Nicolette Boele's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Bondi Beach: Attack | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is for the Leader of the House. Two weeks ago this parliament passed legislation to respond to the Bondi terror attack. The crossbench was required to vote on legislation mere hours...
My question is for the Leader of the House. Two weeks ago this parliament passed legislation to respond to the Bondi terror attack. The crossbench was required to vote on legislation mere hours after receiving it. That process disrespected the one in three Australians who voted for a strong crossbench and it degrades the democracy that we fought so hard to nurture. What steps will the government take to ensure that law-making processes following future crises will not degrade democracy in this way?
Ku-ring-gai Rural Fire Service | Statements by Members | House debates
In scenes all too familiar to Australians, my community watched with dismay at the devasting bushfires in Victoria this summer. As blazes tore through the state, I was incredibly proud to learn...
In scenes all too familiar to Australians, my community watched with dismay at the devasting bushfires in Victoria this summer. As blazes tore through the state, I was incredibly proud to learn that our very own North Shore volunteer brigades answered the call for help. Congratulations to Huw Bradshaw from the North Shore Lorikeet for reporting on their journey. As Huw reported, several Ku-ring-gai volunteers travelled to places including Yarck in the Goulburn Valley to protect vulnerable communities and their properties. In the great tradition of Australian firefighting and community service, they put their own lives at risk to help fellow Australians. It's what we do, and it's what we need to keep doing as the devastating impacts of climate change usher in weather events that are more severe and more frequent than ever before. Today is 4 February, Extreme Heat Awareness Day. It's critical that we properly plan for what's ahead, but it's also critical that we properly tackle the causes of the problem. We can't protect communities from extreme heat and catastrophic bushfires while we literally pour fuel on the fire. Making climate change worse by approving new fossil fuel projects is not part of our plan. I offer my sincere thanks to our Ku-ring-gai volunteer firefighters for their service, and I call on this place to do everything it can to protect those who answer the call by mitigating the risks, helping to build more resilient communities and ending the approval of new fossil fuel projects.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert: 6M Temporary freeze in indexation for craft beer (1) Despite any other...
I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert: 6M Temporary freeze in indexation for craft beer (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to craft beer and each CPI indexed non-draught beer rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days: (a) 1 August 2025; (b) 1 February 2026; (c) 1 August 2026; (d) 1 February 2027. Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged for the next 2 years. Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)). (2) In this section: CPI indexed non-draught beer rate means a rate of duty set out in subitem 1.1, 1.5 or 1.10 of the Schedule. craft beer means beer brewed by a member of the Independent Brewers Association or a similar not-for-profit organisation representing independent, local brewers with appropriate governance of member eligibility and conduct. indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A. Everyone knows that households and small businesses around the country have been doing it tough. The cost of living has been hurting Australians for some time now. To address that, one of the Labor Party's election promises was to pause indexation on draught beer excise and excise-equivalent customs duty rates for two years from August 2025. The idea, of course, is to ensure that the price of a cold one down at the pub stays the same for a little while longer. The legislation, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, implements that promise. The Labor Party has a clear mandate for it, so I will be supporting the legislation. However, in my view, the underlying election promise was flawed. By pausing the excise on draught beer only, the policy mostly benefits large, multinational companies and does nothing to assist the small independent craft brewers that Australians have come to love so much. Excise on those craft beers will not be paused under the legislation, which means the price of them will keep rising, even as the excise for draught beer stays the same. My amendment addresses that by extending the two-year excise pause to independent craft beer. If government revenue—taxpayers' dollars—is going to be spent to alleviate the cost of doing business, I want to make sure that it's helping local businesses. Take Buckle Cafe and Distillery in Artarmon in my electorate of Bradfield as an example. After this legislation was introduced, I got in touch with Ben, the owner, to see whether he thought extending the excise pause would help the distillery and other similar local craft breweries. Ben said: It's getting harder and harder. I've been in the industry 15 years now and the day to day has certainly not gotten easier. The freeze on draught beer excise was a great vote winner from Labor. Unfortunately, it sounds great; But it actually disproportionately favours the big multinational brewers because they dominate and control a lot of the taps in the market. He goes on to say: It's about a fair go. The Independent Brewers Association, whose members are overwhelmingly small to medium-sized business in big cities and small communities throughout Australia, agree with Ben from Buckle. The IBA points out that independent brewers employ locals, give back to their communities, strengthen Australia's manufacturing capability, provide tourism destinations and work directly with the agricultural sector. Critically, their profits stay in Australia. So I repeat: if the government is going to be spending taxpayer money pausing an excise on beer, surely independent Australian businesses should be the priority. Spending that taxpayer money for the benefit of multinational companies just doesn't pass the pub test. Let's see if the government is listening. I commend the amendment to the House.
Housing | Constituency Statements | House debates
I know we have a housing affordability crisis, and I know this as acutely as anyone. Despite our relatively strong position on socioeconomic scales, my electorate is one of Australia's most...
