Zali Steggall
Warringah · Independent · Australia
“These amendments don't prevent the government from reforming the NDIS. They don't prevent the government from managing costs and they don't prevent the government from improving sustainability, but they do ensure that participants can seek reassessment when their plan no longer meets their needs.”
“The NDIS was built on a simple promise that Australians with disability would have access to the reasonable and necessary supports they needed to live with dignity, participate in the community and exercise choice and control over their own lives. The NDIS must be sustainable. It must be well governed.”
“If a decision has a practical effect of cutting a participant's support, then it should be treated as it is: a decision that affects that participant. Put simply, if your funding is significantly cut, you should have review rights. The third amendment deals with the review rights where funding is significantly reduced.”
“I rise to recognise the incredible work of some incredibly passionate women at the Arise Foundation and to call for greater investment in recovery and healing for women leaving violence. For too many women, the crisis does not end when they leave.”
“Reform must not mean that people are pushed away from work, study or volunteering because the supports that make participation possible have been overlooked by a system that has become more and more automated. The first amendment deals with plan reassessment.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (line 22), at the end of subsection 48A(1), add: ; and (e) alternatively to paragraphs (a) to(d), the participant demonstrates that: (i) the supports are no longer available; or (ii) the plan is insufficient to meet the participant's r…”
The complete record
Every one of 837 lines we hold for Zali Steggall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“This means that we need a more flexible support and welfare system that works for our changing economy, ensuring older Australians can work without the fear of unpredictable tax bills. This should include the flexibility to manage rising rents, cost-of-living pressures and reduced retirement savings. We must act to keep our system fair by lifting and smoothing-out de facto thresholds; reviewing income-test taper rates; aligning pension, Work Bonus and tax settings; and ensuring that the ATO hardship provisions are flexible for low-income welfare recipients. A fairer system will deliver greater dignity, choice and help strengthen our economy. I've written to the government and the minister about this issue that we have to be able to smooth out.”
“When extra classes are available, she's happy to take them, but every additional dollar above the income limit reduces her pension by 50c. Worse, if she crosses the income threshold of just $52,759, even by just a few hundred dollars, she's hit with a tax bill in the thousands and goes backwards. The stress of these unpredictable penalties make her hesitate to take on extra work when it's available. This is not an isolated case. It reflects the broader systemic failures of this system. Other TAFE teachers have reported similar struggles—feeling forced to retire despite rising rents and living costs. We hear a lot in this place about the need for productivity and the fiscal impact of an ageing population.”
“Australia's support system and tax system should make it easier, not harder, for our older Australians to keep working. But, instead of rewarding their contribution, the Work Bonus now punishes them with sudden tax hits, pension losses and complex rules. At a time when we are relying on their skills and experience, the system is pushing them away. That's wrong, and it undermines the very workforce we need to strengthen. We need to tackle age discrimination in the workforce and have more incentives in place for older Australians to continue working where they can and if they want to. I met recently with Mary and Joseph, two Warringah local residents. They're hardworking age pensioners who are living this reality. Mary teaches English at TAFE. She rents, owns no assets beyond an old car and cannot live on the pension alone.”
“We need to be assisting these small businesses rather than taking a stick to them and creating an even more anticompetitive environment by assisting the big players that have access to the on-tap contracts. While I welcome that some measure has been introduced, please do the job properly, make it fair and consistent, create a competitive field for all businesses and, genuinely, put good legislation through this place.”
“I urge government members to have an internal discussion about why you are only picking certain areas of beer to protect or to assist with this excise freeze. The amendments that I propose recognise that the struggling brewing and distilling industries need assistance. They acknowledge the ongoing financial strain. This bill ignores so many distillers entirely. These amendments call on the government to freeze indexation for all alcohol excise until 1 August 2027, not just those that have the passes to come into parliament to advocate on behalf of their industry. They call to 'index the excise remission cap annually in line with inflation' and 'extend the deadlines for payback of excise debt to the ATO'.”
