Julian Leeser
Berowra · Liberal Party · Australia
“Third, the bill gives the minister unilateral power to impose conditions on higher education providers under the new section 36-65 of the HESA, which is introduced by this bill. The current version of section 36-65 of the HESA requires that there be an agreement in place with the provider. The new version does not.”
“Presumably, if you're a university and you get a bad decision, then your only recourse is judicial review, litigation or a constitutional writ. It's not a great option when the target of your litigation will be the minister who will make the future decisions that shape your ongoing financial viability.”
“This bill changes it from capped funding to capped places, but the places cost different amounts depending on the course. The Commonwealth contribution to a history degree is $1,316; agriculture costs $32,400. Could a university which typically teaches history be allocated 100 places and decide to convert them to agriculture?”
“I said very clearly that I understand the value of international students to Australia. I also said: We will want to make changes to the settings around international students, but I want the sector to know that we want to work closely with you to develop these policies and announce them in due course.”
“This so-called system steward, ATEC, can be bypassed at any time by a minister choosing to exercise this power. Again, this means universities are, under this bill, subject to extraordinary control by this minister or any future minister.”
“He said that Australian kids should be taught Australian values, which he defined as democracy, the rule of law, basic freedoms and a fair go.”
The complete record
Every one of 784 lines we hold for Julian Leeser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 16.
“It's the concept of a letterbox in schools. Students can write down their worries, or draw a picture, if that's easier, and place it in the letterbox. The principal then collects the notes, shares them with the student's teacher and makes sure those concerns are taken seriously. Ashleigh gave me some examples. The student might be anxious about an upcoming maths test, they might be feeling left out on the playground, or they might be struggling and don't know what to do. Her idea also brings our community together. I've been speaking to some of our local men's sheds about helping build these letterboxes so that they can be rolled out across our community. Ashley is here today in the parliament with her family: brother, Miles, and parents, Blair and Erin.”
“It's not every day that you get a wonderful idea from a young person in your electorate that is a reminder that you're never too young to make a difference. That's what happened to me recently when Ashleigh Dewhurst, a year 4 student from Pennant Hills Public School, reached out to me with a thoughtful and practical proposal to address some of the challenges young people face in schools. Ashleigh explained that many young people feel too shy, embarrassed and afraid to speak up about the worries on their mind. They might not want to tell a teacher face to face. They might worry that their friends will think they're different. They might not have the words to explain what they're feeling, or they might think that their concerns don't matter. Ashleigh wanted to change this. Her idea is simple, inexpensive and powerful.”
“Each year 1,528 Australians die from brain cancer and another 1,896 are diagnosed. This should concern each and every one of us. If we're serious about changing outcomes, we need to do more to support patients, families and research. In Berowra we have dozens of families who have lived through or are currently going through the devastation of brain tumour diagnosis. That's why the Brain Tumour Alliance and its wonderful event Head to the Hill are so important today. I want to acknowledge others in my community—in particular, Ben Murray, Christine Whittall and Danielle Ballantine—who, along with Philippa, shared stories with me and helped me bring awareness of this important issue to the parliament today. Your message is being heard, and I'll continue to advocate on your behalf and on behalf of other families across the Berowra community.”
“Today I met with Philippa Ryan, who told me the story of her husband, John. John was an award-winning builder working across residential and commercial construction and a local in our community. Only recently retired, John love golf and, more than anything, he loved his family. John was a husband, a father of three and a grandfather to seven. Last year, John passed away from glioblastoma, after being diagnosed only four months earlier. John's story was devastating to hear, and I thank Philippa for taking the time to share and acknowledge him today. Brain tumours don't discriminate; they can impact anyone at any age. In my own family, my grandmother Ruth died of a brain tumour at 49. The survival rates is confronting—just 22 per cent, and for glioblastoma it's only five per cent.”
“But the powers have been introduced essentially without consultation or visibility from the sector, and we don't know what the impact will be. This is why we are seeking to have this bill sent to the Senate committee for a short Senate inquiry—in order to unpack and scrutinise the measures in this bill. It's important that the parliament does its job in scrutinising legislation and hears from stakeholders to understand the full effects before passing the bill. It behoves us as legislators to understand the impacts before we pass this bill into law. I thank the House. Debate adjourned.”
