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 11 of 17.
“In summary, these amendments aim to embed climate accountability into financial environmental approvals, to establish a duty of care towards future generations, to strengthen environmental governance by considering cumulative impacts and to provide a fair appeals process for environmental protection orders. Collectively, they promote a sustainable, transparent and responsible framework for decisions-making that aligns economic development with Australian environmental and climate goals. It's disappointing to see how little participation in this process members of government have engaged with. To all MPs, especially members of LEAN who go to their communities with claims of being here for climate and protecting the environment: I urge you to consider the amendments that are being debated today.”
“The change reflects recommendations from the Samuel review, which found the EPBC Act's project by project approach insufficient. By including the requirement in primary legislation, it ensures it cannot be delayed or weakened later. The amendment aims to halt the incremental degradation of ecosystems and enable informed, transparent and responsible decision-making. Amendment (6) would introduce and establish a clear right of appeal for any person subject to an environmental protection order. This is important for business. The amendment adequately balances efficiency with accountability and procedural fairness so that businesses and proponents can gain certainty and a fair process if they need to challenge a stop work order.”
“The proposal responds to public support for the reform, including the duty of care bill which attracted over 400 supportive submissions. The amendment clarifies that, under the EPBC Act, the minister must act with reasonable care not to cause harm for future generations when approving projects. Enshrines the principles that today's decisions must not endanger tomorrow's citizens. Amendment (7) would ensure that cumulative environmental impacts are properly assessed under the EPBC Act. It seeks to prevent the project fragmentation that we see too often, where large developments are split to avoid scrutiny and proper assessment of their true impact. The amendment would ensure an evaluation where the combined projects collectively cause unacceptable harm—that is, habitat loss, water degradation.”
“My amendments would require proponents to include climate-related financial disclosures in their applications, something that businesses are already familiar with; and require decision-makers to ensure projects do not pose unacceptable climate-related transition or financial risks—that is, become stranded assets. This is a financial viability consideration, not a climate consideration. Amendments (3) and (4) would embed duty of care into our environmental protection legislation. It would introduce a legislative duty of care to protect children and future generations from the impacts of climate change. This follows the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment, where the court initially found the minister owed such a duty, though it was overturned on appeal due to the legislation. This amendment fixes the problem.”
“The Albanese government's insistence on claiming that climate impacts are not relevant to protecting the environment and biodiversity in our environment—that they are with dealt elsewhere through other legislation—is simply wrong and highlights that it is not serious about protecting the environment and arresting biodiversity loss. Nature does not experience climate and environment separately, neither should our laws. Every decision on our land, water and biodiversity is also a decision about the impact on our climate, which is then also an impact on our environment. Financial regulators APRA, RBA and the Climate Change Authority have all warned of climate risks to the economy, such as stranded assets and rising insurance costs, yet environmental assessments under this bill proposed by the Albanese government ignore these realities.”
“(7) Schedule 1, item 588, page 343 (line 4), after "Part 3.", insert "In determining whether an impact is an unacceptable impact , the cumulative effect of multiple actions that are regulated under this Act must be taken into account.". The amendments seek to integrate the existing climate-related financial disclosure into project assessment and approval processes. I should note these are disclosures that have been legislated by the government. So this is something they have supported and advocated for in other contexts. Fundamentally, we cannot have an environmental legislation that is separated from climate impacts of proponents. Inherently the two are interconnected.”
“(2) The CEO must consider the greenhouse gas emissions information for the action for the purposes of subsection (1). (6) Schedule 1, item 551, page 307 (after line 7), after section 474D, insert: 474DA Appeal against environment protection order (1) A person against whom an environment protection order is made may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction against the making of the order. (2) The lodging of an appeal does not, except to the extent that the court otherwise directs in relation to the appeal, operate to stay action on the order appealed against. (3) After hearing an appeal, the court may: (a) confirm the order, or (b) modify or rescind the order. (4) In making a decision on an appeal, the court is to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the public interest.”
“(4) Schedule 1, item 223, page 95 (after line 15), after subsection 133(7B), insert: Duty of care (7C) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations. (5) Schedule 1, page 95 (after line 27), after item 224, insert: 224A After section 133 Insert: 133A Action must not hold an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk (1) Despite any other provision of this Part, the CEO must not approve an action, if CEO is satisfied that: (a) disclosures under section 84A(2)(e) would demonstrate an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk; and (b) as a result, the action could materially impact matters of national environmental significance.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 191, page 82 (line 20) to page 83 (line 8), omit paragraphs 84A(2)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and (b) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and (2) Schedule 1, item 191, page 83 (line 15), at the end of subsection 84A(2), add: and; (e) the climate-related disclosures reported in accordance with Australian Standard AASB 52 Climate-Related Disclosures. (3) Schedule 1, page 93 (after line 28), after item 215, insert: 215A At the end of section 130 Add: Duty of care (6) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations.”