I know we have a housing affordability crisis, and I know this as acutely as anyone. Despite our relatively strong position on socioeconomic scales, my electorate is one of Australia's most unaffordable. Out doorknocking, at pop-up offices or attending local events, I hear how hard it is for people to live close by where they work, in residential aged care, in our hospitals and our schools, and how hard it is for small businesses to find people to work in the cafes, on worksites or in GP practices. So my team and I have, in earnest, been researching the availability of affordable housing options. Surely there must be some in our area of Sydney—but apparently not. Then this happened last week. The Australian Council of Social Service, or ACOSS, laid bare a remarkable statistic: the federal government is spending more on tax breaks for property investors than on social housing, homelessness services and rental assistance combined. As everyone knows, one of the biggest crises facing this country, and one of the most significant causes of growing intergenerational inequity, is the unaffordability of housing. In my own electorate of Bradfield, a mere 0.9 per cent of a total 67,000 private homes are social housing, either state housing authority or community housing provider homes. This is compared to a national average of 3.8 per cent during that same period. Over a third of renters are in housing stress—in other words, they're paying more than 30 per cent of their household income on rent. Nationwide, that position is also dire. Last week the Productivity Commission released its report on government services which showed that social housing makes up only 3.6 per cent of all dwellings, down from 5.7 per cent in the 1980s; 41 per cent of public housing waitlists is made up of households that are homeless or at risk of homelessness, up from 26 per cent in 2015; and 18.3 per cent of Commonwealth rent assistance households are in severe rental stress—that means they're paying more than 50 per cent of their income on rent—and that's up from 8.1 per cent in 2004. Housing insecurity brings with it a raft of other social and economic problems, including a higher risk of mental illness, chronic ill health and difficulty finding and holding down a job. If we want people to have the opportunity to lead fruitful, productive lives, and if we want to genuinely help people to lift themselves out of difficult circumstances and contribute to a harmonious society and a productive economy, we must address housing insecurity. This government would say that it has done more than any other government before to address the housing crisis. It would reel off a list, including the social housing accelerator program, the Housing Australia Future Fund, the increase to Commonwealth rent assistance, the build to rent scheme and the first home supply program, but the fact remains: it is not increasing the supply of social housing fast enough. Last year, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, in its State of the Housing System report, recommended boosting social housing to six per cent, with a long-term target of all homes to be 10 per cent.
I rise to speak in support of the member for Curtin's motion, and I rise also to ask: what does it say about our democracy when we seem to have two sets of standards for protecting citizens from...
I rise to speak in support of the member for Curtin's motion, and I rise also to ask: what does it say about our democracy when we seem to have two sets of standards for protecting citizens from hate? We had a violent start to the modern Australian nation, and we have made some but very little progress on making good on that—little progress politically, institutionally, economically and culturally. Let's not forget report after report showing that we're not adequately closing the gap. We don't have an ATSIC, and we don't have a voice to parliament or a permanent way to have solid representation in this parliament of the hundreds of First Nations that make up Australia. We continue to stand by whilst the states and territories pass laws to allegedly address crime but which have the practical effect of discriminating, targeting young First Peoples offenders and institutionalising them in harsh, cruel cells and detention centres with little regard for their cultural, social and economic needs. We essentially add to their harm rather than help remove it. Last week, we watched as people with hate in their hearts and harm in their hands hurled a bomb into a crowd of people peacefully demonstrating—as they have for years on 26 January, as is their right, as is everyone's right in this precious but increasingly precarious democracy. Let me be clear: just as in Bondi, Sydney, where the target was Jewish people, in Forrest Place, Perth, the target was our First Peoples. This is a hate crime on the basis of race, of othering. Sadly, it felt to me that the hate shown against First Peoples on this day wasn't as seriously considered as the hate shown to others, and, therefore, that a strong response by our institutions wasn't as swift and wasn't as warranted. Let's be clear: hate on anyone in this country is hate on all of us. My message is: how our institutions, the media, the intelligence agencies and people in this place respond matters. Responding appropriately when this hate crime happened in Perth was not about protecting the weak and vulnerable. This is about acknowledging that everyone is equal before the law and within our communities, and it's all of our responsibility to ensure that this is so. When we don't speak up for our children, for all of our brothers and sisters, we're letting down the entire family, our Australian family. With every thought, word and action—or lack of action—we are creating a permissive environment where this hate can continue and even thrive. And hate can't be solved with more hate. We need to grow understanding and courage and we need to make tangible progress. That starts with calling out hate every time wherever it occurs. It means applying the levers at our disposal—all of them—to match the wrongdoing. It means making sure that our lawmakers and enforcers, our commentators and our leaders, start to see that hate actually harms people. No matter what the colour of your skin, the God you worship or who you love, we are all entitled to the freedoms and securities of the person who lives next door to us, across the road or across the country. When we pass laws that lead to the clean-up of institutional behaviours that harm rather than nurture those who need us to have their backs, we start to replace the hate with care. We replace blame with responsibility. We replace 'them' with 'us'—'all of us'. I strongly urge the government to adequately resource its own anti-racism framework that it commissioned in 2024. It's good. It may help. I'm really sorry that this has happened in our community across the country. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about something that is so important. We can do better, we must do better and we get this done by working together. That's why I commend the member for Curtin's motion to the House.
Yes, I second the motion. Question agreed to.
