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 13 of 17.
“This omnibus bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025, looks to improve corporate disclosure, widen transparency and extend the instant asset write-off for small business. I support these measures. They are welcome. Schedule 1 delivers the first stage of a public beneficial ownership register to tackle tax avoidance. Schedule 2 allows for the ACNC to disclose investigations to prevent harm. Schedule 3 adjusts the frequency of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority's reviews of ASIC and APRA from biennial to every five years. These measures, taken together, implement sensible changes to bring greater efficiency and transparency. Schedules 4 and 5 make minor and technical amendments, including minor amendments to strengthen the Scams Prevention Framework.”
“Much was promised, nothing has been delivered and any request for detail is met with, 'Just simply, we do not know.' There is no information about pillar II and what actually will flow to Australian domestic sovereign capacity. In light of the Trump administration's 'America first' agenda, what contingencies are in place to safeguard Australia's access to pillar II technologies and those opportunities and protect our sovereign industrial capabilities? Why are there not further answers in light of the so significant amount of the Australian budget that is being spent on these programs?”
“Given these realities, I would ask the Minister for Defence, if he were here: Will you commit to embedding climate risk as a core driver of the 2026 National Defence Strategy and to releasing a declassified version of the ONI report? Given defence resourcing sits at $61 billion this year and an extra $57.6 billion over the decade, what proportion of that funding will be dedicated to climate adaptation and resilience capabilities, including joint programs with Pacific partners? Finally, in light of the AUKUS program's projected $368 billion cost, what assurances can you provide that Australia will receive the promised submarine capability? When will we gain access to pillar II technology pathways, with clear pathways for Australian industry participation and technology sharing?”
“For context, Cyclone Alfred alone is expected to cost the taxpayer $13.5 billion in disaster support and recovery. While we spend tens of billions on deterrence and weaponry, we spend only a fraction of that on preventing foreseeable harm. The economic case for action is clear. Every dollar spent on prevention saves at least $11 in disaster recovery. We must also note that there is no new funding for the Defence Net Zero Strategy or Defence Future Energy Strategy, which are both essential if the ADF is to operate in a changing environment. The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, made up of former senior defence, intelligence and foreign affairs officials, have warned that climate disruption is now the greatest and potentially most existential threat to Australian and global security.”
“The AUKUS submarine program is forecast to cost up to $368 billion over 30 years, yet we are allocating only $1 billion over five years to the Disaster Ready Fund to strengthen the resilience of communities facing escalating natural disasters. According to the 2025-26 Defence portfolio budget statement, total defence resourcing sits at around $61.1 billion this year, with an additional $57.6 billion to be invested over the coming decade. We've also seen a further $25 billion committed to new shipbuilding facilities in Western Australia and more than $1.7 billion for a fleet of underwater drones. Meanwhile, national resilience funding remains so small it is ridiculous. Only $200 million will flow this financial year from the Disaster Ready Fund.”
“Climate change is the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and wellbeing of Pacific people. In the Pacific, entire communities are losing land to rising sea levels, coastal erosion and increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters. If our neighbours are overwhelmed by climate impacts, Australia's security is at risk too. We will face population displacement, disrupted supply chains, humanitarian crises, growing instability and challenges to law and order in our near region. The 2023 Defence Strategic Review recognised climate change as a national security issue—by damaging critical infrastructure, stretching ADF capacity and amplifying instability in the Indo-Pacific.”
“I start off by saying how disappointing it is to see that there has not been a minister here to hear the queries and concerns and actually respond, but I hope I'm proved wrong. Climate disruption is not a distant environmental issue but an existential threat to our national and regional security. Our national security depends not just on traditional defence capabilities, on submarines and missiles, but increasingly on resilient communities, stable neighbours and shared regional strength. If we are to take national security seriously, we must integrate climate adaptation and resilience alongside traditional defence capabilities. Defence spending is rising rapidly, but that investment must be paired with equal ambition for adaptation to and prevention of the risks that climate disasters pose. The Pacific Islands Forum has been clear.”
