Allegra Spender's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Fiscal Policy | Adjournment | House debates
I'm in the House to talk about something a bit unusual, something I never thought I would be talking about in the House, which is one of my favourite biscuits: Tim Tam. But I do want to explain...
I'm in the House to talk about something a bit unusual, something I never thought I would be talking about in the House, which is one of my favourite biscuits: Tim Tam. But I do want to explain why that is relevant and, I think, extremely relevant to the business of the House. The government has established a host of specialist investment vehicles to direct public funds into priority areas, like renewable energy, housing, agriculture and exports. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund was established in 2023 to diversify and transform Australian industry. But the question I ask, particularly in the economic times that we have right now, is whether these funds are actually doing what they were sold to do—filling funding gaps, crowding in private capital, addressing market failure and building sovereign capability that would not otherwise be built by the private sector. And, when I look at recent decisions, I struggle to see it. Take Arnott's. The National Reconstruction Fund contributed $45 million to a $1.75 billion refinancing. There was no obvious funding gap. Government provided less than three per cent, and the rest came from private markets on commercial terms. The deal was oversubscribed, suggesting public funds actually crowded out private capital rather than attracting it. Market failure? It's hard to identify. Arnott's has operated successfully since 1865. Supporting Australia? Arnott's has not been Australian owned since 1997 and has been owned by US private equity firm KKR since 2019. So what are taxpayers actually getting? It seems that, since the 2019 KKR leveraged acquisition, Australians are actually paying 60 per cent more for homegrown Tim Tams. 'Timflation' is outpacing the consumer price index threefold. The NRF says that investment will expand production, but the funds merely refinance existing debt tied to past investment. But the terms of the deal have not been released, so scrutiny is limited. This is part of a broader pattern that does concern me: questionable investments across specialist investment vehicles, unknown contingent liabilities under the Capacity Investment Scheme and increasing industrial bailouts such as Whyalla and Tomago. There is a role for government in industry policy, but it has to be extremely disciplined, targeted at genuine market failures like climate change, where the market is not already operating effectively, and opportunities for technology spillovers that build national capacity. I am concerned, and not just about the price of Tim Tams. I'm concerned that discipline is slipping. I have competitive businesses and sectors coming to my doors and asking for money. Someone this week said to me: 'Allegra, other sectors are getting money. We employ people too. Why aren't we getting any?' That is of extreme concern to me. When businesses believe that their competitive advantage is not innovation or productivity but their ability to secure government cheques, capital shifts away from doing what it does best, which is allocate efficiently to opportunities. Government capital, where it is trying to solve market failure, should be directed to those areas in which the private market otherwise wouldn't invest or wouldn't invest at the scale of the opportunity. And this is where we want private capital and public capital really to work in concert, but only where it's actually going to make a real difference. We do not want the private sector moving away from investment in R&D, electrification, digitisation and capacity building into how it can more effectively lobby in Canberra. That weakens productivity and distorts the economy. The Productivity Commission has already outlined clear guardrails for modern industry policy. We should be following them. With deficits forecast for a decade and households under pressure from inflation and interest rates, every dollar needs to be tested. Does it expand productive capacity? Does it unlock innovation, or does it entrench unproductive investment? This is a cost-of-living relief government has to be focused on. The cost-of-living relief will only come from improving productivity and, really, effectively, supply-side changes. Undisciplined spending today only makes Australians worse off tomorrow. And, again, who pays for it? With government predicting deficits for the next 10 years, the generation who will pay for it are the generation who are coming—that generation where they have fewer workers compared to the working-age population, where they are already more indebted when they finish university and education, and where housing is more out of reach. We should not be burdening them with investments that do not benefit the public.
Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise in support of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. Millions of Australians interact with digital assets in some form, as developers, as investors and as users....
I rise in support of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. Millions of Australians interact with digital assets in some form, as developers, as investors and as users. As this form of payment technology becomes more ubiquitous, it will become part of the lives of many more of us. But, until now, anyone buying or selling digital assets in Australia has done so in a regulatory grey zone that has offered little protection for users and a lack of certainty for legitimate digital asset platforms. This bill is a critical step towards addressing this lack of regulatory clarity, and it comes not a moment too soon. Actually, one of the major criticisms—probably the biggest criticism—I have of this bill is the time that it has taken us to get here, because I think the need for this bill has been urgent and one that I've been pushing for since the previous parliament. This bill amends the Corporations Act and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to create a regulatory framework for digital asset platforms and cryptocurrency exchanges. It defines digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms as financial products and ensures these platforms are regulated according to Australian financial services law. This regulatory clarity will be a significant enabler of Australia's burgeoning digital assets industry. The Tech Council of Australia estimates that, with the right regulatory and policy settings, digital assets could contribute $60 billion per year to Australia's GDP. The digital assets sector is also paving the way to modernising our financial infrastructure, and it has the potential to strengthen Australia's competitiveness as a technological and financial hub in the region. As technology changes, our regulation needs to be nimble to keep up. Our regulation should not get in the way of progress but, rather, create the appropriate guardrails to seize new opportunities. Credible firms, and firms that are trying to do the right thing, just want to know the rules they play by. Investors want confidence in the platforms on which they are buying and selling cryptocurrencies. Consumers want to be confident that they are reasonably protected from harm, regardless of whether the financial product they invest in is traditional or digital. I support this bill because I think it is an important forward step on all these fronts. Digital innovation is also a critical driver of productivity growth. This is a puzzle that Australia is struggling to solve, but it is essential if we are to ensure our economy continues to grow and our living standards continue to rise. Bringing digital asset platforms under the existing Australian financial services licence, AFSL, framework is a sensible way to regulate this emerging industry in a way that fosters growth without government getting in the way. This framework is well regarded and is well understood, and it allows us to apply the principle of 'same risk, same regulation' to new technologies and products like digital currencies. My electorate of Wentworth is home to many of these firms and the business leaders who are spearheading the growth of Australia's digital asset sector. These are legitimate and innovative financial firms who want the industry to be properly regulated so that Australian businesses like them can clearly distinguish themselves from less scrupulous operators who risk undermining public confidence in the industry. In a time when many of our tech entrepreneurs and innovators are looking overseas for better growth opportunities, we need to give them every reason to stay. Giving regulatory certainty is an important step in the right direction. That said, there are opportunities for the government to do more to foster the innovation and growth of our digital asset sector. One way would be to grant ASIC the power to recognise digital currency regulatory arrangements of foreign countries, like the UK and US, as being equivalent to ours. This would open a huge door to those markets for Australian digital currency exchanges and coin issuers. It will also significantly improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of digital currency transactions in and out of Australia. Finally, while I acknowledge it is outside the scope of this piece of legislation, I also urge the government to continue to focus closely on how it can best protect Australians from the potential harms of digital currencies. Specifically, it is critical to consider schemes that will fall outside the financial services regulatory framework that this bill provides. For example, operators that directly issue speculative tokens to the public as part of so-called 'pump and dump' schemes do not hold client assets, so they would not be covered by this regulation, while still posing a risk to the unassuming buyer. I encourage the government not to set and forget this legislation but rather to continue to work to foster the growth of the digital assets sector in Australia while mitigating potential harms to consumers. These will evolve and our regulatory environment should evolve with it. Industry stakeholders I've spoken with welcome the much-needed regulatory certainty this bill will give and interpret it as an important signal that the government is shifting its posture to being pro-industry and pro-innovation. Digital assets have the potential to become a valuable and innovative sector of the Australian economy, and I'm glad to see the groundwork laid for its continued growth. For these reasons, I support the bill. Sitting suspended from 13:27 to 16 : 11
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow...