“To ensure that these issues are brought to the fore, I move second reading amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) our local independent breweries and spirit distilleries are in crisis; (b) brewers and distilleries carry a huge financial burden, from growing inflationary pressure to the price of energy, and issues around staffing and the rising cost of alcohol excise taxation; (c) excise on beer and spirits has increased by more than 17 per cent since 2020, adding significant strain on our brewers and the spirits industry; (d) according to the Independent Brewers Association, at least 51 independent brewing businesses entered voluntary administration or closed in the two years to April 2025, as mounting costs and rising excise made it harder to stay viable; (e) Australia's spirits tax remains indexed to CPI twice a year and is one of the highest spirits taxes in the world; and (f) while this Bill provides relief in taxation for draught beer it does not extend this assistance to these other producers; and (2) calls on the government to: (a) freeze indexation of all alcohol excise taxes until at least 1 August 2027; (b) index the excise remission cap annually in line with inflation; and (c) extend the deadlines for payback of excise debt to the ATO".”
“A thriving brewing and distilling sector should be ambitious, innovative, sustainable and supported by a government that is willing to create conditions for small manufacturers to grow. The temporary pause in beer excise indexation is a reprieve for some breweries, but it isn't the long-term solution that alcohol producers of all kinds have been calling for since the pandemic. Broader measures should be taken to address the anticompetitive nature of the beer industry and ensure that the long-term sustainability of the brewing and distilling industries is safeguarded.”
“Again, we have thriving boutique gin distilleries in many areas around the country, yet they don't get any of the assistance that the Hotel Association seems to be able to get for tap beer. We have to look at how we're going to help everyone within this sector—including, in relation to the exclusion of distillers, the rising input costs that continue to outpace revenue. I've already pushed for broader and fairer reforms, including through my letter to the Treasurer, through amendments and through consultation with Warringah's brewing and distilling community. They are pleading for the government to make this fair reform, not just piecemeal and picking at favourites.”
“In just two years to April 2025, 51 independent breweries have closed or entered voluntary administration. They are the small businesses you all talk about. This is a sector worth nearly $2 billion annually to the economy, and, with the right policy settings, distillers could become a $1 billion export industry by 2035. We cannot let short-term piecemeal measures undermine what should be a thriving Australian manufacturing success story. We need a comprehensive strategy. Yes, a pause on draught beer excise indexation is welcome. But it doesn't fix the problem for small business and small breweries. If you really want to give small businesses a fair go, anticompetitive practices in tap contracts need to be looked at, as well as the steep excise cliff once producers exceed the remission cap and the exclusion of distillers.”
“One Warringah brewer has already ceased packaged wholesale production because the indexation freeze only applies to draught beer, not cans or bottles. Others tell me they're approaching the excise cap, and they worry about the steep cliff once they pass it. So how did we get here with such a complex system? Excise on beer and spirits is indexed to the CPI twice a year. Since 2020, excise has risen nearly 20 per cent during the same period. So, thinking about 2020, in five years it's nearly been a 20 per cent increase already. At the same time, for these small businesses, energy prices have surged; hops has increased by more than 50 per cent; malt has risen by nearly 20 per cent in a single year; utility costs have almost doubled; and refrigeration, transport, storage and finance costs have all ballooned.”
“The ACCC report confirmed that a significant proportion of taps in venues are tied to exclusive or near-exclusive supply deals. Therefore, many small breweries are unable to benefit from draught-specific-excise relief regardless of this bill's pause on indexation. Another challenge left completely unaddressed is the competitive barrier affecting growing brewers as they exceed the excise remission cap. Brewing and distillery businesses in Warringah have voiced their frustration at the sharp increase in payable excise as they grow beyond the cap, which erodes profitability. Additionally, the indexation freeze does not extend to bottled or canned alcohol. So, again, we're talking about picking and choosing.”