National Security | Questions without Notice | House debates
I rise on a point of order of relevance. The question was specifically around the reasons.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Parliament has passed laws to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism, but legislative levers are one of a myriad of responses required to prevent terror...
My question is for the Prime Minister. Parliament has passed laws to combat antisemitism, hate and extremism, but legislative levers are one of a myriad of responses required to prevent terror attacks of the type that we saw in Bondi. You've called for a royal commission, but what are the other steps to address the underlying cultural, social and economic factors which contribute to extremism? Will you commit to adequately resourcing the implementation of a national anti-racism framework, a comprehensive strategy commissioned by your government and released in November 2024?
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Page 2 (after line 16), after clause 3, insert: 4 Sunset clause The amendments made by this Act are repealed...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Page 2 (after line 16), after clause 3, insert: 4 Sunset clause The amendments made by this Act are repealed on the day that is 2 years after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit "80.2C or 80.2D,". I want to be really clear about my approach to my role in this place. I am committed to doing everything that is necessary and appropriate to rid this country of the scourge of antisemitism. The murderous terror inflicted on the Jewish community and on Australians more broadly on 14 December must never be allowed to happen again. It is precisely because of that desire to get our response right that I've been so disappointed in the haste with which the government has approached this task—the severely truncated inquiry; the lack of meaningful consultation; and the limited time given to parliamentarians to review and understand the legislation, let alone an opportunity to work with the government on behalf of my constituents to try and improve it. After all, these are very significant changes being proposed. We're talking about new criminal offences with penalties of imprisonment of up to 15 years. As a lawmaker new to this place, it is utterly confounding to me that—in what is supposed to be one of the most robust parliamentary systems in the world—I'm being asked to vote on a law today which could result in someone being sentenced for up to 15 years in prison the very same day as I am receiving texts of that law. I completely understand, I respect and I support the need to act swiftly to protect people. Indeed it's the duty of this government to do so. But what if we are acting swiftly to enact laws which trade off people's rights without being sure that they will even achieved desired results? Expert after expert has expressed deep concerns about not only the substance of the laws but the process by which they will make their way through this parliament. In its submission to the inquiry conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, held hastily over a couple of days last week, the Law Council reminded us: The rule of law requires that the law must be both readily known and available, and certain and clear. It was in that context that the council criticised the lack of clarity and precision in those laws before us. They couldn't even be certain of just how unclear and how imprecise these laws are because they haven't had enough time to review them. This is both disappointing and, frankly, outrageous. The sentiment was echoed by eminent constitutional lawyer, Anne Twomey, who said: The time given for submissions to be made and for the Committee to report … is manifestly inadequate … She went on to outline some possible outcomes of the application of the laws, outcomes which deserve due consideration as they concern all of us. It's for this reason that I have moved an amendment which introduces a sunset clause to this bill. My amendment means that the bill would automatically be repealed after two years. This is one step beyond a mere review clause, which must happen, and it will force the government to go back to the people and say, 'This has worked and it is still necessary.' If that is indeed the case, passing the laws again will be a simple matter. It is also relevant to note that the offence of publicly inciting racial hatred was introduced to New South Wales by the New South Wales government last year and contains a three-year sunset clause. Very briefly, the second amendment I have moved today relates to the definition of 'hate crime' for the purposes of banning hate groups. As currently drafted, it is not possible to ban a hate group for advocating terrorism or genocide. This is an illogical aspect of the bill, especially given we are attempting to combat terrorism. I seek to amend the bill to ensure that the crimes of advocating terrorism and advocating genocide can cause a group to be banned. The reason I give for this is that we want to stamp out hate against targeted groups. The intentional exclusion of these worst types of hateful conduct is completely irrational.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
I rise today with an aching heart. On 14 December our nation was shaken by the horrific terror attack at Bondi, where 15 innocent people lost their lives. Most were members of our Jewish...