“Already, by others—not even just those here in this place—the Albanese government has been described as one of the most secretive in modern history, refusing more freedom of information requests than it fully grants, and this bill doubles down on that trend. It is deeply disappointing, and I cannot, in good conscience, support this legislation. Debate adjourned.”
“Third, we have to review cabinet exemptions, aligning them with the public interest, not political convenience. These are the kinds of reforms that would restore trust, reduce delays and promote transparency, and that's what Australians expect and deserve. This bill, as it stands, sends a dangerous message: that secrecy is acceptable—that transparency is optional. So that is the message we will take from the Albanese government, from all the members of the government: that transparency is optional—that holding government to account on its decision-making on the advice it receives is optional.”
“Many in this place would have gone to their communities, calling out the horrors of that; yet now here we are, entrenching a system that will increase secrecy. We should have learnt, and government should have learnt, from that experience—from robodebt—that we need more transparency and more accountability, not less. There is a better way to improve the freedom of information system. First, we can engage in an independent review and genuine consultation with experts and the public, before introducing reforms through a freedom of information bill. Second, we can remove the anonymous request provision and, instead, consider establishing a mechanism whereby an applicant can make an anonymous request through an independent intermediary, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman.”
“The government has claimed this is important due to the increase of bots, automation and international interference, but no-one is buying that argument. The public is under no illusion—this is about increasing secrecy and decreasing government accountability. Even the process of how this legislation has found its way to the House is telling. These reforms were developed without public consultation—no exposure draft; no engagement with civil society; no opportunity for media organisations, integrity experts or transparency advocates to comment, to really try and fix this, to actually build a freedom-of-information system that is genuine and has integrity. It's a secrecy that allowed robodebt to fester for so long and shielded wrongdoing. And that cost lives.”
“The bill also prohibits anonymous requests, and it's done on the basis that somehow this is a national security issue—that we have foreign actors and foreign nations issuing these secret and anonymous freedom-of-information requests—but, again, no evidence of that has been provided. The bill, in prohibiting anonymous requests, could endanger whistleblowers and silence legitimate inquiries. We know whistleblowers laws still have not been fixed up to provide protection. We know accountability matters. Australian voters care about transparency and accountability. It's just so disappointing to see the way the government is going about this legislation and what it is proposing to do with freedom-of-information laws. It's deeply concerning.”
“As to this change that the government is now proposing, the Law Council—we're not talking about some overly progressive organisation that shoots from the hip and makes outrageous comments; we're talking about the Law Council here, which is looking at the proper accountability of government and the proper functioning of laws—said in a submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill that safeguards to protect essential interests are good and required. But they already exist in the act. There has been no evidence put forward by the government to suggest that the current safeguards are not adequate and operating as they should. In fact, what is being proposed is really an attack on the underlying purpose of the freedom-of-information regime and its call to a responsible and representative democratic system of government.”
“The government claims that the bill looks to better the balance between open access to information and the interests of protecting the proper functioning of government. But this legislation is adding new grounds of refusal, giving departments more power to withhold information. How is that increasing or improving the balance as to access and open information—as to holding government to account? The bill looks to amend the objects provision to expand a level of discretion that explicitly recognises that the core reasoning for the Freedom of Information Act involves a balancing of the competing interests of open access to information and the essential interests of government.”
“Instead, the government here is expanding cabinet exemptions—in complete contradiction—to cover any documents that were shared in the drafting of cabinet documents, which is precisely the opposite of what Commissioner Holmes recommended. Now, I was in this place when the Labor Party, then in opposition, cried blue murder around the coalition and the whole scandal of robodebt and did great work to then expose the horrors of robodebt. But now, seated on the government benches, it is doing the very thing that the commissioner has said not to do. Expanding the cabinet exemption is not going to result in transparency and accountability of decision-making; it will do the very opposite.”