“When one of these businesses closes, the loss ripples far wider than just the venue. And yet those local brewers and distilleries in Warringah have expressed to me that, while they recognise the positive intent of this legislation, it's practical impact on small independent breweries is likely to be minimal to zero unless they change their operations, because it will only apply to tap draught beer. This is because tap access in pubs and clubs is locked up by long-term contracts with multinational brewers. A 2017 ACCC report confirmed that a significant portion of taps in venues—including many of the venues that I have heard listed by previous speakers, particularly government backbenchers—are tied up by multinational brewers in long-term contracts.”
“From my point of view, I care about small business and I care about making reform and making these kinds of support measures fair to ensure all small businesses have access to them. Warringah is home to an incredibly vibrant brewing and distilling community—from Freshwater Brewing, Dad and Dave's, 7th Day Brewery and Broken Bay Brewing to the iconic Manly Spirits and all the creative makers throughout Brookvale's independent precinct. Our independent brewers and distillers bring together the Warringah community. It's because of them that we have community events such as BrookieFest, an annual precinct-wide street party. They employ locals—young people getting their first job, skilled brewers, hospitality workers and delivery drivers. They support local artists, food suppliers and tourism.”
“Why is it that only the big players that have access to the tap contracts within the hotels and RSLs are having access to this freeze on excise indexation? It leaves behind distillers and barely touches the structural issues facing small brewers, and the government has not given any explanation as to why. There should be no arbitrary policy divide between breweries and distilleries. They're all small manufacturers. They both employ locally, they both enrich our communities and they all deserve a fair go. The government has decided to pick and choose winners rather than extending this support to the whole industry. I have to ask: why is it that the government is only choosing, essentially, to assist an industry that has lobbying power and access to the doors of ministers?”
“Right now across Australia, and sharply felt in Warringah, our independent brewing and distilling industry is in the grip of what many describe as a recession. This industry is integral to our small-business ecosystem and yet, like many small businesses, it is being squeezed from every direction—pandemic-era debt, inflation, rising input costs and an increasingly burdensome excise tax. Last September, together with follow crossbench MPs, I wrote to the Treasurer calling for urgent relief for distilleries and breweries, proposing to reduce the impact of the alcohol excise on distilleries. This bill takes a small step in the right direction. It's a welcome pause in draught beer excise indexation, but what about everyone else in this industry?”
“I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. I have to wonder whether government MPs have genuinely read this legislation when they start talking about how this is going to help small businesses. To be very clear, this Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill is only going to apply to tap beer. So all those small businesses with bottles will not get the benefit of this. So maybe pause and reflect as to why it is that the government is picking and choosing within the same industry. Only the big hotels and associations, like RSLs, and all those that have beer on tap will get a freeze in the excise. Small breweries that bottle will not get this. I am not sure that they are aware of the distinction that is happening.”
“Following this, Sara became the inaugural head of the first women's unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, a role which earned her the nickname Supergirl from the media. Under her leadership, the unit evolved into what we now know as the Office for Women. She then served under Prime Ministers Whitlam and Fraser, and she later shaped the ALP's women's policy for the 1983 federal election and led platforms such as expanded legal aid, family court jurisdiction and the ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Today, Sara has a formidable part to play in the ever-growing story of Warringah. Her's is a prolific story with passion, and I thank her for her incredible passion.”
“The 16 days of activism on domestic and family violence is a timely reminder that gender equality is still unfinished work. Progress is possible only because we stand on the shoulders of the women who paved the way. Earlier this month my team and I had the pleasure of celebrating one of those very remarkable women, Sara Dowse, an extraordinary volunteer who turned 87. Sara is a prolific author, feminist and visual artist. Her novel West Block was one of the first works of fiction set in Canberra, and her book Sapphires won the 1995 ACT book of the year. But it was her career in public service that was truly ground breaking. In 1972, under the new Whitlam government, she was seconded to the office of then Minister for Labour, Clyde Cameron, where she championed equal pay, child care and part-time employment.”
“There is the importance of preserving the jobs and the industry in this sector, and there is also making sure that that diversity of content is made. So what assurance, then, can the government give that those in sectors such as children's programming and documentaries will not completely disappear over the next four years while we wait for the review period?”