“Experts came together to quickly provide a key roadmap to the government of how they could act promptly. Unfortunately, key recommendations have not been acted upon. These include restricting access to alcohol, especially home delivery of alcohol, and restricting gambling advertising. These areas have direct, statistical links to increased rates of domestic and intimate partner violence. You can't pick and choose which issues are more politically easy or convenient to address. If we're going to talk holistically about women's health, we have to address all of the factors that impact that. So I urge the government to not be selective and to tackle the hard ones, like gambling advertising and access to alcohol, because of their impact on intimate partner violence.”
“It's a pretty sobering fact, when you think of all the other aspects of women's health, that it's actually at the hands of intimate partners that those women are most at risk. It causes a huge number of hospital presentations and disruptions, and it's horrific to think of the fatalities that are still occurring. There's still a lot more work to do. We are in a decade where there's a plan from the government, but it's lacking KPIs and underpinning policies to actually achieve the stated outcome of eliminating intimate partner violence and fatalities from domestic violence this decade. I urge the government to consider the independent recommendations that have been made—for example, the rapid review commissioned just last year in response to the spate of horrific killings.”
“I do think it is overwhelmingly because there are more women in this place, whether it is in the government ranks or the crossbench ranks. It is still falling pretty short in the coalition ranks, but that is something for them to address. We know that, if we fail to act, women will continue to be dismissed, symptoms will be minimised, their health outcomes will be compromised and we will all suffer as a nation. If we act, we can deliver equity, reduce stigma and build health systems that value women's wellbeing at every stage of life. Finally, we can't talk about women's health without talking about intimate partner violence. We know intimate partner violence is the leading cause of death for women aged between 25 and 44.”
“Of course, the government funding Medicare rebates for longer consultations that address mental health concerns is something to consider. We continue to partner with proven committee services, and I urge the government to support services like Tresillian, like the Gidget Foundation, like the Butterfly Foundation, who build out holistic, family-centred models of care. We need funding for genetic screening for ovarian cancer. It still has the most horrendous outcomes and will devastate families. It has huge consequences for the broader family unit. We need to track outcomes. Women's health must not remain invisible in national reporting. There is still a long way to go, but it is good to finally have women's health on the table, being discussed in this place.”
“This all has adverse impact on women's careers and health, and it all contributes to the unequal economic outcomes that we know women in our society still suffer. Whilst I do commend the government for there having been an increased focus in spending on those aspects, it must continue. Celebrating small gains is not sufficient until we get to the parity that is necessary. We need to elevate and make sure there is awareness of these issues and health conditions and to make sure our GPs are much more cognisant of these more specific issues when it comes to women's health. For wellbeing, for workforce participation, for families and for communities, we need to ensure that all areas of women's health are properly addressed. What can we do?”
“Eating disorders are among the most fatal of all mental health conditions, disproportionally affecting women and girls, and yet there proportionally are still very few services available for support. With these realities, women's health has historically been underresearched, underfunded and underrecognised. For decades, women were told their symptoms were just part of life or sometimes dismissed without proper consideration. In fact, menopause will impact all women at some stage in their life. It's mostly between 45 and 65 that the perimenopause period occurs, but, of course menopause and postmenopausal periods will also occur, and it often impacts women at the peak of their careers. It's often misdiagnosed and poorly treated. There is too often inadequate treatment.”
“While there is access to these important services in our electorate of Warringah and in urban and city areas, the same is not true for First Nations women, and we must always be incredibly conscious that we still do not have parity in Australia when it comes to access to health services for all Australians. We also know that, for remote and regional committees, it is incredibly difficult to access that same level of care. When we think of that access to health, it's incredibly important to look at making sure we have culturally safe, comprehensive health care for First Nations women. We know, for example, that around one in nine Australian women live with endometriosis and often have waited years for diagnosis. In fact, it affects around 80 per cent of women who have experienced menopausal symptoms, and one in four experience it severely.”