I rise today with an aching heart. On 14 December our nation was shaken by the horrific terror attack at Bondi, where 15 innocent people lost their lives. Most were members of our Jewish community. They were targeted not for anything that they'd done but for who they were—for the faith that they carried in their hearts and for their identity, passed down through generations. Today we honour their memory. I honour the lives stolen too soon, the families forever changed and the communities left to grieve the unimaginable loss. I extend my deepest condolences to the loved ones of those who were killed, to those who were injured and to all who will continue to carry the trauma of that day five weeks ago. Bradfield is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in New South Wales. It includes four synagogues, Masada College and families whose roots in Australia stretch back generations. It's a community that contributes profoundly to our civic, cultural and moral life. On the first Friday after 14 December, I was invited to and attended a service at one of the synagogues in Bradfield. It was the words of its rabbi that moved me beyond words. The rabbi spoke of one of her community, a boy, who on the following morning, the Sabbath, was to complete his months of study by reading from the Torah, leading prayers and delivering his speech, culminating in his bar mitzvah, his transition to religious manhood. What is already a very profound rite of passage for a young Jewish person should have been pure joy, but in this moment it was tempered instead with yet another level of gravitas. The Rabbi spoke, among other things, of the symbolism of this young man, a young, proud Jew, as the steward of traditions and culture from generations before to the generations to come. The Rabbi spoke in general terms about him being the embodiment of resilience and resolve, which are needed more than ever in the wake of the hate crimes the Sunday before, not just for himself and his family but for his whole community and the next generation of Jewish Australians. This is a profound responsibility, and it can't sit with him alone. It calls on the rest of us, as a community, to stand alongside him, to protect what he carries and to ensure that resilience is shared. As a lifelong Australian, I'm deeply saddened that a country known for tolerance and fairness is now wrestling with rising division and hatred. This attack was an act of terror. It sought to use violence to frighten and divide. Jewish Aussies are Australians. They're citizens, they're neighbours and they're great contributors to our shared national life. Condolence alone is not enough. Grief must be matched with resolve, and tomorrow here in this place we will consider laws aimed at combating antisemitism and hate more broadly. What we must do is remember the faces, the names and the lives behind those in this discussion: Matilda, Rabbi Eli Schlanger, Boris Tetleroyd, Boris Gurman, Sofia Gurman, Reuven Morrison, Edith Brutman, Marika Pogany, Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Tibor Weitzen, Alexander Kleytman, Dan Elkayam, Tania Tretiak, Adam Smyth. We must legislate not out of fear or for politics but out of moral responsibility to ensure no community in Australia ever feels unsafe because of their faith or their identity. Today we stand in solidarity with the Jewish communities of Bradfield, of New South Wales and of Australia. We stand against hatred, against violence and against the slow erosion of the tolerance that defines us when we're at our best. May the memories of those lost on 14 December be a blessing. May the families find comfort in the love that surrounds them. And may this parliament honour them not only in words but with action worthy of their memory.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The safeguard mechanism, the government's primary lever for achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions, is set to be reviewed in...
My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The safeguard mechanism, the government's primary lever for achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions, is set to be reviewed in 2026-2027. In August this year, the Productivity Commission recommended reducing the threshold for facilities covered by the mechanism to those omitting 25,000 tonnes of pollution a year, down from the current 100,000 tonnes. When will the government start the review of the safeguard mechanism, and will it accept the Productivity Commission's recommendation to lower the safeguard mechanism pollution threshold?
Low-Income Superannuation Tax Offset | Motions | House debates
In September this year, I was privileged to be invited to participate in a panel run by Super Members Council to discuss this LISTO, the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset. It was an excellent...
In September this year, I was privileged to be invited to participate in a panel run by Super Members Council to discuss this LISTO, the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset. It was an excellent event with a sterling line-up of talented women. Panellists included Georgia Brumby, the Deputy CEO of Super Members Council; Jo Kowalczyk, the CEO of Women in Super; and Georgie Dent, the CEO of the Parenthood. Collectively, these women have worked for years to make the everyday lives of Australian women better. The topic for discussion on the day was the subject of this very motion: the need to reform the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset, or LISTO. The LISTO was introduced in 2012 and provided a payment of $500 into super for people earning less than $37,000 a year. It was designed to ensure that low-income earners don't pay more tax on their super contributions than on their take-home pay. The problem was that it had not changed since 2012, when it was introduced. The income threshold of $37,000 was out of date, and the amount of the payment itself had been devalued as a result of not keeping up with inflation. With 63 per cent of people benefiting from LISTO being women, the panel and I that day were in firm agreement that it was in need of updating. So I was pleased when the Treasurer announced in October that the government had listened and would be increasing both the amount of the LISTO and the threshold for eligibility in line with what the experts and industry had been calling for. I was equally pleased to see the way in which the government proposed to fund the changes to LISTO. The LISTO changes, it was announced, would be paid for by tweaking the government's proposal to reduce tax concessions on earnings in superannuation accounts with balances over $3 million. Tax reform is another topic entirely—one which, although needed, successive governments have shied away from. I welcomed the announcement during the last term that the government planned to reduce tax concessions on earnings of super balances above $3 million but held concerns about some of the finer details of that proposal. The first area of concern was that the $3 million threshold for the change to the tax concession would not be indexed. The LISTO is a perfect example of a situation where tax policy that is not indexed will soon become unfit for purpose. Within 13 years of the introduction of the LISTO—and some would probably say sooner than that—the LISTO was not operating as it was intended, and the $37,000 threshold for eligibility for additional superannuation payment needed updating. In the last term, in arguing against the need to index the $3 million threshold for super tax changes, the government said that unindexed amounts are regularly included in legislation and that it's simple to amend it when it's necessary. The crossbench's counterargument was that not only would it be simpler to index the amount from the outset but also it would ensure that the legislation remained fit for purpose year in and year out. The LISTO thresholds demonstrate the force of this argument. It has taken 13 years and much advocacy from civil society to achieve legislative change to the LISTO thresholds and make them work as intended in 2025. LISTO recipients, mainly women and those in low-paid—often shift or part time—casual work, such as those in the care industry, would have received a greater benefit for longer with indexation. So will it be for taxpayers affected by the changes to the superannuation tax concessions for balances over $3 million. They will not have to start paying more tax sooner, because the threshold will be indexed. A secondary concern about the superannuation tax concession changes was that the changes would apply to unrealised capital gains. That was going to hurt farmers and small businesses, who quite legitimately and compliantly often hold large assets inside their superannuation and who would have been forced to pay a tax bill on assets they did not intend to liquidate during the tax year. Again, the government listened to that concern, raised squarely by the Independents on the crossbench during the debate on the legislation, and have decided that the tax should not apply to unrealised capital gains. These LISTO changes are necessary and overdue. The retirement savings of Australians on low incomes will be boosted, the burden on government during those people's retirements will be reduced, and it's a positive change, which I welcome.