I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow authorised nurse prescribers who meet strict criteria to prescribe certain pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The types of medicines that can be prescribed will be clearly specified by the minister, and there will be appropriate safeguards in place. This includes oversight by the Professional Services Review, which will now extend to PBS prescribing by authorised nurse practitioners. These changes are not radical; they are sensible, evidence based reforms that flow directly from the recommendations of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce and the Scope of Practice Review, both commissioned by the government following the 2022 election. At its core, this bill recognises something that many Australians already know to be true: our nurses are highly skilled professionals and are more than capable of working to the full extent of their training and expertise, and we want them to. Empowering healthcare practitioners, particularly nurses, is essential for our healthcare system to remain resilient in the face of an ageing population, rising rates of chronic illness, a growing mental health crisis and increasing demand in regional and rural communities. These pressures are not going away; if anything, they are intensifying, and we cannot meet these challenges by relying on outdated modes of care. We must be innovative in the ways we deliver health care, and we must make better use of the resources and talent we already have. Even if our healthcare system didn't have these constraints, I would still support this bill because it allows nurses to work to the full extent of their capacity, and does that in a safe way for patients but also in a way that gives professional satisfaction for nurses. These highly trained individuals, these important members of our community, should have the satisfaction of being able to work to the full extent of their training and their capability. That reason alone is enough to support the bill, but at the same time this will provide important support for our healthcare system. This will mean that patients and members of our community can more easily access the health care they need when they need it, and that is another incredibly important reason to support this bill. We know there is international evidence that these models of care can work safely and effectively around the world. I've seen some of this personally, in my own experience working in the UK healthcare system. I believe this bill strikes the right balance. It expands the scope of practice while maintaining strong safeguards. That's what I think Australians want from us. They want to feel safe, they want to feel in good hands when they go to a GP service or to any of our hospital or healthcare services, but they also want to make sure that our nurses, who we respect and whose care we value, get to work to the full extent of their practice. Let's be honest. There are a couple of other things. For those people who might be nervous about this bill, it expands the scope of practice, but it does have strong safeguards. Only appropriately qualified nurse prescribers will be authorised, and there will continue to be oversight to ensure prescribing is safe, appropriate and accountable. This reform will not solve every challenge facing our healthcare system, but it is a practical and necessary step in the right direction. It reflects the trust that we have in our healthcare workforce, supports better patient outcomes and helps build a more flexible and sustainable healthcare system for the future. For these reasons, I support the bill.
I second the motion and I rise to speak in support of it. I unequivocally condemn the horrendous attack against peaceful protesters marching in Boorloo/Perth on 26 January and acknowledge the...
I second the motion and I rise to speak in support of it. I unequivocally condemn the horrendous attack against peaceful protesters marching in Boorloo/Perth on 26 January and acknowledge the deep fear, anger and grief that this attack has caused, particularly for Indigenous people but also for Australians right across the country. For decades, protests on 26 January, often referred to as Invasion Day marches, have been held every year. This year, in capital cities and regional towns alike, tens of thousands of people gathered peacefully. They gathered to recognise the suffering of Indigenous Australians, the enduring impacts of colonialisation, the trauma of stolen generations, ongoing racism and the devastating reality of deaths in custody. In Boorloo, around 2,500 people came together peacefully. Families were there. Children were there. People were marching peacefully to express their support for Indigenous Australians, exercising a fundamental democratic right and calling on the government to do better. At approximately 12.40, it is alleged that a homemade explosive device was thrown into that crowd, landing among women and children. By sheer luck, it did not detonate. This was not a hoax bomb. This explosive was reportedly packed with ball bearings and nails to deliberately inflict maximum injury and death in that peaceful crowd of families. This bomb reportedly failed only because of a faulty fuse. The thought of what could have happened is horrifying. Police confirmed that, had this bomb exploded, this could have been a mass casualty event. It should not be an image that any community has to imagine, and it should stop every one of us in our tracks. Tragically, Australians now find it easier to imagine the horror of terrorism. Many Australians are understandably afraid that hatred has motivated another attack—this time on the Invasion Day protest. Australia is a nation woven from many sources. First Australians trace their history on this continent back 70,000 years, but most Australian families have come to this place through migration. The strength of Australia is, to paraphrase Noel Pearson, braided from ancient Indigenous history and culture, British institutions and multicultural achievement. Binding us together is a shared tolerance that accepts the rights of all to practise their faith, enjoy their culture and express their opinions in a way that accepts difference and acknowledges the reciprocal rights of others. This attack on this march was not just an attack on a protest. It was an attack on our shared values; on the right to gather peacefully without fear, hatred, racism or violence motivated by racial hatred; and on the safety of Indigenous Australians to simply stand together in a public space. I welcome the fact that the Western Australian Joint Counter Terrorism Team is now investigating this incident as a potential terrorist attack. That acknowledgement matters because it reflects the seriousness of what occurred. But acknowledgement is not enough. Differences of opinion are inevitable. For some, 26 January is a day of mourning; for others, it is a day to come together and celebrate. We must make room for both. I am a very proud Australian, but I recognise that, for many Indigenous Australians, the celebration of Australia Day is a painful reminder of the impact of colonisation on their people. For some Australians, the Invasion Day protests are an affront to their national pride. But we must accept these differences and recognise the importance of the rights of all to express their views. This is something I think all Australians can unite on. We and everyone in this country should be able to gather peacefully without any threat or fear of violence. We cannot tolerate those who turn difference into extremism and violence. We must ensure that free speech does not become an excuse for speech intended to generate hate and excuse violence. We must ensure that we have effective deradicalisation programs in place to steer vulnerable people away from radicalisation. We must ensure that our police and security forces have the necessary tools to prevent this violence before it happens. Those protections must extend to all Australians, including, absolutely fundamentally, our Indigenous Australians and their allies, who were targeted at the Invasion Day rally in Boorloo/Perth. We must act. We must stand with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and we must ensure that no-one in this country is made to fear for their life simply for exercising their democratic rights.
Antisemitism | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Radical extremism, Islamist and other forms, is a threat to Jewish Australians and all Australians, as we saw so devastatingly in Bondi on 14 December. We...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Radical extremism, Islamist and other forms, is a threat to Jewish Australians and all Australians, as we saw so devastatingly in Bondi on 14 December. We have had deradicalisation programs in place for many years, but extremism is still taking root. How does the government measure the current effectiveness of these deradicalisation programs, and how effective are these programs at all? We have the Richardson review and part of the royal commission coming up, but is the government planning to take any other actions in terms of deradicalisation in particular before then?
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 12), omit "distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "distinguished by race, nationality, national or ethnic...
by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 12), omit "distinguished by race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "distinguished by race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes". (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the race, or national or ethnic origin, of the target person or the persons in the target group", substitute "the race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes". (3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 28), omit "the particular race, or national or ethnic origin", substitute "the particular race, nationality, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability, or because of the target person or target group's personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes". (4) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 28), after item 11, insert: 11A After subsection 16A(2AAD) Insert: (2AAE) In subsections (2), (2AAC) and (2AAD), association with another person includes: (a) being a near relative of the person; and (b) living with the person on a genuine domestic basis; and (c) having a formal business or employment relationship with the person. I rise today in support of the bill, but also to put forward amendments. I'm introducing an amendment to part 3, the aggravated sentencing factor. This provision is a matter which must be considered by the court when sentencing persons for federal offences if the factor is relevant and known to the court. This factor is whether the offender's conduct was motivated by hatred of another person or group and, if so, whether that hatred was because of the person's belief that the target person or target group are distinguished by race or national ethnic origin. I support this provision. A federal offence which has been motivated by hatred, especially on the attributes which are inherent to an individual or group, is an offence which deserves additional punishment upon consideration of the court. In a time of unprecedented antisemitism, particularly directed to those in my community and across the country, and in the wake of the abhorrent attack on 14 December, we must take action to show that hatred is not acceptable and draw bright lines—and this is a fitting way to do so. However, I remain concerned that the groups designated within this provision are too narrowly defined. Consideration of this hatred should not be limited by race, or national or ethnic origin. Hatred can be enacted through violence and crime against members of our LGBTQIA+ community, for example; those with a disability; and those from religious communities. As I've said previously, the Jewish community has not asked for special treatment in relation to these bills and I think that is really relevant. Given what has happened in my community, I wouldn't be standing in this space on this without having spoken to the Jewish community. What they have said to me is that we need to protect all Australians from hatred and vilification. We need to draw bright lines across this country and we need to make sure that everybody feels that they are equal in front of the law. I really cannot understand why the government, in this case, would bring in what I think is an appropriate piece of legislation but then, in terms of this part of the bill, not apply it consistently. That is actually inconsistent internally with the rest of the act. So just from the point of view of good governance this is bad, because we have laws applying to some in some ways and not in other ways. I think that it is not good for the message that we're trying to send the country: that we are all equal in front of the law and that hatred matters to everyone. While, again, I have very much stood for and fought for antisemitism protections in the last parliament and in this parliament, I have always done it in consultation with the Jewish community. They have said, 'Don't single us out; make sure that this is protection for everyone.' I raise this particularly because I represent the biggest Jewish community in the country, and I think I probably represent the biggest LGBTQI+ community in the country as well. I'm going to read something that someone sent to me about this: 'For much of my life I was a senior banking executive. Due to my public role, I attracted the attention of a man who sought to destroy my life. I am a gay man, and the hatred and homophobia he directed to me over a number of years was of an order that Chief Justice Lucy McCallum said she had never seen. He sent thousands of emails to everyone I knew—family, board members, colleagues, associates. He left multiple phone messages every day; came to my home and workplace; generated pornographic and other images of me; and accused me publicly of all manner of terrible crimes and so on. I was forced to sell my house, move jobs, resign from several boards and more or less live as a hermit for some years, with security guards accompanying me. That is the case for some people in our community.' I have been there and have talked to Jewish community members who are afraid to go out in their country and do not know if they will ever be safe again. As a parliament, we have to fight for that, but we need to fight for the safety of all Australians. The targeting of hatred against any Australian should not be acceptable to this parliament. The laws need to apply broadly and equally so that those people are not forced to go through this, and to recognise that the hatred against them does not matter as much. I think that is actually better for the social cohesion of our country rather than worse.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise today to speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. These are modest changes in this bill, but they are necessary. But let...
