transaction costs; contingency costs, acknowledging the fact that projects fail and that success often requires multiple attempts; the added costs of remote locations, where logistics and labour are more difficult; and the additional cost of scarcity: when suitable sites are few and far between, the price should rise accordingly. If we ignore these factors, we're not setting a fair price; we're setting nature up to fail. In too many jurisdictions—New South Wales, Queensland and overseas—offsets have ben chronically underpriced. That underpricing flows through the whole system. It means that restoration projects are underfunded from the start. It means that the offsets fund doesn't have enough money to deliver what was promised. And it means that we end up with a pay-to-destroy model dressed up as environmental reform. By clearly defining the factors that must be included in the offsets pricing method, we make the system transparent, predictable and credible. These amendments are about integrity—financial integrity and ecological integrity. They ensure that when we talk about offsets we're talking about real restoration, not accounting fiction. I commend these amendments to the House.
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 (10) and (12) to (15) together, as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 228, page 96 (after line 26), after subsection 134(3AC), insert: (3AD)...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (15) together, as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 228, page 96 (after line 26), after subsection 134(3AC), insert: (3AD) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the Restoration Contribution Holder has advised that it is not likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered and will result in a net gain. (3AE) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the matter is on the excluded matters list. (2) Schedule 1, item 230, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 134(3G), insert: Conditions requiring payment of restoration contribution charge (3H) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of restoration contribution charge, the Minister must: (a) consider whether it is feasible to instead attach a condition requiring the holder of the approval holder to instead deliver restoration action to compensate for the damage cause by the action; and (b) if the Minister considers that that is feasible, attach a such a condition. (3J) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect, the Minister must seek advice from the Restoration Contribution Holder on whether it is likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered, and will result in a net gain. (3) Schedule 1, page 97 (after line 27), after item 230, insert: 230A After section 134 Insert: 134AA Excluded matters list (1) The Restoration Contributions Holder must: (a) develop a list of matters protected by a provision of Part 3 for which no general restoration actions are likely to be available due to the scarcity of the affected matter; and (b) make the list available for public inspection on the Department's website. (2) The list is to be known as the excluded matters list. (4) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 19), after section 157A, insert: 157AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels Despite section 157A, the Minister must not determine that the taking of an action is a national interest proposal if the action involves the production or extraction of: (a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or (b) coal. (5) Schedule 1, item 291, page 139 (lines 23 to 35), omit subsection 157D(2). (6) Schedule 1, item 291, page 141 (lines 10 to 22), omit subsection 157F(2). (7) Schedule 1, item 292, page 143 (after line 7), after section 157H, insert: 157HA Production or extraction of fossil fuels Despite section 157H, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision of Part 3 or this Chapter if the action involves the production or extraction of: (a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or (b) coal. (8) Schedule 1, item 292, page 145 (line 33) to page 146 (line 11), omit subsection 157N(2). (9) Schedule 1, item 292, page 148 (lines 20 to 32), omit subsection 157R(2). (10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 212 (after line 32), after paragraph 177CP(1)(f), insert: (fa) to provide advice for the purposes of subsection 134(3J); and (fb) to maintain the excluded matters list; and (12) Schedule 1, item 432, page 234 (after line 29), after section 302A, insert: 302AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels Despite section 302A, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision (including a regulation made under a provision) of this Part if the action involves the production or extraction of: (a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or (b) coal. (13) Schedule 1, item 432, page 258 (line 30) to page 259 (line 8), omit subsection 302F(2). (14) Schedule 1, item 432, page 261 (lines 19 to 31), omit subsection 302J(2). (15) Schedule 1, item 612, page 364 (after line 11), after the definition of environment protection order in section 528, insert: excluded matters list: see subsection 134AA(2). I commend the government for taking on the difficult task of reforming our national environmental laws. It has been more than two decades since the EPBC Act was passed, and it's well overdue for an update. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore trust, protect nature and deliver faster, fairer decisions for business. But that promise will fall flat if the reforms create new loopholes that make these reforms irrelevant, because even the strongest framework means little if you can simply step around it. Under the current EPBC Act, the minister has what's known as a national interest exemption—a break-glass power, designed for genuine emergencies like natural disasters. It's a tool used rarely—only 31 times since 2000—and mostly in good faith. It's not perfect, but it's understood: it exists for extreme situations, not convenience. The new reforms go much further. They introduce a new pathway—a national interest proposal or approval that allows the minister to bypass almost all environmental safeguards whenever they decide a project is in the national interest. Unlike the original exemption, this one isn't limited to emergencies. It could be used for anything from housing to energy projects, with no clear limits on what the minister can take into account. That means a minister could approve a project even if it causes unacceptable impacts, even if it pushes a species to the brink of extinction. Every environmental safeguard in this bill—the mitigation hierarchy, the net gain standard and the unacceptable impact test—could be waived by the stroke of a pen. This isn't a safeguard. It's a shortcut, and it undermines the integrity of the entire system. It's bad for the environment, and it's not great for business either. Investors can't make long-term decisions on the hope that they will be deemed to be in the national interest. They need certainty, not ministerial discretion. Let's be clear. You can't streamline approvals by cutting out the environment. This national interest pathway is an admission of failure, a way of saying, 'We can't balance environmental protection with economic development, so we'll just make it optional.' The amendments that I'm putting up today would put some safeguards around this power. First, if the government insists on keeping the new pathway, fossil fuel projects must never qualify. It would be absurd to claim that new coal or gas projects are in the national interest when science tells us they are fundamentally against it. Second, there must be full transparency whenever this power is used. The current bill would let the minister redact the statement of reasons, hiding the rationale for bypassing environmental law. If a project truly is in the national interest, the government should have the courage to explain why. Ideally, this new pathway should be removed completely, but the legislation is complex, and in the time given I haven't been able to draft a complete removal of this new pathway. Another major weakness in this package is the offsets fund. On paper, it's a neat idea—the Restoration Contributions Holder. When a project can't fully avoid environmental damage, the developer pays into a central fund that delivers restoration projects on their behalf. In theory, it creates efficiency. In practice, it's risky. We've seen this model before in New South Wales, in Queensland and in the Pilbara, and it consistently underdelivers. Developers destroy habitat, pay into the fund and walk away. The fund then struggles to find suitable offsets, and nature ends up footing the bill. That's the pay-to-destroy problem—a cheque is written, the project proceeds, and the promise of restoration fades into paperwork. Without strong guardrails, this fund risks becoming the single point of failure for the entire reform package, so I'm introducing a series of amendments to increase the likelihood it actually works for business, for government and, most importantly, for nature. First, limit the use of the fund. It should be the last resort, not the default, and my amendments ensure that there is another layer to the mitigation hierarchy. Proponents must seek to offset directly where they must follow principles such as like-for-like and net gain before using the fund, which does not have to follow the same principles. Second, ensure suitable offsets actually exist before money is accepted. The fund should have to advise the minister whether it can realistically deliver an offset. There should also be an excluded matters list, because you can't destroy the last of something and call it an offset. Thirdly, we need to price offsets accurately, and that's dealt with in another bill. Fourthly, there must be transparency around success and failure of projects, which we've already discussed. There also needs to be scientific oversight so that the advisory committee includes scientists who understand biodiversity, not just balance sheets. This reform package could really deliver what Australians have demanded, but that promise depends on integrity—integrity in how powers are used, how offsets are priced and how results are reported. The national interest shouldn't be a loophole, and offsets shouldn't be a licence to destroy. We must build a system that restores rather than excuses, that protects nature and that delivers real outcomes to the Australian people. I commend the amendments to the House.
I move amendment 11 as circulated in my name: (11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 229 (after line 12), at the end of section 177DI, add: (4) The Minister must publish a copy of the annual report on...