“I thank the minister for that clarification, but it does raise a pretty concerning red flag. It does mean that sectors like documentaries or children's content could fall off the map completely over the next four years for the government's having failed to ensure that there is streaming investment in those sectors. What could very well result from this is a complete loss of those Australian stories from our screens because of decisions by international streaming companies to only focus on dramas. Then what will have happened is that we will have in fact failed to protect, through this legislation, and to save Australian stories across the full gamut of what is required to support stories. The storytelling is so important, but there's also the cultural identity and why it is so essential that we continue seeing Australian content.”
“And, whilst I know that speeches can be meaningful and explanatory memoranda are meaningful in assisting ACMA in assessing—especially in four years time, when the review occurs—I think it is very important to give a very clear direction to streamers as to the objects and the intention of the government in this legislation: wanting there to be investment across all sectors. We can't just assume it will be done. By making it explicit in the objects, we make clear the expectation of investment across all areas. I had wanted to move amendments around specific subquotas, but I understand the legal difficulties around that—but that is why I submit that this objects amendment is the best way forward.”
“But, when the screen industry employs over 60,000 Australians, drives a huge amount around creative export and shapes how we Australians see ourselves in our place and in the world—at a time when investment is so critical in these areas and has been falling so dramatically—this amendment just seeks to make sure that it is clear around the intention that the investment should be across all types of content. We know the stories matter. They deserve to be told, to be seen and to be supported by a system that values their contribution to our economy, our identity and our shared future.”
“This is significant, given the broad discretion in the bill for ACMA to make the rules. ACMA's oversight needs to align with parliament's clear expectation that investment be balanced across all culturally significant genres and that Australian stories remain central to our screen environment. The bill is an important step to guaranteeing Australian stories and voices on our screens. It recognises that investment in a broad range of culturally significant areas is important for the strength of our national identity. However, we need to safeguard that intent. The framework must be implemented with clarity, accountability and ambition. We can't afford to get this wrong. I've heard from the minister that there will be a review period and that, in four years time, we will assess whether spending has been balanced across all types of content.”
“The amendment I've circulated seeks to amend the objects to make very clear the intent, which I understand has been indicated by the government, that the investment and this requirement on streamers be across all types of content, from drama to documentary to children's content. It amends the objects clause with a new part 8C of the bill, to clarify the intention of the bill to ensure that streaming services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories by making balanced genre investments across all types mandated in the bill, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content. This amendment would embed the bill's purpose explicitly into the legislation and would ensure that ACMA's oversight and compliance align with the overall intention of the bill.”
“These are shows that Australians gather around and remember for decades to come. Despite quotas being placed for commercial broadcasters, investment in drama, documentary and children's content has been falling significantly. Children make up almost 20 per cent of the population. They require specific content that reflects their world, one that is age-appropriate, educational and distinctly Australian. It's critical for their early education and social development and for building a sense of belonging. Yet the children's sector has been amongst the hardest hit by declining investment.”
“I appreciate the government's engagement on the bill and willingness to discuss concerns that have been raised by local constituents, members of the industries and members of the screen industry as well as streamers. I've met with a number of streamers; I have Stan located in my electorate, and I have met with a number of others. We know the sector requires investments across culturally significant types, including drama, children, documentary, arts or education content. These different types of content help to define Australia's identity. They tell our stories, reflect our lived experience and create shared cultural touchstones. We know drama gives us stories that last, whether that's Mystery Road , The Newsreader , Total Control , Love My Way or Black Snow .”
“I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 27), after section 121FT, insert: 121FTA Object of Part An object of this Part is to ensure that subscription video on demand services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories, by making balanced genre investments across culturally significant genres, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content. This bill ensures that streaming services contribute fairly to the Australian screen sector, supporting our stories and our creative workforce. I start by thanking the minister and the government for their engagement and for acting on this longstanding commitment to protect the screen industry.”