I rise today to speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. These are modest changes in this bill, but they are necessary. But let us be completely honest: neither this bill nor any of the actions of the parliament to date will eradicate antisemitism or keep the Jewish community safe in the future. There is much, much more work that needs to be done. The fourteenth of December is one of the darkest days in modern Australian history, and it is a day that my community, Jewish and non-Jewish, will never, ever forget. Fifteen innocent people were violently murdered while celebrating their Jewish faith, customs and community. It was an attack on Jewish Australians and it was an attack on all of us as a country and all of our Australian values. We know that violence does not start with weapons. It starts with words. It starts with hate. I acknowledge that in this bill there are some important steps to deal with the spread of hate, which leads to the spread of violence. I support the bill. I support the aggravated offences measures, particularly for hate preachers. I support the strengthened measures in relation to hate symbols. I support the actions in relation to hate preachers, and I support the fact that the home affairs minister now has the framework to proscribe certain groups—which should include, in my mind, groups like the National Socialist Network and Neo-Nazis and Hizb ut-Tahrir, who openly spread and promote virulent antisemitism as well as vile hatred against other groups in our country. These groups do not merely offend; they normalise dehumanisation and incitement. Their rhetoric corrodes our social fabric and creates a condition in which violence becomes possible. But let's be honest: this bill does not get to the heart of what I believe we need to do as a country. There is extremism in Australia. There is Islamic extremism. There is Neo-Nazi extremism. These ideologies are a direct threat to Jewish Australians, and they are a threat to all of us. But this is not only a question of immediate security; it's also a profound challenge to our social cohesion. When parliament fails to address the direct causes of extremism and hatred, entire communities end up carrying the blame for the actions of a violent, extreme minority. This is what deeply concerns me about the current trajectory of our national conversation. Muslims and migrants are increasingly made to feel suspect by association. By failing to confront hateful individuals and ideologies directly, we drift towards a culture of guilt by association rather than accountability. We know that radicalisation thrives in environments where blameless people are persistently blamed, excluded or treated as inherently suspect. This is the consequence of a parliament that has failed to legislate clear standards of behaviour and failed to draw strong lines between what is offending, what is disagreeing and what is directly promoting and inciting hatred in our country. I talk to the coalition here because the coalition has rightly spoken up on antisemitism very strongly for the last two years, and I commend it for that. But, when it comes to actions, it has not followed through, and the coalition could have and should have supported laws against vilification that the Jewish community called for before 14 December and is calling for even more strongly now. We do need to protect the Jewish community. I have had people come up to me constantly, saying: 'How is it possible, Allegra, that somebody can call for the final solution to the Jews without this being an offence in this country? How can people hatefully target the Jewish community in their words, when we know that words lead to action, without this being an offence in our country?' We do have stronger laws, but they are a patchwork across our country, and this is the opportunity for the federal parliament to lead. But I do believe that the coalition has really stepped back from what the Jewish community has deliberately asked you for in this case, and that is a terrible shame. So when I hear the words—and I hear them constantly, and I think they are well meant—saying there is no place for extremism and that we need to stamp this out, my question is: what other mechanisms are you saying we can use now? You have rejected something that the Jewish community has been calling for for a long time. I put that forward in the previous parliament, and you also rejected it then. The final thing I want to say is that we have a long road ahead of us. The security of the Jewish community is absolutely critical. The antisemitism envoy's packages and the actions taken there are absolutely critical. The royal commission is critical. But we also need to lead a better conversation in this country about how we disagree well, and I think that means drawing bright lines against hatred.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
Bondi Beach was perfect that Sunday: hot, clear skies, cool waves and people excited for the coming holidays. Around the country, and especially in Wentworth, Jewish Australians were coming...
Bondi Beach was perfect that Sunday: hot, clear skies, cool waves and people excited for the coming holidays. Around the country, and especially in Wentworth, Jewish Australians were coming together for the start of Hanukkah. Chabad Bondi had celebrated Hannukah at Bondi Beach for years—a joyous, open celebration of music, face-painting, donuts, games and light. I left Bondi Beach with my family just an hour before the horror began. Sunday 14 December was one of the darkest days in modern Australia. One part of our community—Jewish Australians—was murderously targeted. It was an attack on them and an attack on our Australian values. Our country will never be the same, nor should it be. The question is who we become now—how we honour the memories of the 15 beautiful people we lost and how we honour and care for the dozens who are physically injured, the countless who can never forget the trauma and bloodshed of the day, and the families who will live with the scars forever. Every person we lost that day was a precious gift to their family and their community. Simple words are inadequate to express their light. But saying the names of those we have lost has a special place in Jewish culture. People are not gone if we continue to say their names and remember them. Rabbi Yossi Friedman tirelessly led the reading of names for 30 days at Bondi Beach, and I'll continue that here. Cherished community member Edith Brutman; adventurous young traveller, Dan Elkayam; Boris Gurman and Sofia Gurman, who instinctively and courageously tried to stop this atrocity; Alex Kleytman, who survived the Holocaust but died in the country where he sought refuge; Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, who chose a life of devotion; former police officer and community stalwart, Peter Meagher; Reuven Morrison, who lost his life courageously challenging the gunmen; caring grandmother Marika Pogany, who delivered meals to those in need; Rabbi Eli Schlanger, a giver, and someone I was lucky enough to know personally, whose goodness and warmth I experienced firsthand; Adam Smyth, a local father, husband and friend; Boris Tetleroyd, a gentle, much-loved man and gifted musician; Tania Tretiak, who died shielding a child from gunfire; Tibor Weitzen, a great-grandfather who gave out lollipops at Bondi Chabad; and, finally, 10-year-old Matilda Britvan, a light. May their memories be a blessing. In the words of the poet Zelda: Each of us has a name given by God and given by our parents. As parents, we often name our children for our hopes. The hope for Australia captured in Matilda's name is heartbreaking. How badly we have let down her parents and her family. How badly Australia failed the Jewish community that day. When I think about the terrorists who attacked that Sunday, it's easy to despair. But then I think of the other stories of the day. I think of Boris and Sofia, a couple in their 60s who tried to stop the gunmen with their bare hands, whose courage leaves me in awe; of Reuven, who took on the terrorists only armed with a brick; of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a Syrian refugee who saved many lives by disarming one of the attackers; and of Chaya, a child herself, who put her body in front of other children. I think of so many who risked their lives to protect others: locals, surf lifesavers and guards, young CSG guards, police, first responders, Hatzolah and tireless healthcare workers. Some of those people are in the galleries here today. Thank you, each and every one of you, for what you did when it really mattered. Many recount the long-ago stories of Gallipoli as exemplifying the Australian spirit. I believe the stories of Sunday 14 December deserve to be cherished equally. That is the modern Australian spirit, one of courage and care. I saw that care in the quiet procession of thousands of people—locals and people who had travelled for hours, schoolchildren, sports teams, people alone and in groups, people of all faiths—laying flowers to say: 'We are devastated too. You are not alone.' I saw the care in the Paddle Out of Thousands, with the beach lined by surf lifesavers, strangers hugging, and local businesses giving coffee to first responders and flowers to mourners. I saw the care in the tears and stories that we shared at the memorial and our mitzvas. I saw our kind, melting-pot Bondi community trying to process the destruction with care for one another. One Jewish woman told me that the light she found in the darkness was that people she had not heard from in decades reached out simply to say, 'I am with you.' We will not let the terrorists win. Australia promises that your safety and acceptance do not depend on your