“Instead, what this bill does is to impose new application fees that will deter ordinary Australians from lodging requests. It expands cabinet exemptions, and that is the most concerning aspect because it will shield even more decisions of government from public scrutiny. I haven't heard a single member of the government give a valid reason why that expansion should go ahead—why we should be shielding more of the decisions and not having access to the underlying documents that are necessary to properly hold government decision-making to account. In fact, this directly contradicts the 57th recommendation of the robodebt royal commission, which specifically stated that cabinet confidentiality should only apply where it is reasonably justified in the public interest.”
“The government has introduced this bill under a pretext that it will modernise the freedom-of-information system to enable more efficient and better-quality decisions or that it will help foster public trust in government decision-making through transparency and access to information. What a load of rubbish! Every group, from media to not-for-profit groups, has called the government out on that claim and argued that there is nothing in this bill that will achieve that goal. In fact, it's been unanimously rejected. Groups from the Centre for Public Integrity to the Law Council are all arguing that the government, through this Freedom of Information Reform Bill, is actually increasing secrecy and reducing accountability.”
“The public Service Act requires frank and fearless advice in the public interest. In fact, the 2019 Thodey review, which quotes Peter Shergold's 2015 report, includes recommendations to strengthen the obligation on the Public Service to act and provide frank and fearless advice in the public interest. Neither of those two previous reviews has had its recommendations followed up, introduced or moved into that act yet. In fact, secrecy will do nothing to implement those recommendations or help meet that requirement on the Public Service, because in fact now there will be no way of checking that the Public Service is giving frank and fearless advice in the public interest.”
“The government has raised concerns that the FOI regime is being overrun, and it has made allegations such as AI bots and foreign interference, but the documents provided in the inquiry in the other place show there's no evidence of this, so the justification that has been given for this legislation just has no proper foundation. The other reason the government has given is that the Public Service fears freedom-of-information requests and that this has a chilling effect on the advice to government from the Public Service due to fear that a freedom-of-information request will release documents or work done by the Public Service. Again, no evidence has actually been put forward by the government to substantiate this. In fact, that is contrary to the very requirements on the Public Service.”
“For the public, I would give you the comparison that it's as if there is a prima facie approach of blocking the provision of information: see if the request will go away, block it for as long as you possibly can, and then eventually papers might be released, but there's so much blacked out that it's ridiculous. The latest FOI annual report from the government shows that, during the first two years of the Albanese government, there were about 21,000 requests determined per year, the lowest rate since the Gillard government. And now, instead of addressing the issues—and there are issues in the system—the Albanese government has introduced sweeping changes that will tighten access even further and increase secrecy.”
“We know that freedom of information is an area that is in need of reform. I don't dispute that. But it's really important, when you're talking about an instrument that holds government to account, to make sure that that reform is done transparently, with good consultation, and that we actually achieve the goals of creating a system that shines light on decisions of government, not one that increases secrecy. The system remains characterised by significant delays attributed to extensive processing time, and it's shrouded in added secrecy.”
“This bill was drafted without consultation, introduced without transparency and designed in a way that rewards secrecy. At a time when public trust in government is already low, this legislation seeks to make it harder for Australians to access information and easier for government to hide it. This is not reform; this is regression. The bill currently before us represents the biggest reform proposed to the freedom-of-information laws since the Hawke review in 2013. Freedom-of-information laws were introduced back in 1982 to give Australians the right to access government papers and documents and see how decisions are made and why—what the basis was, what information was available and what advice had been given. But, since then, we have seen successive governments erode those rights.”
“Freedom-of-information laws exist so that government decisions can be scrutinised and governments can be held to account. They are very important. They are an integral part of the commitment to the rule of law to facilitate access to information held by institutions and advice given to government. They are essential to hold power to account. In a representative democracy, the public and their representatives cannot make informed decisions without the best available information, and the public is entitled to know when government is not acting in the public interest. My concern with the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, which is before the House, is that there's nothing in this bill that achieves those aims—in fact, to the contrary.”
“The link between gambling and alcohol and increased domestic violence numbers is really clear. I urge the government to implement recommendations of the Murphy review and to start acting on these known social harms. We need men to be part of the conversation, especially those who are calling for change. An organisation that I've met with, Mentoring Men, are desperate for funding. They can't get any funding. And yet, this is an organisation that has grown out of mental health support but is now playing a role in domestic violence. They can have the peer-to-peer, man-to-man conversations to start calling out this scourge. There's so much more to be done.”