I move amendment 11 as circulated in my name: (11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 229 (after line 12), at the end of section 177DI, add: (4) The Minister must publish a copy of the annual report on the Department's website within 20 days of receiving the report. I'm speaking today about the importance of transparency in the operation of the new environmental offset system and, in particular, the amendment requiring that the minister publish the restoration contribution holder's annual report within 20 days of receiving it, which is what this amendment is. Now, this might sound like a small administrative change, but it is in fact an important improvement in transparency. Under the new framework, developers can pay a restoration contribution charge instead of directly securing their own offsets. That money goes into a central fund, which is then responsible for delivering restoration projects across the country. That means that we're asking Australians to trust that the offsets purchased on their behalf are actually delivering real, measurable gains for nature. And trust requires transparency. This annual report will provide the first real window into whether that trust is being earned, and it will show where the money is going, which projects are being funded, what impacts they're offsetting, how much has been paid and whether these projects are actually achieving ecological outcomes. It's not enough for this information to exist somewhere in the system; it must be publicly available. That's what this amendment ensures—that this report is published within 20 days of reaching the minister's desk—because, if the public can't see the data, accountability disappears. And, without accountability, confidence in the offset system will crumble. We've seen this story before. In New South Wales and Queensland, centralised offset funds have struggled to deliver promised outcomes, and part of the problem has been opacity. The public couldn't tell if projects were working, or even where they were. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes at a national level. Offsets are meant to repair damage, not to hide it, and the only way to know if they're working is to measure, report and publish the results. This amendment makes sure that that happens. The offsets fund represents a potential single point of failure for these entire reforms, so making sure that the public can see whether they're working or not will allow us to continue to improve these laws. So I thank the government for considering this amendment in good faith, and I commend it to the House.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4". (2) Clause 2, page 2...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 3), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Minister must not advise the Governor-General to make a Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 or 3 of the table until after the Minister has tabled a copy of the review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in accordance with subsection 4(4). (3) Page 3 (after line 2), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of Freedom of Information Act 1982 (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, with terms of reference to provide recommendations on how best to: (a) encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal FOI requests; and (b) maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure; and (c) improve the timeliness of dealing with FOI requests, including review processes; and (d) ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government; and (e) create a robust system for the resourcing, training, auditing, and oversight of authorised officers responsible for FOI decisions; and (f) manage vexatious and frivolous requests; and (g) address the potential impact of artificial intelligence, both to improve FOI processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests; and (h) provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence-based advice. Timing of review (2) The persons conducting the review must complete the review before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences. (3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as possible after the review is completed. Minister to table copy of report of review (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. These amendments would ensure that there is a broad review of the Freedom of Information Act before this bill comes into force. A broad review is the only thing that all previous reviews have agreed on. The 2013 Hawke review, the 2015 Shergold review, the 2019 Thodey review and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry in 2023 all called for a comprehensive independent review of the entire FOI Act. It's important to note that none of these listed reviews performed a comprehensive review of the FOI system, so this would not be duplicative. Instead, every previous review that has at least partially looked at the FOI system has pointed out its complexities and the importance of it actually getting a comprehensive assessment. The reason we need a broader independent review of the act, as opposed to just a committee inquiry into this bill, is that this bill only addresses the problems that are solved by less transparency. This is, at best, half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that, in many circumstances, we need more transparency. There are many reasons to increase the information that's disclosed. Requests can take far too long to be answered. The proportion of FOI requests granted in full has dropped from 59 per cent in 2012 to just 25 per cent in 2024. There have been findings that this system is driving a culture of secrecy, a lack of ministerial engagement and inconsistent exemptions. Journalists and legal advocates report administrative torture, with excessive redactions and delays that compromise public interest reporting. These really crucial problems that require greater transparency are not addressed in this bill. A comprehensive independent review should be linked to the fundamental purpose of the FOI system, based on the principle that we need to maximise transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests. Within this context, it should consider how best to encourage greater proactive disclosure of information to the public, and thus reduce the need for formal FOI requests. It should consider how to maximise accessibility, transparency and efficiency for genuine and lawful FOI requests, including through setting an appropriate fee structure. It should consider how to improve the timeliness of dealings with FOI requests, including review processes, and ensure that exemptions to disclosure requirements do not go further than is required for good government. It should consider how best to create a robust system for resourcing, training, auditing and oversight of authorised officers responsible for those FOI decisions and how best to manage vexatious and frivolous requests. Also, it should consider how to address the potential impacts of artificial intelligence, both to improve FOI processing and to mitigate the impact of its use in generating vexatious and frivolous requests. Largely, it should consider how best to provide structural support for public servants to provide frank, honest, timely and evidence based advice. This review should be done by independent experts, not by representatives of the government who are focused on reducing the workload and reputational risk for government. It also needs to provide significant opportunities for public feedback. The FOI system is part of the checks and balances that we put on governments to ensure that power is used in the public interest. We should not be making changes to this system without seeking the views of the public and the media, who hold governments to account. The consultation process for this bill was wholly inadequate, consulting only the public servants who can't help finding FOI requests painful to fulfil. Our FOI system is an essential part of our democratic checks and balances. Without looking at both sides of the ledger—the reasons for more transparency, as well as the reasons for less transparency—the government is doing the public a disservice in this bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
I rise to support the member for Mackellar's amendment. FOI is a fundamental tool of accountability in our democracy and the default option should be disclosure. Adding more factors that count...