“We know, if we go back to where this all started, the importance of safeguarding our culture and Australian stories on our screens. As more and more households turn to streamers for their content and their entertainment, we have to make sure there are good Australian stories being told. Streamers like Stan have been putting in great content—some of my favourite shows of recent years have been from there—but we have to make sure that all platforms are contributing to this incredible industry and make sure that we keep saving Australian stories.”
“We have to avoid a scenario where increased investment flows primarily to foreign owned companies operating in Australia behind corporate veils. I welcome the government introducing this bill—the Australian screen industry cannot survive in its current form—but, let's be clear, it's well overdue. There is some complexity. There hasn't been broad consultation on where the bill has finally landed, and there are concerns from all involved as to how it's going to work in application—whether or not there is going to be sufficient certainty around the definitions of Australian content—and about some of the issues that I've touched on in terms of what will be included in that spend. Let's make sure this legislation marks the beginning of a more ambitious, progressive, accountable and optimistic future for Australian storytelling.”
“The government has proposed a robust four-year review to consider whether or not, by that time, we would need to be doubling the requirements for subquotas for children's and documentary content visibility and requirements for Australian titles and supporting Australian owned production companies. The point is, essentially, without being too specific in this round and on this legislation, in four years time, the government will look to see whether the things that we're warning of now have come to pass. That's why I would urge the government to consider the amendment that I will be moving to the objects to make sure that there is clarity on all streamers to comply with that need for diversity of investment. Supporting Australian owned production companies is important.”
“Of course, for them, there are also the questions around the definitions, the period of review and the fluctuating. I am absolutely sympathetic to their concern that there is a long pipeline of commissioning projects. For them, the fear is that this new obligation will change some of their forward planning. We need accurate investment reporting. Streamers' expenditure must reflect net private investment only and not be inflated by federal or state funding through the producer and location offsets. This must be removed from the definition of 'expenditure'. For new legislation like this, we need to make sure we have a robust review period to consider whether it's working or whether it has had unintended consequences.”
“To genuinely strengthen the Australian screen sector, policy and regulation must ensure that new investment supports the Australian businesses, creative talent and cultural perspectives that anchor our national storytelling. If implemented with care, foresight and proper oversight, this bill can be transformative, setting the new foundations for an ambitious, progressive and accountable future for Australian screen content. We need clear, funded enforcement capability. ACMA must be resourced to enforce obligations and investigate ownership structures, including international corporations operating behind the corporate veil. There needs to be a reasonable transition period. Streamers have argued that the 60-day window to select revenue or expenditure obligations is too narrow and that the government should consider extending this.”
“Both streamers stress the need for an effective obligation framework which requires stability, predictability and clarity around the requirements. It allows the broadcasting industry to plan ahead, commissioning pipelines and compliance systems with confidence. Any uncertainty around enforcement, definitions or reporting frameworks risks discouraging rather than encouraging investment. The government must ensure ACMA's regulatory approach is not only strong but also transparent, consistent and properly resourced. We need to make sure Australian owned production companies are the beneficiaries of this. We must avoid a scenario where increased investment flows predominantly to foreign owned production companies operating in Australia at the expense of locally owned, independent Australian producers.”
“This would be an amendment to the objects, to ensure that that indication is clear. Regulatory certainty is essential. While the bill provides a mandate for ACMA to determine how compliance would be achieved, this provides little reprieve for streamers who are trying to navigate this new obligation. It's not about resisting the obligations; it's about ensuring that industry has predictability, a stable operating environment and clarity on how compliance will be monitored, measured and enforced. To this end, last month I met with Netflix and the Australian and New Zealand Screen Association. I also met with Stan, which has shown strong leadership as an Australian owned platform. Stan has commissioned some of Australia's most distinctive local series and illustrates the importance of locally committed platforms.”
“There's no real guarantee of balanced investment across those different types—and we know it is necessary. Since quotas were removed from commercial TV, Australia's children content has almost evaporated. In the 2007-08 financial year, there was a total of 200 hours of children's content on Australian TV. In the 2023-24 financial year, that dropped to an all-time low of just 35 hours of children's TV content. The collapse is occurring despite the extraordinary global success of Australian programs like Bluey , a show that has become a cultural phenomenon, beloved worldwide, proving beyond doubt that Australian's children content is not only viable but exceptional. To address this, I'll be introducing an amendment that would reflect the intention of the bill that balances investment across all types and is expected.”