“Having come as a barrister from the family law sector, there is no doubt that domestic and family violence is prevalent across many areas. We should have a specialised stream in our courts to deal with this issue so that we have specialist decision-makers with the proper training and understanding. The fifth area, most importantly, is, obviously, that prevention needs to be addressed if we are going to have any hope of achieving the goal of eliminating domestic and family violence and at least reducing it substantially. We need the urgent implementation of the rapid review recommendation, especially around delay or reduction of alcohol delivery times that were increased during COVID. That's already been implemented by the ACT. We need to ban gambling advertising.”
“Better discretion for organisations to distribute funding as they see fit was also called for, especially with accommodation to meet high rental costs in Sydney. Currently, the way funding is allocated to these organisations has so much regulation and so many rules around it. They can't apply it in a discretionary way to short-term accommodation to make up for shortfalls in crisis accommodation being available. That was an overwhelming call as well. The fourth point was the implementation of specialist domestic and family violence courts that have expertise in dealing with victims of domestic family violence. We have specialist courts for other areas. Why do we not have a specialised court for domestic and family violence?”
“Third, at the heart of the crisis is housing. Greater funding is needed for crisis housing and looking at different opportunities to redevelop existing infrastructure, such as aged-care facilities. There is a lack of real data on DV numbers and available housing. New South Wales, I was shocked to find out, has no centralised domestic violence housing vacancy managing system. It is up to each individual organisation to find out whether there is housing and source it. This is a simple fix: having a database to ensure that happens. It creates extra administration burden on crisis centres that are already understaffed and struggling. They have to spend time calling around, connecting with other centres for availability for women who need shelter. Surely we can have a centralised domestic violence housing vacancy management system.”
“I've raised with the minister's office that, in circumstances of domestic and family violence that involve partner visas, we need to be able to move these women onto visas that would enable them to access support so that our not-for-profit organisations are not carrying the financial burden. I look forward to trying to find a solution to this problem. Second, greater support for children who are escaping violence is needed. Crisis centres need the right scaffolding to support children. Their needs are different to those of their parents. This includes appropriate housing and other practical support—clothes, books and school supplies. We know, for example, the 10 sessions of GP mental health are proven to be insufficient to effectively respond to the situation, in particular for children impacted by the situation.”
“The problem is that we're still underfunding this sector. There were five key outcomes of this roundtable. First, crisis centres are overwhelmingly providing funding assistance for women who are escaping domestic and family violence but who may be tied to their partner, meaning that they're unable to access JobSeeker and family benefit payments. This is a question when they are here on partner visas and, as a result, the non-profit organisations are having to meet the support for these women, whereas we should normally be able to get them into our systems.”
“These are the women who are attending the service, but we know that there are so many more who don't even report or come to services, and they don't receive support for fear of retribution. These services are relied upon by the community. As pointed out by the Women's Resilience Centre, many women can feel uncomfortable going to police. We know 78 per cent of women never report violence to the police, and too often funding is tied to reporting. There is a question around the way funding is allocated in New South Wales for the Staying Home Leaving Violence program, because it is often tied to whether or not reports have been made. With increased demand, grant funding is simply not sufficient. This is an issue where it's not just a question of: more money has been spent by the government, so why is the problem not getting better?”
“Importantly, we heard from the local primary health network, who work with preventive and crisis centres to make sure that women and children escaping domestic and family violence get the mental health and wellbeing support they require. We also heard from local residents and advocates, both men and women, who shared their ideas and lived experience. The roundtable highlighted what we already knew: our crisis centres are in crisis and our mental and primary health services are under incredible strain. Northern Beaches Women's Shelter accepted 12 women per day in 2020. The demand is now up to 70 per day. Last year they were able to house 273 women and children, but had to turn away some 584 women.”
“We heard from those on the front line in our communities, such as Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, Mary's House Services, Women & Children First, Women's Resilience Centre, Dalwood Splistead Service, LocalKind Northern Beaches, St Vincent de Paul and Lighthouse for the Community. These providers play an immense role, providing shelters, crisis accommodation and also practical support such as funding for car registrations, laptops, food banks and clothing and connecting affected families with legal and immigration services. We heard from those working in the mental health space, such as Mentoring Men and Lifeline Northern Beaches. These organisations help to shift attitudes, rebuild confidence and address the trauma before it becomes another statistic.”
“All the while, my constituent liaison officer in my office, Nilmini Panditharatne, to whom I have to give a special shout-out and say thank you, kept in constant contact, ensuring that we continued to advocate for the post office to remain open. It truly is a community win and a testament to the coordinated, respectful, determined effort of all involved. Another issue I want to raise is the domestic and family violence roundtable that I hosted recently. Earlier this month, I held this roundtable with many of our leading organisations and not-for-profits in Warringah.”