religion, your ethnicity or who you love. I am proud of that promise. But we must make it real for Jewish Australians, who belong here too. There have been Jews in this country since the First Fleet. Their contribution across our institutions and endeavours is boundless. They are our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues, yet many of them no longer feel safe or welcome. Security fences and guards around Jewish schools and synagogues are normalised. When I attended the bat mitzvahs of my school friends, we walked straight through the front door. Now, as a local MP, I encounter guards and barriers at almost every Jewish school or synagogue I visit. When I think of how we must change, I look to an Australia where we don't need those guards. We don't know how long it will take, but it violates our Australian compact when a community has to pray, congregate or educate behind security. We must not tolerate it, and we must not tolerate the violent extremism that makes it necessary. Antisemitism has become normalised in this country in a way I never thought I would see. This includes a friend of mine being sworn at as a South African Jew when asking someone to inch their car forward, and an eight-year-old girl being abused at the lights because she's holding the hand of her Orthodox father. As one mum said to me, 'How do I explain to my kids that so many people hate them?' When Jewish Australians tell me they are thinking of leaving this country, where they were born, it is a tragedy for all Australians. As a parliament and as a country, we need to be both strong and soft right now—strong in confronting the hate that drove the attack, resolute against violent Islamic extremism and all types of violent extremism, and clear eyed and fact based about what it will take to keep the Jewish community safe; and soft so that we do not lose our common humanity in our strength. If we meet difference with suspicion rather than with curiosity, the terrorists will truly win. This work belongs to all of us, in all our workplaces, universities, schools and home and online spaces. It is not the work of weeks but of years. My commitment to the families of Bondi is that I won't move on from this when other people do. Australia is one of the most diverse societies in human history. It is remarkable, but it is not easy. Social cohesion must be consciously built. Each of us, including everyone in this House, must personally reflect on how we contribute to that cohesion, and each of us must do better. We will disagree passionately, but we owe it to one another to disagree well. We must not dehumanise one another. We cannot fight hate with hate. As Rabbi Ulman reminded us on the last night of Hanukkah at the vigil on Bondi Beach: Darkness is not defeated by anger or force. Darkness is transformed by light … People are angry now, and rightly so. But, in his words, Australia must become a nation 'where kindness is louder than hate, where decency is stronger than fear'. This was the most violent attack of hatred in modern Australia. I do believe that we as a country can emerge more united, more steadfastly committed to our common values and our shared humanity, than ever before. The stories from Bondi show us the way. The courage and the care of those Australians show us the way. This is what we owe those we have lost. This is how we honour their blessed memories. As Rabbi Ulman reminds us, this work is urgent. Let us not wait for tomorrow. Let us start today. I thank the House.
Parliamentary Procedure | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Many constituents complain to me that question time is 'question time', not 'answer time'. That is driven by the standing orders that don't actually force...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Many constituents complain to me that question time is 'question time', not 'answer time'. That is driven by the standing orders that don't actually force real answers from the government. They say to me that it means that we don't hold the government to account in the same way that they expect us to in this House. I ask the Prime Minister: have you considered reforming question time to give a greater expectation of answers and a narrowing of relevance so we can get better answers in this House?
Menczer, Ms Pauline | Statements by Members | House debates
Last week, I was honoured to attend the unveiling of a bronze statue of Pauline Menczer, which overlooks the waves of Bondi Beach. Born and raised by the beach, Pauline is Bondi's only world...
Last week, I was honoured to attend the unveiling of a bronze statue of Pauline Menczer, which overlooks the waves of Bondi Beach. Born and raised by the beach, Pauline is Bondi's only world champion surfer—winning the title in 1993. But her path to that achievement was far from smooth. Pauline told us at the unveiling about how she battled sexism, homophobia and debilitating rheumatoid arthritis, and, unlike her male counterparts, she received no sponsorship support. Her success is a testament to her extraordinary resilience and determination. She said, 'If you don't have sponsors, you can't offend them when you speak your mind.' Initially, Pauline didn't want a statue, but she was convinced to have one because she could see the role it would have in inspiring the next generation of female sportspeople. Only six per cent of statues in New South Wales are women and most of them, apparently, are royal women. It's important that trailblazing sportspeople like Pauline are also immortalised in our public spaces. This public statue has been a long time coming—not just for Pauline and her partner, Sam, but for the Pauline in Bronze campaign led by Christopher Nelius, who has been pushing tirelessly for this recognition for over five years. I want to thank the artist, Cathy Weiszmann, and Waverley Council for helping to secure this perfect location. I'm so proud that the Wentworth community and visitors alike will be able to see Pauline in her place overlooking Bondi, and I know her legacy will continue to live on in the dreams of the next generation of women surfers.
Social Cohesion | Constituency Statements | House debates
Australia's one of the most successful multicultural nations, and Wentworth reflects this richness in every one of our schools. Our students come from more than 100 cultural and linguist...
Australia's one of the most successful multicultural nations, and Wentworth reflects this richness in every one of our schools. Our students come from more than 100 cultural and linguist backgrounds, with the largest Jewish community in the country alongside a large LGBTQIA+ community and various multicultural and multifaith communities. But diversity alone does not guarantee belonging. In recent years, school leaders and students have raised concerns with me around exclusion, prejudice and rising antisemitism in particular against the Jewish community, as well as broader social pressures that our young people face. These concerns lead to ongoing discussions with principals throughout 2024 and 2025 which made clear that the next step had to be student led. That is what brought us to Wentworth's first student led social cohesion roundtable, hosted by Rose Bay Secondary College last week. School leaders emphasised that meaningful change must come from the ground up. As principal Cathy Archer said, 'We can talk a lot as school leaders, but if we want something meaningful to come out of this, we need to lead with the students.' The roundtable brought together 37 students and school leaders from nine public, private, independent, faith based and non-faith schools, supported by facilitators from Together for Humanity and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. Both organisations helped create a space where students felt safe to speak openly, disagree respectfully and explore how trust can even be built when views differ. Students told us that learning how to disagree well is a skill they urgently need. One group from a faith based school described how eye-opening it was to learn about diversity within neighbouring schools, including active LGBTQIA+ groups and cultural clubs that helped students feel welcome. They reflected on how microaggressions affect not just the Jewish community but also Islamic students and people of different races and cultures and on how seeing other models of inclusions 'opened my eyes to how many different ways of belonging can be supported.' Another group said it was so rare to have the chance for deeper conversations with peers from different schools and social backgrounds. One student said to the roundtable that 'it got me thinking about how we can solve these problems in our school and in our community.' Another said that the most powerful lesson was learning to step outside your own bubble and approach others with empathy. Rabbi Zalman Kastel, founder of Together for Humanity, noted the burden placed on young people who face racist jokes and reminded us that while they show great resilience they should not have to carry this responsibility alone. By the end of the session, the optimism in the room was clear. Students began imagining practical ways to build bridges, strengthen belonging and support young peers. Early next year, we'll bring them back together for a co-design for a shared initiative in 2026. Young people show that when they're trusted and heard, they can lead with courage, clarity and compassion, and that gives me great hope. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:09 to 16:20
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak briefly on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. While I support the bill in its efforts to provide some temporary relief to parts of Australia's hospitality...