“The purpose of the childcare provisions is to compulsorily acquire information about pricing in order for the government to undertake a policy project. We understand this policy project will be initially done on a voluntary basis but that the secretary will be able to use compulsory powers if necessary. There's an obvious concern about the publication of information that may be a pricing signal. We have asked questions about who will be targeted, who decides who will be targeted and who obtains the information. As it stands, the answers are unclear. What is clear is that this pricing project comes after the Productivity Commission's June 2024 report on child care and the ACCC's childcare price inquiry, which was released in January 2024.”
“As with school education, parents and families and children come in different shapes and sizes. It's important that we as legislators don't tell parents how to run their families and don't mandate a one-size-fits-all system in relation to the way we undertake child care. We need to provide choices for families to meet families where they're at, and that is the thing that will underscore my approach to the question of child care more broadly. The government's explanatory materials to this bill make it clear that the measure relating to child care will be a measure that is sensitive for the sector. We understand that the information collection will start later this year through a secure platform being constructed by Deloitte.”
“This is a modest measure which we understand will only affect a very small number of students and which, given the size of the measure and the way that admissions are regulated currently, has no material impact on admission standards or supply and may help to address a small area of unmet demand. Under this bill, TEQSA also is given additional powers. The powers it is given are to regulate offshore campuses. Why? Why put this ahead of the review that's going on right now into TEQSA's powers and functions? Why is it that, as one stakeholder put to me, institutions are self-accrediting when delivering courses on Australian soil but not when delivering those same courses offshore? The only explanation we have here is that TEQSA has asked for these powers, and we need more explanation than that. Finally, I come to the question of child care.”
“He can do so one day simply if he is satisfied that there are or have been systemic issues in relation to the standard of delivery of the courses included in the class; the courses included in the class provide limited value to Australia's current, emerging and future skills and training needs and priorities; or if it is in the public interest to do so. That power is essentially unchecked. It's a massive power. It's arguably duplicative of the functions of the regulators, and I am worried that this might result in administrative law litigation. There is a measure in this bill as well in relation to Indigenous medical students.”
“In response, the government said: The Minister for Home Affairs will consider expanding the remit of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA) to include education agents as providers of visa advice. An expanded OMARA role would be complemented by increased accountability of education providers, without requiring separate regulatory infrastructure in the Department of Education. What about other parts of the bill? Other parts of the bill dealing with education integrity also raise concerns. For instance, the minister's power in schedule 7 to wake up and cancel any course in Australia is completely unchecked.”
“While we understand the intent is to capture all situations where there are monetary and non-monetary agreements and benefits to agents, it is not clear how a compliance regime will support the identification of non-monetary benefits. These are real challenges. Will part 2 of schedule 1, in effect, drive up commissions in the education agents sector? This warrants careful consideration and I am concerned that consideration has not yet been given. All these concerns remain in relation to the bill before the House. I note that the government's approach here is a very long way removed from what it said it would do. Recommendation 13 in the Nixon review proposed regulating onshore and offshore education agents and adopting a model similar to that of the United States.”
“The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry submission stated: … the broad definition of 'associate' may pose logistical challenges for providers, potentially deterring valuable investments and complicating compliance. To mitigate these issues, it is crucial to carefully consider the unintended consequences of these broad definitions before progressing the Bill. In the last parliament, the submission from Independent Higher Education Australia stated: While IHEA supports clarity through the definition of an education agent, the references to people who "provide advice or assistance" to overseas students or are "otherwise dealing with overseas students" seems quite broad, far-reaching and may capture people who are not engaged in a financially beneficial relationship with a provider.”
“The review also deals with the current regulators for the education sector, being TEQSA and ASQA, who play no role in the supervision of education agents. Instead, the onus is on the education provider to ensure that the agents they deal with do not engage in false, misleading or unethical recruitment practices. When this bill was last before the parliament it included definitions of the terms 'education agent' and 'education agent commission' and inserted a 'fit and proper person' test for providers engaging with education agents. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the breadth of the new definition of 'education agent' that may have had unintended consequences.”