“In that respect, I'd like to thank the Prime Minister and the government for their engagement and support with both the Minister for Transport, John Graham, and the CEO of Australia Post, Paul Graham, for hearing our community's concerns and for engaging and ultimately resolving this issue. My team attended the large community forum held at the local church to discuss the issue at the outset. There were some 400-plus attendees, highlighting how important this issue was for the community. We then attended a further local precinct meeting to hear from the community and followed up with Australia Post to ensure that the community were able to be heard.”
“On behalf of the community, I wrote to and met with Australia Post to understand the issue and to ensure that these vulnerable residents were not left without access to vital services. In fact, it was the detail in this procedure that was important. Upon becoming aware of the change of the rental conditions of the premises in which the Milsons Point post office was located, which is held by New South Wales Transport, I followed up in writing with the government and the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Transport in New South Wales, John Graham, and requested that they reconsider the tender process to allow Australia Post to remain at the Milsons Point location. As I said, I briefed the Prime Minister—who I would say is Kirribilli's most well-known resident—and the government about the circumstances of the proposed closure.”
“I rise to share some very welcome news and a big win for our community. After strong local advocacy, I'm delighted that the Milsons Point post office will remain open. This outcome is a testament to the power of community action. When people come together, speak up and persist they can make a real difference. Earlier this year, members of the Milson Precinct reached out to my office, deeply concerned about the unexpected and sudden announcement of the proposed closure of the local post office. Along with communities from Kirribilli, Milsons Point, Lavender Bay and residents of Greenway, James Milson Village and the Port Jackson Tower housing complexes, they coordinated an advocacy campaign to save this important community asset and access to vital services.”
“Fourthly, we need to invest in nature, as it is our greatest ally in adaptation and resilience, by updating nature based solutions. The fifth is on funding Indigenous land and sea management, which we know would deliver climate and social dividends. Sixthly, we also need to update our National Construction Code to embed resilience, expand cyclone and flood standards by risk, not postcode, and ensure transparent hazard data. It is incredibly concerning that the Albanese government has committed to a freeze of the building code. Seventhly, we need to build public-private partnerships with insurers to reduce underlying risk and lower premiums. Finally, we need for those that are causing the damage to pay for the adaptation by ensuring a 'polluters pay' social and environmental model.”
“They are calling for, firstly, predictable and adequate investment in adaptation by committing to $4 billion, or a quarter of a per cent of GDP, to offset the two per cent of GDP it's already costing us. This should be locked in over forward estimates. Secondly, they are calling for adaptive leadership that embeds climate resilience across our economy through a national climate adaptation authority to implement the forthcoming National Adaptation Plan, coordinate across jurisdictions and monitor implementation. Thirdly, they call for helping local governments with the cost of adaptation by lifting financial assistance grants from ½ a per cent to at least one per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue, which is around $400 million per year, to ensure place based adaptation and implementation.”
“Traditional economic forecasts only predict minor global GDP losses, but Professor Neal's work suggests the real damage could be as high as 40 per cent of global GDP by the end of the century on the current emissions reduction trajectory. Our national cost-benefit test must be updated. Meanwhile, the insurance protection gap is widening, construction costs are higher and we continue to rebuild in high-risk areas without resilience and adaptation backed into rebuilding codes. Local governments, which are on the front line, are financially stretched, competing for short-term grants when what works is place based, long-term adaptation. We have the plans on paper. What's missing is the scale, certainty and accountability to deliver them. The outcomes from Friday's forum are measured and economy-wide.”
“This investment will enable a triple dividend of climate adaptation to our economy and to Australia by avoiding losses from climate disasters, driving economic benefits, affordable insurance, new and better jobs and improved infrastructure and it will bring massive social and environmental gains. The government's national climate risk assessment confirms that some climate risks are already baked in. The bill for inaction is mounting. The government currently invests only $250 million per year in adaptation, which is woefully inadequate. Traditional economic models understate the risks and the social and economic cost. The modelling from UNSW's Timothy Neal, who presented at the forum, warned us that outdated economic forecasting models have lulled policymakers and governments into complacency.”
“The forum gathered representatives from industry, academia, unions, government, think tanks, local councils and health to discuss the impact of the changing climate across our economy and, most importantly, how we can adapt and how we can pay for it. The cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of preparing for the future. In fact, delaying action will cost lives. The current approach from the government is piecemeal, reactive and underfunded. Alongside other things, the motion calls on the government to invest a quarter of a per cent of GDP, or $4 billion, a year in climate adaptation.”