I rise to speak briefly on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. While I support the bill in its efforts to provide some temporary relief to parts of Australia's hospitality sector, who are really struggling—namely, pubs and clubs—I want to echo many of the concerns expressed by some of my crossbench colleagues, speak briefly on another area of our excise regime and comment on a proposed ATO determination currently under consideration. My electorate of Wentworth is home to some amazing local institutions, from the Bondi Bowlo and the Diggers to the Paddington RSL. These are just some of the community operated bars, clubs and restaurants that give so much to the culture, atmosphere and events of the eastern suburbs. But these establishments and the rest in the eastern suburbs have navigated a challenging business environment over the past few years. COVID hit these sorts of organisations really hard, and the long tail of the cost-of-living crisis has dried up consumer demand in what should have been their recovery phase and has made it harder to keep their doors open. Across Australia, hospitality venues are falling at a faster rate than almost any other sector in the economy, beaten only by construction. In 2023-24, we lost 1,667 such businesses across Australia. This bill offers some welcome reprieve. This bill amends the Excise Tariff Act and the Customs Tariff Act to pause indexation of the excise and customs duty rates on draught beer—beer poured from taps—for two years. Wentworth also hosts some amazing craft breweries, including Bondi Brewing and Curly Lewis, as well as Australia's leading independent Seltzer company, FELLR. These independent brewers also add so much to my local community, creating new venues and products and the taste of the eastern suburbs, consumed all over Australia. These institutions face considerable challenges of their own. Not only is indexation pushing up the price of their products twice a year; they face an incredibly concentrated market dominated by two large multinational companies. The Independent Brewers Association reports that, after you take out foreign owned businesses and home-brand products, some 670-odd independent brewers are left to compete for around seven per cent of the remaining market share. Last year, as part of the Standing Committee on Economics, I investigated the beer market as part of the Bettercompetition, better prices report. We heard that the beer market has become pay to play, where the large companies can undercut local competitors through promotional marketing, discounts and even tap contracts that mean independents might either have no taps in a pub or a club or jostle amongst each other for a single tap. This makes it hard for independent brewers to get their brands out into public consumption outside of their own premises. They often rely on the sale of bottled or canned beer, sold in traditional liquor stores or at their own storefronts. For brewers with this business model, this excise will provide very limited relief. While I acknowledge the announcement by the government to lift the remission cap from $350,000 to $400,000 from 1 July next year, I will also be supporting the member for Bradfield's amendment to increase the scope of the excise to include local, independent craft beer sold in bottles and cans. Local independent brewers face another potential challenge in the coming months because of a recently announced draft guidance known as ED 2024/D2. Based on the draft determination, the ATO appears to be moving away from an objective determination of what constitutes beer to favour a more subjective one. Instead of determining beer based on its fermentation process, the ATO, it appears, will look at the final product to see if it fits within a conventional understanding of beer. This has potentially significant consequences for beverage producers whose product is no longer considered to fit within the conventional understanding of beer now or in the future. These products would be subject to a new excise rate of $105.98 per litre of alcohol compared to beer, which attracts an excise rate of $62.56, putting them at a significant cost disadvantage compared to beer. With the nature of beer evolving per different preferences and tastes to include a broader palette including sour beer and even seltzers, I ask the questions: Is it really the role of the ATO to determine what is and isn't a beer now based on how beer is conventionally understood? Aren't other people concerned about this in this chamber? I make light of it, but I'm sincere. I do wonder if this is the role of the ATO, to determine what is a beer and what isn't a beer. It does seem to be some sort of overreach of the Taxation Office. While I have been reassured and received assurances that this will not be targeting craft brewers exploring different types of sour beers, for example, I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the determination in a market that is reliant on innovation to challenge the status quo. As I've already mentioned, Australia's beer market is already dominated by an offshore duopoly that holds more than 80 per cent of the Australian beer market. I'm concerned that imposing further restrictive definitions on beer based on convention serves to protect existing products and will limit the ability for new local brewers to compete with established brands on the basis of the innovation in the product market, which they have done to date. I understand that draft determination ED 2024/D2 is due to be finalised by the end of 2025—but no longer consulting with stakeholders. I urge the Assistant Treasurer to consider advising the ATO to revise ED 2024/D2 in favour of rules that are clear, well designed and easy to follow. This is important for business to continue to innovate and invest, confident that they know how their product will ultimately be classified. Finally, returning to the issue of excise, I'd like to use this opportunity to draw the parliament's attention to another issue we have in Australia's excise regime: illegal tobacco. This is a social problem that is hiding in plain sight. After successfully slashing the proportion of Australians smoking daily from 25 per cent in 1991 to eight per cent in 2023, we are seeing tobacconists now popping up like mushrooms across our community, selling illegal tobacco and vapes and capitalising on cheap illegal tobacco. There are now around 20,000 tobacconists in Australia—about 60 tobacconists for every McDonald's. The term, 'Do you have the cheap ones?' is becoming a thinly veiled codename for illicit cigarettes costing about one-third of the price of legal cigarettes. There is a perfectly sound reason for having a tobacco excise tax, as my economics 101 lecturer would tell me. We want price externalities and to discourage harmful behaviours. For the most part, our tobacco policy has served public health and public finance well. But we've hit an inflection point. The growing disparity between the prices of legal and illegal cigarettes has created a lucrative and largely unenforced black market, which is proving counterproductive to both health and the budget, not to mention the impact it is having on driving organised crime. The consumption of legal tobacco apparently fell by 22 per cent last year. That is frankly unbelievable and is in contradiction to wastewater testing. What that shows is that the consumption of legal tobacco fell 22 per cent, with wastewater indicating that this is just moving straight out of the legal tobacco and into illegal tobacco, which means that we are now missing around potentially up to one-fifth of our tobacco excise and we are fuelling, through this change, organised crime that is facilitating this trade in illegal tobacco. Consequently cigarette excise is in freefall, with economist Chris Richardson estimating that untaxed illegal cigarettes are costing the budget around $10 billion. Organised crime has grabbed the opportunity presented by illegal tobacco leading to a surge in arson attacks and violence for the control of a growing and highly lucrative market. Across Australia we've had more than 200 attacks since 2023, but the police tell me that they are simply not resourced to deal with this growing threat. I acknowledge that the government has already made some contributions to the issue, including contributions both this year and last year to step up funding for the Federal Police and the Australian Border Force. But the government is losing the war on this, and much more needs to be done. At the very minimum, I think the government needs to have an urgent parliamentary inquiry into what is needed to actually solve this issue. We should think about having three priorities for excise policy—public health and collecting revenue but also minimising criminal activity associated. At this stage, the current tobacco excise is failing at least two of these measures. It needs to be reviewed, and the question of how we manage what has now turned into an enormous problem which is going to be extremely difficult and complicated to reverse—this is where this growth in excise has left us. I draw the government's attention to this in particular. They should be taking urgent action on this issue. Frankly, they have not done anywhere near enough.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
Thank you very much to the minister for your engagement on these amendments and also throughout the time on this very important legislation, which I would like to see passed here today, as much...