“The debate in the last parliament was dominated by Labor's bungled handling of the overseas student caps issue. Those caps are not part of this bill, but that doesn't mean that the other provisions of the bill are without flaw. In the last parliament, coalition senators who looked at elements of this bill in the course of the Senate committee inquiry raised a number of concerns about missteps and overreach. For instance, parts 1 and 2 of the bill are about education agents, commissions and information sharing. They're intended to address integrity concerns across the education sector following the release of the R apid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa syste m by Christine Nixon. The Nixon review cited the fact that approximately 75 per cent of international students seek the assistance of an education agent.”
“Yes, I do urge the government to support coalition moves to strengthen our laws to remove child sex offenders from our streets and to protect our communities. That is not partisan, but it is urgent. As I said to the minister, I'll countenance any serious proposal to further improve safety in our childcare centres. I want to turn to some of the specific mechanisms in this bill, because some of these measures have been before the parliament previously in the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, which was never put to a vote in the Senate. This is not just a reheat of previous policy, because the parliament has not seen more than half of the measures that are in this bill that is currently before the parliament.”
“We supported the actions of attorneys-general in relation to the working-with-children checks and even called for it to be sped up, which the Attorney did. Just this week we sought to introduce a bill to deal with the sentencing of child sex offenders and made it clear that this isn't partisan but it is urgent. We repeat our request for government support for these initiatives. When it comes to child care, safety must be the No. 1 priority. This morning I wrote to the education minister making clear that, in our view, further action is needed to restore confidence in the sector. I was informed a moment before speaking here that the education minister has written back to me just now. I look forward to reading his letter. We're not interested in taking a partisan line on these issues.”
“Parts of this bill are designed, the government says, to inform future policy work in the childcare sector. That's good, and it's necessary. But it's also time for immediate action. Last night I watched the revelations on Four Corners about the way that paedophiles have been operating in Australian childcare centres. It was horrific; it's one of the most bloodcurdling and disturbing things I've ever seen on Australian television. We've treated this with the utmost seriousness. Our approach as the opposition has always been to put children first. We've not taken a partisan view on this at any point. We supported the government's response to the horrific incidents we saw this year in Melbourne.”
“We're moving into a world where the ability to adapt will be definitive of success, and there's a growing unease that our education system is just not there. While the data tells a story of the stunning success in women's education, it also tells of the decline in men's education. In 2015, 168,000 young men started their higher education journey. By 2024, that number had dropped to 158,000. This was all while our national population increased by almost 3.4 million over the same period. What's driving this trend? Is it a trend we will see continue into the future? Do the changes that we're making in bills like this one contribute to that trend in our higher education sector? These are the types of concerns, among others, we should be thinking about. In some areas the concerns are immediate.”
“We never want to fall into the trap of low expectations. We owe it to our children to deliver explicit teaching wherever it's needed and to empower our teachers and our principals to combat classroom disruption. The fitness for purpose of our education system is not only in what it teaches; it's in how well it prepares the next generation for the years to come. Foundations are meant to be built upon. What's clear to me is that Australians need to be lifelong learners. There's a phrase often attributed to the American thinker Alvin Toffler, who said, 'The illiterate of the 21st century won't be those who cannot read and write but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.' Ironically, it appears the quote may have been inaccurate or misattributed—but it's a good line and it makes a clear point.”
“They know their teachers are trying to give students the foundational knowledge that is so crucial to setting them up for success. I'm a strong believer that students need to develop deep foundational knowledge to set them up and to help them understand the world around them. I want to say to Australian parents: the bases of a strong education, in reading, writing, maths, science and a proper and deep understanding of our history, are non-negotiable. These are the foundations of learning. It's only when these foundations are right that we can properly prepare our children for the future. Without those foundations, we are failing to equip our children with the tools they need to build successful and productive careers. We should expect that our education system will set high standards and drive excellence in these fields.”