Cerebral Palsy | Statements by Members | House debates
I recently visited the Cerebral Palsy Alliance in St Ives, in my electorate of Bradfield. The alliance hosts an awesome group of highly-valued people in our community. In a minute I'm going to...
I recently visited the Cerebral Palsy Alliance in St Ives, in my electorate of Bradfield. The alliance hosts an awesome group of highly-valued people in our community. In a minute I'm going to read a statement from one of the clients there, but firstly I want to say that I have and have had family members living with CP. Despite what so many in our communities may think is a disability or disabling condition, I would stridently argue that it's our communities that are disabling. People living with CP could much more easily participate in communities and their spaces if provided physical access and emotional safety such as smoother footpaths and longer traffic light periods for crossing safely at the lights when using wheelchairs. Emotional safety is something that so many in broader society need to understand. When speaking to someone with CP, it's important to address the person, not just the carer. Likewise, it's important that our shopping centres offer quiet places away from the noise, lights and busyness. When I visited the St Ives branch and met Magsy Karvouniaris, a client of the alliance, I was thrilled when she shared with me her perspectives on living with CP: Cerebral palsy isn't about limitations—it's a SUPERPOWER. It's a source of unique strength, courage and resilience that inspires me every day. Cerebral palsy is a condition that gently shapes how a person moves and experiences the world. It comes from a difference in the brain that happens early on in life but does not define the beautiful and amazing spirit that lives inside the person. With love and support this superpower helps me shine in my own special way and reminds me that being different is something to celebrate.
Gas Industry | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) south-east Australia is at risk of seasonal gas shortfalls by 2027 as a result of prioritising our export market; (b) there are several reasons for...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) south-east Australia is at risk of seasonal gas shortfalls by 2027 as a result of prioritising our export market; (b) there are several reasons for this upcoming shortfall, including: (i) gas exports commenced from Gladstone, Queensland in 2015; (ii) within a decade, 75 per cent of the total east coast gas volume demand was being exported; and (iii) since 2017, successive Commonwealth Governments have introduced overlapping, interim measures to avert shortfalls; (c) in June 2025, the Government announced it would conduct a review into gas market regulation; and (d) Australians deserve, and it should not be difficult to achieve, a sufficiently predictable, reliable, affordable and transparent market; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) only allow uncontracted gas to be exported after it has been offered to the domestic market at a reasonable price; (b) end the cycle of changing government and regulator intervention in the gas market; (c) conduct a thorough consultation process with key stakeholders for the purpose of reviewing the Future Gas Strategy, including to more deeply consider the impact of different gas users across the economy, the role of demand management and Australia's climate change policy commitments; (d) establish a clear framework for the deployment of gas in the transition to a net zero economy, to give suppliers, investors, and large gas users the confidence to invest in clean technologies and infrastructure; and (e) anchor the approach to gas market regulation in two key objectives: (i) impose an ongoing obligation on LNG exporters to supply the domestic market, by embedding it in their export licences; and (ii) improve transparency, by transferring the gas market monitoring role from the Australian Competition Consumer Commission to the Australian Energy Regulator, with a requirement to regularly aggregate and publish price and contract terms, and market imbalances. This motion speaks to the heart of our energy security and our economic future. It asks a simple question: will Australians have access to affordable, reliable energy in the years ahead, or will we allow uncertainty and inadequate regulation to undermine our prosperity? My motion is about effective gas market regulation, and, upfront, I want to make something very clear. We have enough gas in this country. We do not have a gas supply problem. We have a gas export problem. To the extent that we have shortfalls predicted on the east coast, it is an infrastructure and distribution problem, not a problem of production. As always, we need to be clear about the facts. Two developments have transformed our gas market. First, in 2015 liquefied natural gas exports began from Gladstone, Queensland, and within a decade 75 per cent of total east coast gas demand was being exported overseas. Overall, around 80 per cent of gas produced in Australia is being exported. Second, production from traditional, south-eastern fields, particularly Gippsland, is falling sharply. Peak day production capacity there will drop by 58 per cent between 2024 and 2028. Governments have tried to manage this risk since 2017. We've seen the Turnbull government's Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, codified to become a Heads of Agreement under the Morrison government, and then the Gas Market Code introduced by the Albanese government. These measures have helped avert shortfalls—but at a cost. Buyers and sellers alike are frustrated. Long-term contracts have shrunk, and short-term deals have surged from 28 petajoules in 2021 to 79 petajoules in 2024. This is not stability; this is volatility, and Australians deserve better. They deserve a gas market that's predictable, reliable, affordable and transparent. It should not be difficult to achieve this, and yet, today, our system depends on ad hoc ministerial decisions and quarterly negotiations with LNG exporters. This is no way to run a market—a market that underpins manufacturing, electricity generation and household energy security. Worse still, the fact that a huge majority of our gas is exported means Australians may be in the absurd position of paying more for our gas than people in international markets do. Japan has even started reselling the Australian gas that it imports, which is surplus to requirements, at a substantial profit. Something has to give, and my motion sets out a clear path forward. First, it calls for the government to ensure that uncontracted gas is offered to the domestic market at a reasonable price before it is exported. This principle is not radical; it's common sense. Second, it calls for an end to the cycle of