Thank you very much to the minister for your engagement on these amendments and also throughout the time on this very important legislation, which I would like to see passed here today, as much as anyone in this House—today or in the next couple of days. I take your point that you will not support the producer offset but I do think there is a case to be made here, that currently this is not being applied consistently. There are some companies who say they want the producer offset and there are some streamers who are not asking for the producer offset. If you addressed this now you would actually fix this going forward rather than have a situation where, I expect, over time, more of those companies will accept a producer offset. I do not think it is consistently used by all streamers or expected by all streamers; therefore, it wouldn't be part of their calculations at the current stage. That is why I think this is the right moment to deal with the producer offsets. I still make the case, very strongly, that Australian taxpayers don't expect our taxpayer money to be used to support content quotas for overseas filmmakers. The actual percentage that the government has put into this legislation is significantly lower than a country like France. Again, the industry was seeking a much higher level but, by leaving it in, it reduces that further and that is the fundamental concern of the industry. You are right: it is about the NETI, not the free-to-air, so I apologise—my mistake. In relation to that NETI point, the point is the producer offset is not used under the NETI scheme. My understanding is that it has never been applied and there is no part of the NETI scheme where someone has used the producer offset as part of those calculations. It feels like we're, in this case, bringing something that is irrelevant in another scheme into this scheme and making it extremely relevant, and, unfortunately, weakening the strength of this piece of legislation. That's the argument. I appreciate all the constraints you have in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation, but I think these are going to be issues that will be significant factors for the screen industry. If there is any way to deal with the NETI scheme to make it consistent with this, that is where the government should be going. Question negatived.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), after "nil expenditure", insert "but does not include any amount...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), after "nil expenditure", insert "but does not include any amount which may be subsequently recouped via the refund of part or all of a tax rebate on the program through any producer offset scheme". (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 23 (after line 34), after subsection 121FZN(2), insert: (2A) However, the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the relevant year does not include expenditure incurred by the provider or providers of the service in the relevant year in commissioning an Australian screen business to produce an eligible Australian program unless, under the relevant agreement with the Australian screen business, the ancillary or secondary rights are all times retained under the ownership and control of the Australian screen business and the primary licensing rights revert to the Australian screen business after a period of 3 years, or 5 years if the program has been commissioned for a subsequent season. (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 24 (line 32), after "report", insert "disaggregated by subgenre". (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert: (1A) The report must include the following information about each subgenre included in the report: (a) the number of commissioned titles; (b) the total production expenditure incurred in Australia; (c) the number of hours of content produced; (d) whether the content qualifies as "Australian content" under the National Classification Code or ACMA guidelines; (e) the release dates and platform availability within Australia. (1B) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is an example of a subgenre: (a) scripted drama; (b) documentary; (c) children's programming; (d) comedy; (e) animation; (f) reality and factual entertainment. (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), at the end of section 121FZO, add: (3) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection (1), the ACMA must: (a) publish a copy of the report on its website; and (b) give a copy of report to the Minister. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. As I outlined in my speech on the second reading of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, screen content quotas for subscription video-on-demand services are long overdue. They're essential to ensuring Australians stories continue to be told. However, this bill does not go far enough to support and sustain the screen industry. For this reason, I am moving some amendments which seek to address the loopholes that I identified earlier. These amendments are practical, targeted and designed to uphold integrity in the system. First, I will talk about the producer offset amendment. Producer offsets are government funded tax offsets covering 30 per cent of production costs. Although intended to support production companies and independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with streamers like Netflix, is for the streaming services to cashflow productions on the condition that the offset is later handed back to them. Under the current bill, the value of this offset can be counted as part of qualifying expenditure that streaming services must spend on Australian content. This means taxpayer money intended for the independent sector is treated as though it is the streamer's own investment even when the streamer is not actually contributing to these funds. My amendment would exclude the value of the producer offset from qualifying Australian expenditure until streaming services genuinely spend more of their own money on Australian productions, particularly in cases where they currently can recoup part of the production costs through the offset, and avoid unnecessary complexity as offset arrangements are made at the contract stage and obligations are acquitted over a three-year period. This is a simple measure to ensure public money is not counted twice and that the purpose of the producer offset is preserved. I think this is important. The producer offset is a piece of tax legislation I fought for very strongly, but I recognise that these offsets are expensive for the Australian taxpayer. This is money that the Australian taxpayer puts in. I think it really goes contrary to the intention of this bill, which is to get overseas platforms to invest in Australian content, to allow them to include taxpayer money in their Australian investment because it is demonstrably clear that Australian taxpayer money is not overseas money from these platforms in terms of investment in Australian content. So I do think this is an area where there is an issue. I appreciate there are other issues in terms of consistence with previous legislation for free-to-air and other platforms, but my understanding is that the producer offsets are not a factor in content in other parts of the system. So this is why that is not a particularly big issue and is one where I think there is a strong argument. The second argument I would like to make is about mandating subgenre reporting to track investment in children's and documentary content. We know that key sectors, particularly children's programming and documentaries, are under significant pressure. Although these genres are eligible Australian programs, the bill does not require the streaming services to allocate any minimum level of investment across these content types. This bill already requires reporting to ACMA on business operations, including subscriber numbers and revenue. So my amendment would simply require streaming services to provide detailed information for each subgenre, the number of commissioned titles, total production expenditure, hours produced and stats on platform availability and provide ACMA and the parliament with transparent, accurate data to assess whether the investment is genuinely flowing into these vulnerable genres at the time of the statutory review. This report will be published online, provided to the minister and tabled in parliament. This amendment doesn't impose subgenre quotas, but it would ensure that the parliament has the evidence it needs to determine whether further action is warranted. These amendments, I think, are well targeted. I previously also had an amendment in relation to the terms of trade—particularly protecting IP. I have withdrawn that at this stage on the basis that there is some concern that it could have unintended consequences on the writers' royalties. So I think further consideration of that amendment will need to be made to make sure that it doesn't interfere with writers' rights. But the principle of the amendment I had previously circulated but am not moving right now is that the terms of trade and intellectual property of our shows is actually really important. It is one of the most important ongoing streams of revenue for independent producers. It is the independent producers that all of these content quotas are intended to protect. To summarise, these amendments are targeted, reasonable and designed to strengthen the effectiveness and fairness of the bill. They uphold the intent of the legislation while protecting taxpayers, supporting independent producers and ensuring the parliament can make informed decisions about the future of Australian content.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Wentworth is home to some of the most vibrant and dedicated people working in Australia's film and television sector, from production companies and screen writers to actors, directors, crew and...
Wentworth is home to some of the most vibrant and dedicated people working in Australia's film and television sector, from production companies and screen writers to actors, directors, crew and many creatives who make the stories of Australia come alive. From iconic series like Kath& Kim or Rake to recent successes like Colin from Accountsa personal favourite—and Boy Swallows Universe, these stories matter. Our local screen industry is not just an economic contributor; it is a cultural treasure. These are the people who help us understand who we are and reflect our diversity, our history and our hopes for the future. These stories help create community, foster respect and build understanding. They spark connection around dinner tables, workplaces and waiting rooms. Over the past decade, this sector has been worn down. It has endured years of neglect and underinvestment, compounded by COVID-19 and the growing dominance of global streaming services whose power far outweighs that of local creators. I've heard from constituents who have been forced to walk away from the industry they love—people whose skills, talent and livelihoods are at risk. When we lose those workers, we lose more than jobs; we lose storytellers, cultural custodians and the very voice of Australian creativity and Australian stories. We know that streaming services are now where most people and most Australians find content, whether it be Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV or Prime. However, a large proportion of Australian screened content available on these services tends to be older content, with the commissioning of new Australian content by streaming services low by international standards. A 2023 Ampere Analysis report found that Australian content comprised just 8.8 per cent of Stan's catalogue, 5.0 per cent of Paramount+, 3.7 per cent of Binge, 4.1 per cent of Netflix, 3.6 per cent of Amazon Prime Video and only 0.2 per cent of Disney+. Screen Australia's 2023-24 report shows a 17.5 per cent drop in Australian titles on TV in just one year. Without screen content quotas, our local industry is vulnerable. Streamers can choose to fill their slates with repeats and international reality TV that does not reflect our own. While these shows are entertaining, it's crucial that we see our lives reflected on screens. Our stories should be treasured, and, without enforcement, they are fading. Australian content obligations for streaming services are something I've been advocating for since I was elected in 2022. I've worked extensively with Screen Producers