“It's not my job to tell parents what is best for their children. Parents know what's best for their children. It's my job to make sure that parents have the greatest range of options so that they can choose what's best for their family. The education system needs to be set up to allow parents to make that choice. My role is to do everything I can so that whatever choice they make is a good choice. I only need to look at my own electorate, where we have outstanding government, Catholic and independent schools. As shadow education minister, you will never hear me attack our teachers. Australians love their schools. They know that their schools bring communities together. They know their teachers work hard, and that they care deeply about their students.”
“Of those, more than 1.1 million are domestic students, and there are 589,000 international students. Student numbers are recovering from the pandemic, but men are less likely to commence higher education than they were 10 years ago. In the 2023-24 financial year, international education was worth $51 billion to the Australian economy, with $30.2 billion paid in GST and $20.6 billion paid in tuition fees. It is a major export industry and a major asset to our country. What does this data tell us to date? There are stories in all of these figures. Take, for example, the extraordinary growth in independent and Catholic schools over the last five years. To me, that data shows broader trends. It shows that, in our society, parents want choice, and they will make sacrifices to choose the option that is right for them.”
“For those who use care, the majority attended centre based care, but around 40 per cent were in outside-school-hours care and just under five per cent in family day care. In 2024, there were 341,000 four- and five-year-olds enrolled in a preschool program. There are over four million school students in Australia today. Around 63 per cent of them are in government schools, 20 per cent in Catholic schools and 17 per cent in independent schools. The non-government education sector is now the fastest growing sector, with independent schools growing by more than 18 per cent in the five years to 2024 and Catholic schools growing by more than six per cent. In higher education, there are now 1.6 million students enrolled in our tertiary education institutions.”
“Returning to the specifics of the bill, the bill lays the groundwork for major future changes to the early childhood education and care sector. The impacts of those changes may flow through to other parts of the education sector landscape as it stands today, so it's worthwhile spending a moment or two outlining what that landscape looks like. The June quarter report from this year showed that there were more than a million Australian families using a childcare service, and many of those families have more than one child in child care. We're talking about a total of more than 1.4 million children attending around 15,000 different approved childcare centres. That's just under half of all Australian children aged five and under, or just over a third of children aged 12 and under.”
“In 1996, 10.8 per cent of men and 10.1 per cent of women held a bachelor's degree or higher. In 2024, that number had more than tripled, with 33 per cent of Australians holding a bachelor's degree or above. Beneath that massive change is another social story, about women's education. In 1996, similar proportions of men and women had degrees, with slightly more men than women. By last year, 37 per cent of women between the ages of 15 and 74 had a degree at bachelor's level or higher, compared to 30 per cent of men in the same bracket. If you drill down to the 25 to 34 age bracket, 41 per cent of men but 54 per cent of women had a bachelor's degree or higher. That's an extraordinary change and an extraordinary positive reflection in relation to women's education.”
“Two years ago, Michael Wesley told the Robert Menzies Institute about the catalytic role Menzies played in taking a marginalised and in many ways moribund university system in Australia and breathing into it a grand vision and ambition. He spoke about how Menzies's vision for the universities laid the foundation for the world-class education sector we have today. Menzies understood the transformative power of learning, and if we are to understand the Australian population today we also need to appreciate how higher education has transformed our society. In 1996, the year John Howard was elected prime minister, 42 per cent of the population aged 15 years and over had at least one postschool qualification. By 2024, the proportion of Australians aged between 15 and 74 with a postschool qualification had jumped to 63 per cent.”
“In 1966, whilst speaking at the University of Melbourne campus, Menzies was heckled by an angry student who wanted him to put more money into education. Menzies shot back: 'No government has ever put into money into education than I have. After listening to you, I can understand what vast amounts we still have to spend.' Menzies's own life had been transformed through scholarships and educational opportunities. In fact, so much of his education policy reflected that biography and background. He wanted to give other Australians the same opportunities he'd had. Menzies promoted a liberal education through the universities as a public good that benefited the whole of Australian society.”