“Other industries benefit indirectly with screen production such as tourism, hospitality, building, construction—so many areas. It's not just a cultural policy; it is a smart economic policy. This bill is a significant step forward, but we need to make sure the obligation balances investment to sustain and build the industry while making sure streamers can continue to operate with regulatory certainty. We need to make sure there is balanced investment across all types of product. The bill introduces investment requirements across Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content, but there isn't a subquota or requirement across those different types. While this is necessary, the bill has not included subquotas around drama, documentary or children's content, to be more specific.”
“The government's proposal holds some warning that it may not be sufficient to address the scale of decline or rebuild the Australian screen sector, but I acknowledge this is a step forward. Currently, Australia risks becoming a backdrop for foreign projects, with little genuine Australian representation on our screens. This matters because we know that every dollar invested in the screen sector delivers around $3 to $4 in broader economic benefit, generating jobs, attracting international investment and bolstering the sector's credibility and capabilities. Not only does Australia's local screen production sector benefit directly from secure and guaranteed investment in Australian content; postproduction services, distributors and exhibitors do too.”
“I've previously called for more investment—for up to 20 per cent of streamers' revenue to be the investment—which is aligned with international best practice and the needs of our industry. I've discussed with the government where they landed and asked, in fact, for modelling to show whether or not this would result in an uplift in investment to the industry to preserve those 60,000 jobs. It's unclear, but it is felt that there is fluctuating spend from year to year. Some streamers are good players and do invest. Others are not investing at all, and so they will see an uplift in their spend. On balance I will accept the government and the department's briefing or indication that this should result in an increase in spend but also a balancing out of these fluctuations.”
“Now what we know is that there were some 60,000 Australian screen jobs at risk without these legislative quotas. Representation is slipping. Women and under-represented creators hold only 34 to 36 per cent of key creative roles. Modelling shows that this could fall to two per cent within two decades without mandated investment. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill proposes that streamers with more than one million Australian subscribers must invest either 10 per cent of total program expenditure or 7½ per cent of Australian revenue into new Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content. This must be a floor, not a ceiling.”
“Within a month of launching the petition, we reached more than 13,000 signatures from people across the industry and across Australia. Australian broadcasting has long relied on local content quotas to ensure Australians see themselves reflected on screen. But, while traditional networks continue to shoulder obligations, global streaming platforms—now dominant in Australian households—have operated without equivalent responsibilities. Labor repeatedly promised to introduce Australian content obligations for streaming platforms, yet this was languishing and nothing was happening. For years the sector has been left in uncertainty. Consultations were held again and again, alongside discussion papers, roundtables and expert panels. All the while, investment in Australian content dwindled.”
“It was dwindling investment, shrinking commissioning opportunities and a deep fear that, without legislative obligations, Australian stories would disappear from our screens and through streaming platforms. These Warringah professionals are talented, innovative and determined, but they are under real pressure. Without legislative obligations, the ecosystem that sustains Australian storytelling is at breaking point. From hearing those stories, I launched the Save Australian Stories petition, which called on the government to fulfil the promise they made—first at the 2019 election, 2022 and then 2025—and to ensure that Australian content remains visible, accessible and adequately funded. The support was clear.”
“I welcome the government finally delivering on their promise to implement the local content obligations on streaming providers. It's an ambitious and progressive reform designed to safeguard our cultural identity, strengthen creative industries and ensure global platforms contribute their fair share, with Australian screen jobs, children's content and cultural representation very much at stake. We are so lucky in Warringah to have a vibrant community of screen industry professionals: writers, directors, documentary makers, producers and emerging creators. In August, I met with a group in the industry who explained frankly the impact that the industry has felt under the current status quo.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's recently reported retreat from banning online gambling advertising would be a terrible sellout to Peta Murphy's legacy and a failure to protect the millions of Australians whose lives are ruined by relentless gambling advertising, which preys on vulnerable Australians. If the report is true, gambling harm will continue to increase unchecked. So is it the government's position that relentless gambling advertising online, on vulnerable Australians, is acceptable?”