“Climate change is already costing Australia more than $40 billion a year and, on our current path, that burden could climb to at least $73 billion, or some four per cent of GDP, by 2060. Mitigation must accelerate through rapid reduction of emissions. Ignoring the mounting risks for our communities is recklessly negligent. The status quo is leaving communities defenceless in the face of mounting risks and, too often, without the safety net of insurance. We must lift adaptation investment, make 'polluter pays' a reality and equip local communities with the tools to stay safe, insurable and prosperous. Last Friday, I held a climate resilience emergency forum here in Parliament House.”
“I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government's National Climate Risk Assessment highlights that climate change is costing the Australian economy more than $40 billion per year and this cost is predicted to rise to at least $73 billion, or 4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2060; and (b) current policies to protect our communities from climate change remain inadequate with spending on climate resilience and adaptation remaining too low; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) lift climate adaptation spending to 0.25 per cent of GDP; (b) establish a National Climate Adaptation Authority to oversee the implementation of the National Adaptation Plan; (c) facilitate better funding for local governments to strengthen resilience against climate change within their communities; (d) build strong private-public partnerships with the insurance industry that reduces underlying risk through enforceable, publicly funded resilience measures and transparent hazard data; (e) ensure that climate resilience projects and measures are undertaken in collaboration with First Nations; (f) broaden the safeguard mechanism to include all sectors across the economy are mitigating climate risks; (g) further ensure that polluting companies pay the social and environmental cost of the carbon they emit; and (h) reform the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to ensure Australians get their fair share from their resources.”
“To the Prime Minister: Manel Lopez is a sound technician in the film industry with over 25 years' experience. He wrote to me: 'I've reached the point where working in the industry is unsustainable. I'm at the end of my resilience. Mentally, financially, the situation has taken a huge toll on me and my family. This is happening all over the country. We need local content quotas, but we needed them five years ago. It was a promise that Labor took to the election. For many of us, it's almost too late.' Will the government make good on its repeated promises to legislate local content quotas on streamers and save these Australian jobs?”
“By having an amendment to ensure there is an independent assessment after five years, we ensure oversight on how the amendments have impacted the functionality of the Administrative Review Tribunal and ensure accountability and transparency, which should be core principles of administrative justice. What are the consequences of these changes? The creation of the Administrative Review Tribunal was meant to embed fairness and accessibility, whilst balancing them with efficiency. I support this bill's intent, but I will move amendments, as I've said, to introduce a review period. We have to ensure that efficiency does not come at the expense of fairness and that we restore the discretion of the ART to hear cases in person if the case permits or where it is deemed appropriate.”
“Trying to create that flexibility and efficiency should never be at the expense of fairness or justice. After all, the Nixon review was about closing loopholes for exploitation, not closing the door on due process and justice. These observations and concerns have been raised by many, including the National Legal Aid and Law Council of Australia. How we implement the bill will really matter. I intend to propose an amendment to introduce a review clause that compels an independent assessment of this amendment after five years. We can't have a situation where the ART is not working, where these changes—which I'm sure the government will use its numbers to push through—are sidelining procedure fairness and justice and where there is no clear timeline for review and assessment.”
“The Attorney-General's Department has suggested that the tribunal has more than 110,000 cases on hand, and the bill is aimed at reducing those case load numbers by introducing flexibility into the system, but we've got to be careful that flexibility is not a short cut or a waving of due process. The proposed amendments especially requiring the tribunal to only hear certain visa classes on the papers limit the discretion of the tribunal and counter the user centred objective that was first established as the real purpose of the Administrative Review Tribunal. The tribunal needs the ability to undertake a quick resolution of matters with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the relevant matter permits. But, for that, it requires discretion.”
“When immigration is used as a wedge, they diminish our shared humanity and the values that unite us as Australians. That's why it's so important that our review systems, like the ART, reflect fairness, independence and respect for due process. I do understand the government's objective in this amendment bill. I recognise there is immense overloading and a backlog of delays in the Administrative Review Tribunal. The Nixon review, on which the bill is based, revealed deep vulnerabilities in our migration system. It found that the delays and backlogs in merits review processes were contributing to an abuse of the visa system. Protracted appeals were allowing non-genuine operators to exploit the system and vulnerable migrants alike.”