changing interventions. We need a single, integrated framework that operates continuously, not a patchwork of mechanisms that require constant activation. Export licences should carry an ongoing obligation to supply the domestic market. Third, the motion calls for a thorough review of the Future Gas Strategy, and that review must go beyond supply. It must consider demand management, the impact of gas users across the economy and our climate commitments. Gas will play a role in the transition to net zero, but what role and for how long? Without clarity, investors cannot make decisions about pipelines, storage or regasification of terminals, and, without those investments, the risk of a south-east gas shortfall will increase. Fourth, the motion calls for transparency. Today, the ACCC monitors the gas market while the AER oversees the broader energy system. This duplication creates confusion. The monitoring role should move to the AER, supported by AEMO's forecasting, with a requirement to publish aggregated price and contract data and market imbalances. Transparency is the foundation for efficiency and trust. Finally, the motion anchors reform in two objectives: an ongoing obligation on LNG exporters to supply the domestic market and improved transparency through regular publication of market data. These changes will give suppliers, investors and large users the confidence that they need to invest in clean technologies and infrastructure—and this is not just about gas. It's about energy security, economic competitiveness and the credibility of our transition to net zero. If we fail to act, manufacturers will face higher costs, householders will face even higher energy bills, and our electricity system will face greater risk during peak demand. If we succeed, we'll have a market that works—one that delivers affordable energy, supports jobs and aligns with our climate goals. (Time expired)
Food Insecurity | Adjournment | House debates
One in three, or 3½ million, Australian households experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months, according to the Foodbank hunger report 2025, which was released yesterday. The report...
One in three, or 3½ million, Australian households experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months, according to the Foodbank hunger report 2025, which was released yesterday. The report paints a stark picture of widening food insecurity across our nation, debunking the myth that hunger only affects the unemployed or the homeless. It affects people everywhere, including in my electorate of Bradfield. The Foodbank hunger report 2025reveals that cost-of-living pressure remains the No. 1 concern for 91 per cent of food-insecure households, followed by housing and the broader economy. Behind the data, there are some real stories of families forced to skip meals so children can eat, workers going hungry to pay rising rents and people living with disability or illness struggling to put food on the table. What is food insecurity? It's a broad spectrum. Marginal food insecurity means you're worried about whether your food will run out. That is the case for about 11 per cent of Australians, but they are not in the 'one in three' category I mentioned earlier. Food insecurity takes in those that are moderately to severely insecure. If you're moderately food insecure, that means you compromise your meal choices. That is the case for 13 per cent of Australians. That means you may not choose to buy proteins like beef or nuts, or you switch out fresh fruit produce for lower-priced, less-perishable frozen fruit. Severe food insecurity means you're skipping meals—not just possibly one meal but not eating for a whole day. A troubling 20 per cent of Australians are in this category, and it's having crushing impacts on individuals and families. This week I spoke with a GP who told me that there are an increasing number of people, particularly women, presenting to his surgery with low health standards—fatigue, anaemia, anxiety, depression. When this happens, his first question goes to the patient's lifestyle and food choices, asking whether they are eating poorly or skipping meals. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is increasingly: yes, they are. The report's most alarming findings include that one in two renting households have experienced food insecurity in the past year. Seven in 10 households that include someone with a disability or with a health issue have experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months. Three-quarters of them are in the 'severe' category. Nearly seven in 10 single-parent households are now food insecure. One in five households earning $91,000 or more experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months. All this, frankly, is crazy in a country like Australia in 2025—that families are skipping meals while, at the same time, good food is ending up in landfill. It's madness that it is cheaper for food producers to throw away perfectly good food than to donate it. The good news is that, as well as properly analysing and explaining the problem, Foodbank have designed a solution. They've put on the table a sensible and modest tax change that would mean good food goes to people like the mum who goes without breakfast in the morning so her kids can eat before school, rather than that food going to landfill. The change would incentivise small and medium-sized food producers such as farmers and growers to donate surplus fresh food to registered food charities. It would do this by producing a cashback or tax credit for businesses based on the costs incurred in donating that food. As I said, it's a small change—and I mean a modest government investment of around $50 million a year—and it would only cover a portion of the costs incurred by food producers when donating excess food to charities. But it would tip the scales when businesses are considering whether to donate or dump. Independent modelling shows a tax incentive by 2030 would deliver enough food for the equivalent of 100 million meals, save producers and businesses money and help halve food waste. This proposal is a win for families, a win for small and medium-sized producers who can find a new market for their produce and a win for the environment. When I asked the Treasurer a question in question time yesterday, I was delighted to hear that he is aware of the idea for a tax incentive and that he takes these kinds of suggestions seriously. He said that Labor is always looking for ways to help people with the cost of living, especially the most vulnerable. I thank the Treasurer for his interest, and I'm excited about the opportunity to work with him and with the member for Fenner, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, to achieve this important reform that will so positively impact struggling Australian families.