“So I want to take the opportunity to say a few words about the education system more generally so that there's a proper understanding of this bill in its context, because one of the most profound shifts in our country in the last 30 years has been in the way in which we educate children. There are major demographic changes that have altered the shape of our country. These are grand demographic, cultural and lifestyle shifts which have really only become apparent through multiple censuses and public policy datasets over 20 years or more and are now reshaping our society. The trends are slow, but they're profound. My approach to these things is shaped by the great Sir Robert Menzies, who was a tremendous believer in the transformative power of education.”
“But education is a journey that continues through life. When you make changes to one part of the system, there are always downstream consequences. So, when we talk about changes to the early childhood education and care sector, we should also necessarily be talking about the downstream impacts on schools and eventually on vocational and higher education. When you talk about changes that have downstream impacts across our education system, you're talking about millions of Australian students, from very young children through to adult learners and their families. This is the systemic viewpoint that's necessary for this sort of bill, and it would be remiss of me not to put these changes in a broader context.”
“I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill does four things: first, it deals with issues in the international education sector; second, it lifts the caps on Commonwealth supported places for Indigenous medical students; third, it gives new powers to TEQSA to regulate the delivery of higher education on offshore campuses; and, fourth, it introduces powers to compulsorily obtain and publish information in relation to pricing and service delivery in child care. There are also some other technical amendments. In a sense, this is a bill that bookends the education system. It deals with education in the very early stages of life—in the early childhood education and care sector—as well as in the higher education field. It's arguably quite targeted in that respect.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. There can be few more important or urgent matters for parliament to deal with than the prevention of child sexual abuse and the bringing of perpetrators to justice, as is outlined in this bill. I said all of the things I wanted to say when we moved a suspension of standing orders recently. This is not a partisan matter, but it is an urgent matter. On that basis, I cede the remaining part of my time to the new shadow Attorney-General, the member for Fisher.”
“I commend this motion to the House, and I encourage members to vote for the urgency that is needed to deal with these matters today.”
“Yesterday I saw the Attorney's comments on Sky News indicating that she was open to the bill, and I welcome the bipartisan spirit in which they were made. In that same spirit, last night I wrote to the Attorney again, attaching a copy of the legislation, flagging our intention to introduce it today and again asking for support. It's disappointing that the spirit of bipartisanship did not extend to allowing us leave to introduce this bill today. I would have preferred not to attempt to suspend standing orders, but this is an issue on which there's clear and legitimate need for urgent action. This is an issue on which we've sought to find common ground, and that common ground is very simple: any adult who sexually abuses a child should do serious prison time. I don't think there's a parent in Australia who'd disagree with us.”
“In those cases, the minimum will now be six years. The remaining items deal with the recognisance release order scheme, which was the mechanism used in Maloney to release the offender after only six months for the Commonwealth offences. The bill addresses these issues by making it clear that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a court that is sentencing a person for child sex offences must not grant a recognisance release order. I want to conclude by emphasising that from the very beginning the coalition has sought to take a constructive and bipartisan approach to this issue. I wrote to the Attorney on 6 October flagging the coalition's grave concerns with the outcome we'd seen in Victoria and our intentions to introduce this bill. We asked for the government's support to do so.”
“But, when they saw the extent of community backlash, they dropped their opposition. They didn't insist on their amendments to the scheme, and they facilitated its passage on a bipartisan basis through the parliament. The mechanics of the bill that we propose to introduce if we get urgency are very straightforward. The bill would amend the Crimes Act to establish mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for the five offences I mentioned earlier. This is done in items 1, 2 and 3 of the schedule to the bill, which amend section 16AAA of the Crimes Act. This is the first-offence regime. Section 16AAB of the Crimes Act deals with the second and subsequent offences. This bill, in items 3 and 4, increases the existing mandatory minimum sentences for a second or subsequent instance of these offences.”