Australia and with producers and production companies in my electorate who tell me how important this reform is. I want to highlight the incredible work of these advocates, especially Screen Producers Australia, in their tireless campaign to achieve quotas. I'm pleased to see the government finally introduce this legislation, and I commend them for taking this step. I will note—and I have been very frustrated—that it has been a long time coming, promised over three successive elections and again in the National Cultural Policy of January 2023. While the regulatory design has required complex negotiations, the long period of uncertainty has had real and very negative consequences for the Australian film industry. Production companies have struggled to plan, and major streaming services have delayed commissioning decisions because they did not know if or when the obligations were coming, with renewals and new projects stalling as a direct result. However, I am encouraged by elements of this bill which have the capacity to make a significant impact. The bill establishes Australia's first legislated requirement for major streaming services to invest in new Australian screen content, applying only to major platforms with more than one million subscribers, excluding specialist services. It defines what qualifies as an Australian program using existing content standard definitions. Programs must be newly commissioned with drama, documentary, factual or animated entertainment and under Australian control in development and production. The bill inserts new obligations into the Broadcasting Services Act, requiring eligible streamers to invest either 10 per cent of global program expenditure or 7.5 per cent of Australian sourced revenue in new Australian programs. Many in the sector, I will be honest, though, are disappointed, having advocated for a 20 per cent revenue model for over a decade. This model would deliver stronger investment without the capacity for services to manipulate their expenditure figures, which is of great concern to the industry. A compliance framework is also established in this legislation, with ACMA empowered to determine eligibility and publish reasons and decisions reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. Finally, the bill includes a statutory review after four years. My hope is that by then we will have the data to make clearer, stronger decisions, including increasing these requirements if necessary. With an industry in crisis, I see the urgent need for this reform to be passed this year, with changes to be in effect from 1 January 2026. This is what the sector wants; therefore, I am looking to be not only constructive, as always, in my engagement on this bill, but also timely. However, in my consultation with members of the Wentworth screen community, peak bodies and representatives across different parts of the sector, there are significant loopholes which could be rectified to strengthen the bill. First, and one of the most important ones, is weak guardrails around the expenditure model, because at the heart of this bill is an expenditure model that leaves too much to chance. We are asking ACMA to police complex financial structures used by some of the largest corporations in the world but without giving ACMA any extra resources. This is a recipe for problems discovered only after the damage has been done. The definition of 'qualifying expenditure' is so broad that streamers could sweep in costs with little connection to Australian content—internal IT allocations, corporate overheads, padding out numbers—and without creating a single Australian job or minute of Australian screen time. The requirement that costs fall under development, pre production, production or post production could be manipulated. We are relying on ACMA to scrutinise these costs with a fine-tooth comb, when we know and expect that services will work hard in some cases to minimise their obligations. If we are serious about transparency we cannot rely on a post-hoc audit by a regulator already stretched across everything from social media to national security laws. Stakeholders have been very clear: without firm guardrails like the guidelines used by Screen Australia, this system will be easy to game and hard to fix. These guardrails may be included in regulations or published by ACMA once powers are granted but it is essential we monitor them closely and review any potential manipulation at the statutory review. A second issue is also fundamental. Under this bill, streaming services can count taxpayer funded producer offsets as part of their Australian expenditure. That is not investment; that is substitution. Although these offsets are specifically designed to support independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with Netflix, is for the streamer to cash flow production on the condition that this government offset—the taxpayer funded offset—is handed to them. Producer offsets exist to strengthen the independent sector, not to subsidise the multinational balance sheets of these streamers. When these offsets were first introduced, the minister for the arts said at the time, 'Its intention was that the independent sector should be beneficiaries of the producer rebate.' When a $10 million project ends up costing a streamer only $7 million yet they can count the full $10 million, the public carries the burden while the streamer claims the credit. I understand this was retained for consistency with free-to-air transmission quotas; however, no such trend is occurring in that sector, and, if it did, it too would need reform. This has been raised with me by different screen producers personally, talking about how this is a growing trend. Perhaps the government is not aware that increasingly streamers are saying 'Okay, we know how much producer offset you are going to get. We want that back to be able to fund this show.' This is of real concern because this is very, very substantial government backing of the Australian screen industry, which will be used to, effectively, subsidise the big companies whose content quotas we are trying to manage. Thirdly, another gap is the absence of any requirement for Australian producers to retain their IP. Without their IP they lose the economic and cultural lifeblood of their work. A simple safeguard allowing streamers a 36-month licence period, after which rights revert to the Australian production company, would ensure Australian stories remain in Australian hands. It would prevent the erosion of Australian identity in the global digital market and avoid scenarios where beloved programs are reshaped for foreign audiences, for example by re-recording Bluey with American accents. We invest in Australian stories not because of their content but because of their culture. And, fourthly, there is a lack of stipulated investment. Children's and documentary content continue to suffer from chronic underinvestment. While the bill sets an overall quota, it does not protect genres uniquely vulnerable in the market. Sub-reporting for genres would at least give us the data needed at a review to determine whether further action, including sub-quotas, is necessary. Finally, there are quotas that simply legislate the status quo. This is the final challenge with this bill. We need to be honest about the numbers. The bill's proposed thresholds—10 per cent of expenditure or 7.5 per cent of revenue—sound ambitious, but the government's own explanatory memorandum tells a different story. It states that the total expenditure required of major streaming services would be between $175 million $200 million each year on Australian content, consistent with current expenditure for Australian adult drama, children's and documentary programs by SVODs, which is on average $193.4 million. In other words, by the government's own modelling, these quotas do not meaningfully increase investment. They simply legislate what the streamers are already spending. This bill risks locking in the status quo at a moment when the Australian screen sector desperately needs growth, ambition and renewal. Legislating to prevent further reduction in investment is an excellent start, but these numbers are not good enough. If our goal is a thriving, world-class industry capable of telling Australian stories to Australian and global audiences, then we cannot congratulate ourselves for maintaining the current baseline. We do need settings that drive additional investment, nurture emerging creatives and build a sustainable pipeline of Australian content for the future. All of these loopholes lessen the positive impact that this legislation can have on our screen industry. This is why I've circulated three amendments which aim to fix some of these problems, which I will discuss more in the consideration in detail. These amendments are (1) excluding any producer offsets recouped by streaming services from qualifying expenditure; (2) settings terms of trade such that any agreements about an eligible program provide business and ancillary rights to the production company with primary licensing rights returning to said company after three years or after five years if the program has been renewed; and (3) mandating the reporting of sub-genres in required reporting to ACMA and the minister. I urge the government to consider these reasonable and fact based amendments, which respond to the challenges of the screen industry and the complexity of managing and regulating this industry. In conclusion, this bill moves us in the right direction, but we cannot pretend it's enough. Our screen industry is too important, too vulnerable and too full of potential for us to settle for the status quo. Australian stories enrich our culture, strengthen our community and help us see ourselves on screen. The bill lays important groundwork, and I support it, but we should remain ambitious, and I wish I had seen a more ambitious bill. I look forward to working within this parliament and with my community to build for a stronger, fairer and more vibrant screen future that our nation deserves.
Housing | Questions without Notice | House debates
On relevance, the question was specifically about the New Homes Bonus.
My question is for the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. Today's data from rental affordability index shows that only two per cent of rentals are affordable for essential...
My question is for the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. Today's data from rental affordability index shows that only two per cent of rentals are affordable for essential workers, like teachers. The New Homes Bonus was supposed to incentivise new homes and help fix this, but, with just the ACT likely to meet the target, the effectiveness of this incentive is under question. Will you consider restructuring the bonus scheme so there are interim payments to help the states do critical rezoning, speed up approvals and build the infrastructure they need to actually deliver these targets?
National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 20, insert: 20A Publication of reasons If a registrable decision is published on the register of...
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 20, insert: 20A Publication of reasons If a registrable decision is published on the register of registrable decisions, the reasons for the decision must also be published on the register. My amendment to this bill continues the theme of transparency, this time for the new NEPA. Under this bill, the NEPA will pay a central role in approving, assessing and enforcing environmental decisions. These decisions will help shape the health of our environment and the credibility of the new system. Yet, as the bill stands, the NEPA is only required to publish notice of a decision, not the reasoning behind it. Earlier, I spoke about my amendment to the EPBC bill, which would require the environment minister to publish a statement of reasons for decisions made under the act. This amendment mirrors that change. If NEPA is to be the trusted independent body that the community expects, its decisions must be clear, consistent and explainable. My amendment would require the agency to publish a short statement of reasons for each significant decision, particularly any approval, rejection or enforcement.
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 (3) on sheet 1 and amendment (1) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together: SHEET 1 (1) Schedule 1, page 94 (after line 6), after item 218, insert: 218A...