“With the lack of funding received by Australians on the PRRT—I was strongly opposed to the way the government structured that legislative change—I look forward to hearing from the government on how they propose to now meet these new commitments. There are many inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in the Australian system that we can talk of—in particular, the diesel fuel tax credit. I support this motion because it moves us towards a fairer, more secure and more climate aligned energy system—simple measures and ones that the government should have the political will to pursue. Now the government must act with ambition and integrity to ensure reforms actually deliver for Australians.”
“We know methane emissions are expected to account for 68 to 95 per cent of Australia's targeted emissions by 2035, and, unfortunately, Australia continues to underreport methane by as much as 60 per cent, according to the International Energy Agency. We cannot fix the gas market while ignoring the parallel climate failure that it represents. Last week, I sent an open letter, alongside 100 other leaders from across politics, academia, NGOs and business, to the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to sign on to the Mutirao road map. The pledge would look to construct a phase-out of fossil fuels. I'm pleased to hear that, over the weekend, Australia signed up to the declaration, on a just transition away from fossil fuels, recognising the need to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible.”
“For too long governments, have been applying temporary bandaid solutions to avoid shortfalls, building an energy system reliant on fossil fuels and continuing to let the gas industry shape policies long after the science shifted. However, as the government looks to reform the gas market, we must recognise the broader climate reality—1.5 degrees is not just a goal; it's a threshold, beyond which things will change dramatically. Here we are, the week after COP30, and very little was achieved. Gas driven by methane emissions is a major contributor to global warming. Australia's methane accountability is jeopardising our emissions reduction targets. We still do not have proper accounting, measuring and monitoring of methane emissions from LNG facilities.”
“Australians pay four to seven times more for gas than other large gas-producing nations, including the US, Russia, Qatar and Canada. According to ACOSS, people on low incomes bear the brunt of this, spending five times more of their income on energy than high-income earners. This is not a market that's delivering for Australians. In 2023-24, Australians paid more than four times on HECS or HELP debts than our gas companies did on PRRT. Instead of rules to protect our domestic requirements, exporters have strong incentives to maximise exports. Projects like Santos's GLNG project in Queensland have siphoned gas from the domestic market to fulfil export commitments. It is wrong.”
“It's been ten years since we started exporting LNG. We now export around 80 per cent of the gas that we produce. A small group of LNG exporters control 90 per cent of our proven and probable gas reserves. You will hear them crying poor and complaining about transition, and the ads on radio and TVs have accelerated—all talking about the natural benefits of gas and how gas is part of our transition and we should all need it. What they don't say is the price that Australians are paying. Australian users of gas have been paying the price of poor policy. Instead of benefiting from their natural resource, domestic users are forced to compete with international markets. Since 2015, consumption for gas in eastern Australia has fallen by 32 per cent, but prices have tripled. Pressure on our domestic households and business remains unacceptable.”
“I rise to support the motion from the member for Bradfield. Australians deserve a fair, affordable, transparent and predictable energy system and not the export distorted market that we have today. This motion highlights an underlying truth in Australia's energy debate—Australia does not have a gas shortage problem. We have lots of gas, but, instead of prioritising our domestic markets, we allow companies to exploit it for great profit. We do not need more gas approvals. What we need are rules that ensure gas in Australia stays for Australia and that we fast-track transition off gas for households, where electrification is much more efficient, affordable and better for their health and their wallets. We don't need more gas; we just need to be smarter about where we use it, what we have and who we prioritise.”
“They are all seeking to improve legislation that is inadequate and will fail in its stated purpose to protect the environment. It is essential that, in this place, we have an informed debate and we test this legislation. It is disappointing that the government is choosing to ignore so many people trying to improve this legislation, but I hope that in the other place improvements will be made.”