“It has significant flexibility and important carve-outs for things such as underage offenders so you don't end up with a situation where children themselves end up being in prison. It's been the subject of a statutory review. As the Attorney herself has acknowledged, the review showed the existing scheme's been effective. As a result of that scheme, we've seen the proportion of offenders pleading guilty increase, that imprisonment and total effective sentences are generally longer, and a higher number of offenders commit to rehabilitation. What does this lead to? It leads to safer streets and safer communities for all our children. I want to acknowledge that that bill was eventually passed with bipartisan support. Labor initially pressed the Senate to remove the mandatory sentencing regime and, in fact, were successful in doing so.”
“We're not asking the parliament to deal with complex questions of fault and criminal guilt; we're dealing with sentencing only. More specifically, we're talking about the existing mandatory sentencing regime found in part 1B of the Crimes Act. The existing mandatory sentencing regime in part 1B of the Crimes Act is a legacy of the former coalition government. The case for the scheme was clear. Before it passed into law, 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders did not serve a single day in prison. There was a clear need to strengthen our sentencing regime, so the coalition introduced a bill in 2019. Among other things, it delivered a carefully calibrated mandatory minimum sentencing scheme for child sex offenders. This is not the sort of flat scheme that's usually criticised in academic literature.”
“Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through a carriage service is an offence under 474.23 of the code, and this appears to have been the other offence at issue in the Maloney case. The bill also deals with sentences for analogues of these offences that involve the use of a postal service. That's using a postal or similar service for child abuse material, an offence under 471.19 of the code, and possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through postal or similar services, an offence under 471.20 of the code. These are all existing offences. The bill that we seek urgency to bring on does not change them or introduce new ones.”
“Those are offences that involve the use of the internet or communications networks. Second, it establishes child sex offences that involve the use of a postal service. This bill today is a simple bill. It's about the sentences that are handed down for five existing offences. There is using a carriage service for child abuse material, which is an offence under section 474.22 of the Criminal Code. This is the provision that, among others, makes it an offence to transmit child abuse material. This is one of the offences at issue in the Maloney case. Another is possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service, which is an offence under 474.22(a) of the Criminal Code and is more or less self-explanatory.”
“It's for Victoria and the Allan government to account for the justice system in that state, but, at the Commonwealth level, there is something seriously wrong with our sentencing regime if a person can produce 77 separate files of child abuse material and then transmit them to the world at large via the internet and face just six months in prison. These sentences don't reflect community expectations. They're a travesty, and this bill seeks to correct that. The Commonwealth doesn't have a general power to make criminal laws; that's the preserve of the states. Commonwealth crimes must be linked to a head of constitutional power, and that means the Commonwealth Criminal Code deals with child sex offences in Australia in two ways. First, it establishes child sex offences that involve the use of a carriage service.”
“The offender in the Maloney case was convicted of three offences: one state offence for the sexual abuse of their child and two Commonwealth offences for producing and transmitting child sexual abuse material. Each of those Commonwealth offences carries a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment, but, shockingly, in the Maloney case, the court directed that the offender serve just six months for those Commonwealth offences. After that, the offender will be released on a recognisance release order, which is similar to a good behaviour bond. Six months—it's just appalling.”
“We know this from data released by the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and others. Australian families rightly expect that any person who commits these appalling crimes should be removed from the community for a very long time. They should serve serious time in prison. But the Maloney case also highlights a problem: the offender in that case will be eligible for release after just 2½ years. That's a shockingly low sentence. It means that the young girl who was so shockingly abused by her father will not even be eight years old when her abuser is back on the streets. When you dig into the detail of the sentencing, it gets worse. The need for action by us here in this federal parliament becomes clear.”
“It involved a father who abused a five-year-old daughter on 19 separate occasions, producing and transmitting 77 separate files of child sexual abuse material. These files included 13 videos and 64 images. The judgement makes for very difficult reading, and I don't intend to repeat it here. Like every child in that situation, she was powerless. She was five. She was vulnerable and dependent. But the point that made it particularly difficult for me was when it became clear that, as she was being abused, the young girl knew what was happening to her was wrong. On at least two occasions she told the father she didn't like it. She told him she didn't like it. No child should have to do that. The worst thing about it is that there are literally tens of thousands of instances that involve that type of horrific abuse or worse every year.”