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) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), before item 2, insert: 1A After section 3A Insert: 3B Climate principles...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), before item 2, insert: 1A After section 3A Insert: 3B Climate principles Decisions under this Act must have regard to: (a) the protection of the environment from climate change, including the impacts of climate change on matters of national environmental significance; and (b) the impact of global greenhouse gas emissions on matters of national environmental significance and the environment, and the need to reduce those emissions to ensure that those matters and the environment are protected; and (c) the need to promote and support adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change; and (d) the contribution of biodiversity and functioning ecosystems to climate change mitigation and adaptation; and (e) Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and (f) Australia's international climate change obligations including under the Paris Agreement; and (g) any other climate related matter set out in a regulation or a standard. (2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 11), after item 234, insert: 234A At the end of subsection 136(1) Add: ; (c) climate change matters. To explain my amendments to these bills, the bills comprising the first overhaul to our nature laws in a quarter of a century, it's useful to go back to first principles. Why do we have nature laws? What's the purpose of them? I think, if you ask the average person on the street those questions, they would answer, 'Surely, the primary purpose of nature protection laws is to protect nature.' That's a proposition that's really hard to argue with. The next question is: if the purpose of nature laws is to protect nature, what does nature need protecting from? There are many threats to nature, but the key ones that have fuelled the species extinction crisis of the past 25 years are habitat destruction, invasive species and climate change. In their current form, the government's EPBC reforms do very little, if anything, to address these things. In relation to habitat destruction, the current law and the so-called reform bills contain exemptions for land clearing and for logging of native forests. This is just nonsensical, as is the fact that this bill also does very little, if anything, to address climate change impacts. Climate change is among the greatest threats to biodiversity now, with compounding impacts predicted for the future. The federal environment minister is currently not legally bound to consider or authorise to refuse project proposals based on their alignment with Australia's nationally determined contributions made under international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement. This is administratively nonsensical, commercially nonsensical and, frankly, environmentally nonsensical. How is it possible that in 2025 stronger nature laws are drafted without any consideration for two of the most significant threats to nature this decade and for future decades? That's why my amendments are being tabled. This is where they come in. My first amendment takes us back to first principles, which is where we started. It amends the objects of the act, which broadly set out the purpose of the act. The amendment inserts a set of climate principles to be taken into account when decisions are made under the act. They include protecting the environment from climate change, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and the need to reduce emissions, and Australia's international climate change obligations. To repeat, this is because climate change is one of the greatest threats to nature. We need to consider all laws that can mitigate the climate crisis, and we are committed to an international rules based order. That's why I think nature laws should seek to protect nature from climate change and recognise the contribution of a healthy environment towards mitigating against the physical impacts of a changing climate on all Australian communities. My second amendment deals with the same issue in the substance of the bill. It adds climate change matters to the list of issues that must be taken into account when decisions are made to approve projects. These amendments are the absolute bare minimum that this bill should do to address the consequential impacts of climate change on nature. The approach I've taken with my amendments differs from the concept of a climate trigger, which has been so widely discussed in connection with this reform. That's because the government has been very clear, despite how beneficial it would be for nature, that it has no appetite for the introduction of a climate trigger, asserting that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities are adequately addressed under the safeguard mechanism. Just for the Hansard, let it be known the member for Bradfield is currently raising one eyebrow. Instead, my proposal adopts a mainstreaming approach to making the current act responsive to climate change, setting out generally applicable principles which apply across all provisions. The broad application of my amendments will ensure that climate change is considered in all relevant decisions under the act—for example, in deciding whether a threatened species should have a recovery plan or in developing a regional plan. I do not expect the government will support my amendments, but I could not in good conscience be involved in this debate in this place about nature and not raise climate change as something from which nature needs protecting. This is the reason that I commend these amendments to the House.
Bradfield Electorate: Women | Constituency Statements | House debates
I stand today to celebrate three stellar members of the Bradfield community, people who have gone above and beyond the hundreds, even thousands, of outstanding Bradfielders. The first is...