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and amendment (1) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together: SHEET 1 (1) Schedule 1, page 94 (after line 6), after item 218, insert: 218A After section 131AB Insert: 131AC Minister must obtain advice from Climate Change Authority in relation to designated large facilities or potential designated large facilities (1) This section applies if an action is likely to result in: (a) an increase, in the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or future financial years, of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is taken; or (b) a new designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or a future financial year. (2) Before the Minister decides whether or not to approve, for the purposes of a controlling provision, the taking of the action, and what conditions (if any) to attach to an approval, the Minister must obtain advice from the Climate Change Authority in relation to: (a) the accuracy of emissions estimates provided by the person proposing to take the action, including the consistency of the methods for making those estimates with methods prescribed by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007; and (b) the impact that the action would have on safeguard emissions for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken and future financial years; and (c) the impact that the action would have on the safeguard outcomes; and (d) whether the action would place a safeguard outcome at risk; and (e) what conditions (if any) it would be appropriate to attach to an approval if the Minister were to approve the action; and (f) how the person proposing to take the action plans to mitigate emissions caused by the action, including: (i) committed, time-bound measures to mitigate gross emissions; and (ii) reliance on expected or potential future measures and technologies; and (iii) feasibility of proposed strategies. (3) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007: (a) designated large facility; (b) safeguard emissions; (c) safeguard outcome; (d) scope 1 emission. (2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert: 235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa) Insert: (fb) any relevant advice obtained by the Minister from the Climate Change Authority in accordance with section 136AC; and (3) Schedule 1, page 156 (after line 3), after item 317, insert: 317A At the end of Division 7 of Part 11 Add: 170CB Publication of reasons Despite any other provision of this Act, if the Minister makes a decision under this Part the Minister must publish the reasons for the decision on the Department's website. _____ SHEET 2 (1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) A notifiable instrument made under subsection (2) must be consistent with the principle that the amendments made by this Act in relation to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over the 3 year period beginning on the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 of the table. As I outlined in my second reading speech, reform of our Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act is long overdue—for our environment, for our economy and for our country. However, serious loopholes remain. The bill leaves too much ministerial discretion over what constitutes the 'national interest', retains exemptions for native forest logging and land clearing, and risks entrenching a pay-to-destroy model through the new restoration fund and overuse of biodiversity offsets. These weaknesses threaten to undermine the very purpose of the reform and the protection of Australia's biodiversity. I'm rising to speak on amendments that will strengthen this bill, both for nature and for business. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and ecosystems—from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires and droughts. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, these are neither required to be considered by the minister or the EPA nor required to be independently verified. The government argues that this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism. But they are not managed effectively. The environment minister is only required to notify the climate change minister and authority after a project is approved. The safeguard is not effective enough to carry that burden. Without an upfront assessment, new projects can add pressure to the mechanism, forcing others to cut more deeply or rely on offsets that may never materialise. I want to see a clear link between the safeguard mechanism and the EPBC process. My amendment will require the Climate Change Authority to assess any action that would allow a new facility to the safeguard mechanism or increase emissions from the existing one; independently verify proponents' emissions estimates; consider the likely impact on the safeguard's overall emissions trajectory and objectives; advise whether the action risks undermining those objectives and recommend appropriate conditions, such as declining annual emission caps; and provide that advice to both the climate change and environment ministers. While this advice would not be binding, it would ensure that emissions data and abatement plans are used meaningfully in assessments, not left to another minister after approval. Approving major emitters first and hoping another minister cleans it up later is poor governance. The amendment would enable upfront consideration of climate impacts and prevent avoidable harm. It would also provide the government with useful data to inform future safeguard policy and to set conditions needed to mitigate a project's impact on the mechanism. My second amendment concerns transparency. It would require the minister to publish a statement of reasons for all decisions, particularly approvals or rejections under the EPBC Act. At present, both the minister and NEPA must publish notice of a decision but not the reasoning behind it. While the current minister generally does so voluntarily, this requirement should be embedded in law for all future ministers. Publishing reasons is vital for accountability, public trust and better decision-making. It also helps business proponents better understand precedents and improve future proposals. I have also moved a matching amendment to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill to ensure NEPA operates with the same level of transparency. I had a constructive conversation with the minister's office in relation to these amendments, but particularly this one. It is my hope that, while the minister, at this stage, has indicated that they will not be supporting this amendment, it will still be considered as part of any future amendments that go through in the Senate. Finally, I wanted to move an amendment in relation to some of the business groups I've consulted—and that is to sunset the removal of three project assessment and approval pathways over a three-year period. Part of the importance of this bill is to make sure that projects can move swiftly through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's approval process if they are warranted to. I think the government has, appropriately, introduced a new streamlined process that should, hopefully, speed that up. I very much support that. However, I am aware that, when government sets up new things, it takes some time to bed them down. Things don't always go faster in a new process; they sometimes can go slower. What I'm urging the government to do in this case is provide a sensible transition period so that, perhaps, those businesses that are familiar with the current available pathways are able to use them until the new pathways are established, precedence is set and people are able to understand what is actually going on. I think this could not only achieve what the government wants to do—which is move to a streamlined mode overall—but also make sure that we do get faster approvals, when things deserve to be approved, straight off the bat and there isn't some unnecessary delay, which everybody, I think, is genuinely seeking to avoid. I do believe it balances the need for reform with the need for certainty and fairness during implementation. Again, I've spoken to the minister's office about this, but I recognise that this was circulated relatively recently, so I would urge the minister and others to consider that in the Senate.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I also rise to support this amendment. Out of all of the bill, this is probably the most important part to change. I thank the member for Indi for making these changes. I want to reiterate what...
I also rise to support this amendment. Out of all of the bill, this is probably the most important part to change. I thank the member for Indi for making these changes. I want to reiterate what was said by the member for Clark in terms of robodebt. The government has made a huge deal, and rightly so, about the impact of robodebt on individuals and the enormous stain that it is on Australian political public service history. Something which was so clearly put in the robodebt royal commission has been ignored. In some cases it seems to mischaracterise some of what of the robodebt royal commission said. Saying that somehow this fits within the robodebt royal commission's observations and recommendations is very disappointing, and I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed, I'll be honest, with the Prime Minister who, in a question I asked specifically on this issue, denied that robodebt had anything to do with FOI, when in fact the robodebt royal commission is explicit in that, in relation to cabinet confidentiality and how that inhibited a negative for robodebt. I'd also like to make the observation, more broadly, about what we're trying to do in this country to improve the quality of debate. Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, spoke yesterday, very powerfully, at the Lowy Institute, talking about the need to disagree well, to have fact based and broad based conversations and to do this in an effective way. Let's be honest: the parliament doesn't do that very often. But, to do that well, we actually need the information to back it up. We do need the frank and fearless advice of the Public Service to be more available to the country, rather than less available to the country, so that we can have the debates that we need to have in this country about difficult political and public issues. There are many difficult challenges that we are facing as a country—economically and socially. As a member of the public rather than as a member of the parliament, I would love more of that information to be out there in the public domain so that, as a member of the public, I can be better informed about whether the government is serving the people or whether it's not, about what policies we should or shouldn't be considering and about what policies have been considered and why, justifiably, they have been left alone. In the dearth and vacuum of information, you will have other players who play, and I respect many of the think tanks and others who play in the space. But there are also many bad actors who play in this space, who try and fill the void of good public data and good public debate with sometimes quite misleading information. That actually decreases trust. So I urge the government to completely rethink its approach on this FOI bill. What would it take to increase transparency in this country to give people more confidence in government and more information and certainty so our community can be more well-informed about what are the good policy choices that we should be urging our government to be making and what are the difficult trade-offs that we should be urging our government to be making? Let's be honest: there are very difficult trade-offs here, but most Australians do not have access to the Public Service advice that helps make those difficult trade-offs clear. So I very much support the FOI recommendations coming out of the robodebt royal commission. We should be decreasing, rather than increasing, restrictions to cabinet documents. So I once again recommend and urge the government to support the member for Indi's amendments. I think they go to the heart of building trust in government by building a better public debate, and I think both of those things are really critical.