I rise to support the member for Mackellar's amendment. FOI is a fundamental tool of accountability in our democracy and the default option should be disclosure. Adding more factors that count against disclosure is heading in the wrong direction to where the whole framework should be heading. FOI was developed in 1982 with a clear purpose to open up government, to shift that default from secrecy to transparency and to ensure that decisions made in the name of the public are actually visible to the public. It has generally worked. It ensures that the public find out what the government is doing, it exposes corruption and waste, and it allows the public to participate in government decision-making and exercise some power as citizens. Adding more exemptions to what can be disclosed is not in the spirit of the legislation as it was originally intended. It might be painful for government to actually have to be transparent in its decision-making, and I recognise that, but it is a small amount of pain to bear for a system of democracy that actually retains the trust of the people. This part of the bill that the member for Mackellar is seeking to amend was going to introduce new factors to be considered that would say 'let's keep this secret'. But let's think about the concept of balance and whether balance is an appropriate thing to be looking for in this bill. We are balancing transparency for the benefit of the public versus a bit of inconvenience for public servants. One of the things put forward by the government in explaining the need for this bill is that there are 500 full-time equivalent public servants filling FOI requests. That sounds like a lot, 500 people. But is this really too many? If we are thinking about balance, do we have that balance? There are 213,000 federal public servants and 500 of them are focused on making sure that government decisions are transparent—that is, 0.2 per cent of the public service focused on public accountability. I think that this concept of introducing factors that count against a greater disclosure is completely the wrong way for the legislation to be headed in, and I thank the member for Mackellar for her amendment.
I would like to just reiterate the issue that has come out of the robodebt royal commission and that is being ignored here. The excuse being used is that public servants will be more likely to...
I would like to just reiterate the issue that has come out of the robodebt royal commission and that is being ignored here. The excuse being used is that public servants will be more likely to give frank and fearless advice. In the robodebt royal commission, one of the quotes from Commissioner Holmes was this: Nothing I have seen in ministerial briefs or material put to Cabinet suggests any tendency to give full and frank advice that might be impaired by the possibility of disclosure … The commissioner goes on to say that, had there not been the exemption from freedom of information, the activity would have been uncovered earlier and dealt with much more effectively. The commissioner says that raises the real question of whether the protection of cabinet documents as a class of disclosure ought to be maintained or whether when access is sought, disclosure should be given unless there is a specific public interest in maintaining its confidentiality. One of the things I'd like to add to that is that I'm unclear as to how this will actually increase frank and fearless advice anyway. If you move from a dominant-purpose test to a substantial-purpose test, I'm not convinced that that actually would make a significant difference in a public servant's decision about what to say to cabinet. Many experts would say that frank and fearless advice is far more likely to be protected by protecting the tenure of those public servants and ensuring that they are able to speak up without fear for their jobs than by avoiding the fear that someone might find out what they have said. In fact, they might feel more comfortable if they know that they can give advice. Ultimately—it may be one or two inquiries down the track—that advice will become known, and the public will know that they did their best. I will be supporting this amendment. I think the expansion of cabinet exemptions is absolutely heading in the wrong direction. We need greater transparency. The way to rebuild trust in government is for people to understand what decisions government are making and why they are making them. I'm very disappointed that the government is putting this forward. It is not in the interests of open government.