I stand today to celebrate three stellar members of the Bradfield community, people who have gone above and beyond the hundreds, even thousands, of outstanding Bradfielders. The first is Sallianne McClelland, outgoing president of Wahroonga Rotary. Named Hornsby Woman of the Year in 2018 for her incredible hard work, passion and determination to ensure the success of the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter, Sallianne has gone from strength to strength, using her energy and ingenuity to contribute to our local community. Continuing as an advocate with the broader Women's Community Shelters, she now serves as deputy mayor on Hornsby Shire Council and has been invaluable in her leadership as president of Wahroonga Rotary. Sallianne has also worked directly for the benefit of younger generations in northern Sydney in her role as the volunteer club president and director of the PCYC Northern Beaches, contributing to sports, mentorship programs and crime prevention initiatives. Next up is Mayor Christine Kay, who has used her leadership position in Ku-ring-gai local government to be a powerful advocate for advancing gender equality in so many efficient ways. Elected mayor in 2024, Christine has wasted no time in using her role to foster a framework of cooperation and community-mindedness. Just some examples include championing the council setting aside grant funding of $100,000 to fight violence against women. She launched a clothing drive to empower women, partnering with Dress for Success. She established an advisory committee on council for the status of women. Furthermore, she launched a new award in July 2025 to honour inspiring women leaders and announced a menopause forum in September 2025 as part of council's commitment to supporting the health and wellbeing of women in her community. Then there is Mayor Tanya Taylor, who leads Willoughby City Council with a strong focus on sustainability, inclusivity, community engagement and cultural development. Here are just some of the practical ways that the mayor has demonstrated that she's so effective. She has trialled food-only waste collections in apartments as part of a $1 million multicouncil initiative, instituted an award-winning initiative called 'Hi Neighbours' which fosters connections between people who are living in high-rise apartments, developed a reconciliation action plan to strengthen cultural understanding and inclusion, and supported events like the vibrant and diverse Emerge festival, which celebrates the richness of our different local arts and cultural communities. It's plain to see that, through leadership activities like these, these extraordinary women in Bradfield are finding strength in diversity and building social connections and community empowerment, which means that everyone in Bradfield benefits. I tip my hat to these extraordinary women for their local leadership across Bradfield and beyond.
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), omit "members.", substitute "members; and". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), omit "members.", substitute "members; and". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), at the end of subsection 110ABA(2), add: (e) 2 persons, each of whom is a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator but not a member of the Government or the Opposition. In this year's federal election, Independents and minor parties received more votes than the Liberal-National coalition, achieving 34 per cent of the primary vote. While Labor would have us focus on their 94-seat so-called supermajority, only about 35 per cent of Australians gave Labor their first preference. This is no anomaly. This is a very long trend in Australian politics. In 1975, minor parties and Independents accounted for only four per cent of the primary vote. Fifty years later, the non-major-party vote of 34 per cent represents the highest recorded since the emergence of the two-party system. That's nearly a ninefold increase. This is the modern Australian political landscape—a third of the votes for Labor, a third for the coalition and a third for the rest. Understandably, the major parties do not like this trend, and, understandably, they would like the status quo to remain where the two major parties are the only voices in Australian politics, and this bill is evidence of that. For good reason, the government is creating a parliamentary joint committee on defence, and the stated aim of the bill is to inject greater parliamentary transparency and accountability and oversight of Defence. In fact, I was very interested to hear the member for Fremantle speak on this bill last week. He seems to share my view in relation to the committee, noting it is important that, with respect to matters of national security and the national intelligence community, ordinary parliamentarians who are not members of the executive can have some visibility over these matters. These are worthy aims, and I am very much on board. Other committees in this place have rules that not only allow but require crossbench members to be part of them. Membership of this proposed committee has no such requirement. It has no requirement that a member of the crossbench be included—members of parliament who the Australian people have entrusted with a third of their vote, the same as Labor and the same as the coalition. The bill provides only for government or non-government members. In fact, the appointment provisions are identical to the appointment provisions for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This means that, in practice, both the Intelligence and Security Committee and the proposed Defence Committee will never include members from the Australian parliament's crossbench. There is something wildly arrogant about this—that when it comes to security and intelligence matters, when it comes to the defence of our nation, only Labor, Liberal and National Party members are considered qualified to weigh in; only major-party members are to be trusted to oversee these vitally important matters. This is despite the breadth of experience on the crossbench in relation to these matters—the member for Calare, for example, and the member for Clark. The member for Clark has been a lieutenant colonel in the Australian Army, has had senior management roles with an American defence contractor, has served as an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments and is a two-time winner of the Australian Intelligence Medal. That membership of the Labor, Liberal or National Party makes you more qualified than this to serve on a defence committee is preposterous. The defence of our country, the security of our citizens is a matter for the entire nation, not just those elected to major parties. My constituents and the constituents of every one of the 13 members of the crossbench in this place deserve to be represented. It's profoundly undemocratic. I fail to understand how it can be justified. The amendment that I am proposing to this bill simply requires that one crossbench member from the House and one crossbench member from the Senate be appointed to the Defence Committee—simple, fair, democratic and entirely reasonable. To repeat, this is now a firmly established trend in Australia's voting patterns. At this year's election, 34 per cent of voting Australians—that's 6,150,000 people in this country—put their trust in independents and minor parties. That is 6,150,000 who wanted those candidates to represent them in parliament, in all aspects of the business of this parliament. Locking out elected members in order to protect the major-party duopoly does not pass the pub test. The duopoly ignores the reality of the Australian political landscape of the 21st century at its peril. I commend this amendment to the House.
Cost of Living | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Treasurer. Foodbank Australia's Hunger report2025 reveals that one in three Australian households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. This means that...
My question is to the Treasurer. Foodbank Australia's Hunger report2025 reveals that one in three Australian households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. This means that 3½ million Australian families could be going without food tonight. Foodbank has a proposal that would make it cheaper for food producers to donate excess food to those in need, reduce food waste and save taxpayers' dollars. Will the Treasurer commit to legislating a national food donation tax incentive which would achieve these aims?