“That's an average of more than 226 a day. It's a figure that bears repeating: over the course of the last year, there have been more than 226 reports of online child sexual exploitation every single day. It's an epidemic of child sexual abuse. In just the last year we've seen a 41 per cent jump in online child sexual abuse exploitation reports. It's sickening, it's sadistic, and it's happening every day. It's clear that more needs to be done and in particular that there's an urgent need to strengthen our sentencing regime to remove predators from our communities and protect all Australian children. The need for urgent action to strengthen our sentencing regime is highlighted by the case of DPP v Maloney, which has attracted significant attention in the last fortnight. That's the case that was handed down in the County Court of Victoria.”
“Any person who commits one of these crimes should expect to do serious prison time, and I don't think there's a parent in the country who'd disagree with me. This bill is about restoring community confidence that the law treats these crimes with the seriousness they deserve. When I speak to people in my community and across the country, time and again I hear families who are concerned about child sexual abuse and its proliferation. They're concerned about what we saw in the childcare centres. They're concerned about the safety of children online. They want their children to be safe, and they're sickened by the offences we've seen reported in the media. Data released by the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation revealed that there were 82,764 reports of online child exploitation in 2024-25.”
“I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025. Leave not granted. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Berowra from introducing the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 without notice, with the debate being adjourned to the next sitting following the moving and seconding of the motion for the second reading. We're seeking urgency because this bill is about the safety of our children. It's also about sending an unmistakable message: those who exploit, abuse or prey upon children will face justice. Child sexual offences are some of the most serious offences on the Commonwealth statute book.”
“With the Jewish and Muslim communities now having their own specific antiracism envoys, and the Hindu Council of Australia calling for a Hinduphobia or Indiaphobia envoy, what is the ongoing purpose of the Race Discrimination Commissioner? Isn't this an indictment on the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission broadly? And does the Attorney maintain confidence in this Race Discrimination Commissioner? I end with some important questions. Across the Attorney's portfolio, the story is the same: delays and disappointment. Attorney, will you fix the tribunal backlog? Will you withdraw your truth tax? Will you reform the Australian Human Rights Commission into a body that protects all Australians equally? And will you confront the failures you've inherited from your predecessor?”
“For months it could barely bring itself to mention antisemitism. It was more interested in the rights of protesters. The Race Discrimination Commissioner continues to refuse to condemn the antisemitic phrase 'from the river to the sea'. Its contractors and staff made shocking prejudiced remarks about Jewish Australians. Attorney, why is a commission that costs nearly $16 million failing to provide the very protection for the Australians it was created to defend? Why should taxpayers pay commissioners $400,000 salaries to ignore the needs of law-abiding Australians and instead undertake ideological pursuits?”
“Under this government the commission has been stacked with activists who are failing to do their jobs. The ANAO reported at the start of this year that the timeliness of the complaints-handling function, the commission's most important function, has been declining. At a time when antisemitism has reached unprecedented levels in our country, the commission has been MIA. We've seen shops trashed, cars burned and synagogues attacked. We've seen the mobs at the Sydney Opera House steps chanting 'gas the Jews' or 'where's the Jews', while law-abiding Australians were not able to go to their opera house. We've seen gangs driving through Caulfield boasting about hunting for Jews. We've seen the survivors of October 7—survivors of the worst loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust—abused on Australian soil. And what has the commission done?”
“This is a government that's talked a big game about open government, but it has instead entrenched secrecy. FOI refusals have spiked. Non-disclosure agreements are now routine. Senate orders for the production of documents are being ignored. Standing orders in the House have been changed to limit scrutiny. Staff who hold governments accountable have been slashed. And now the government wants to introduce a truth tax. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill is nothing more than a cash grab to curtail Australians' right to know what their government is doing. Attorney, can you honestly say your bill is about reform rather than revenue? Can you explain why, when every major transparency group says this bill should be withdrawn, your government insists on pushing ahead? Then there's the Human Rights Commission.”