“The Gidget Foundation—again, out of an incredible tragedy has come the most amazing organisation, which offers trusted and specialised mental health care for new and expecting parents. The Butterfly Foundation, which is an incredible organisation as well, provides essential treatment, resources and support for those affected by eating disorders and negative body image. These organisations demonstrate a vital truth: women's health cannot be separated into physical and mental health boxes. They're deeply connected, and in our policies and health services we need to reflect that reality. It's as true for young women struggling with body image as it is for midlife women navigating menopause.”
“It's also a reminder that mental health challenges, particularly around body image, are especially confronting for young women. In Warringah, we have over 78,000 women. These women are mothers, sisters, wives, carers, professionals and volunteers. Our electorate is fortunate to have outstanding organisations that show the value of early intervention and compassionate care. I've visited some of these organisations recently, and I want to give them a special mention. For generations, Tresillian has provided support to families adjusting to the challenges of early parenthood. I recently visited their facilities, and it was incredible to see the level of support that they have been offering for so long for young mothers and young families.”
“For too long, issues that impact women's health have been ignored. With more women in parliament, there is no doubt that we are seeing more focus on women's health issues. After all, women make up 51 per cent of the population, and, despite tremendous strides in health care, women's health continues to be an area that needs more attention. Physical health issues like endometriosis, perimenopause and menopause affect half the population. We will all go through it. Yet, they are surrounded by stigma and silence, and that has been the case for too long. We must remember that mental health issues should not be ignored. We need to look at complete body health, both mental and physical. In fact, this week is Body Image and Eating Disorder Awareness Week. It is a timely reminder of the importance of having a healthy body image.”
“Yet, whilst the government talks a big game about wanting to do this, it continues to approve projects that will only make the problem worse. I call on this new generation of members of parliament in the Labor government to actually have ambition and drive change.”
“We have to introduce a fossil fuel export levy aligned with the Safeguard Mechanism to prevent that cost externalisation that's occurring. We have to broaden the Safeguard Mechanism to an economy-wide reach, because too many proponents and projects are simply not caught. We have to strengthen the petroleum resource rent tax and urgently wind back the fuel tax excise rebate that overwhelmingly disincentivises the mining sector and the transport sector from decarbonising. If we're serious about talking about tax reform and intergenerational inequity, we have to address these issues. We have to reward innovation, not extraction. We have to embrace technology responsibly and create opportunities for all. We have to address all of those looming risks to productivity—especially the climate risk.”
“We cannot just have a conversation about increasing supply; we have to talk about limiting negative gearing tax breaks to rental properties that meet and ensure minimum energy standards, encouraging greater energy efficiency, solar panels and batteries for rental properties, and making things like the affordable batteries program available to strata. We have to empower young people to be ambitious and economic drivers by investing in STEM education and future skills and reducing barriers for young people to access start-up capital and flexible finance. We need to enhance opportunities for research and development investment, and we have to move away from taxing individuals to instead raising better revenue from key sectors like fossil fuels.”
“We need to move away from taxing income and productivity. We need to unshackle ourselves from legacy policies, industries and vested interests. We know what needs to be done. Earlier this year I released the Re-energised Economy paper developed alongside economist Dr Emma Aisbett. It aims to lift productivity and to address intergenerational inequality and its key drivers—especially around climate risk. To restore fairness and accessibility in housing, we have to talk about phasing out CGT discounts for multiple investment properties. We need to talk about reducing stamp duty to incentivise downsizing and greater mobility and better utilise existing housing supply.”
“Saddled with rising tertiary education costs and student debt, they're struggling to access capital and the supports needed to start businesses and build their futures. They're taxed under a system that rewards asset accumulation over innovation and productivity. The very things that are essential to our wellbeing—housing and education—are the very things that are increasingly out of reach. These issues were raised in the Henry tax review some 15 years ago, and much of it remains unimplemented. And, whilst there's a lot of talk from government ranks around investment in housing supply, there's a complete silence when it comes to really talking about the other demand levers and other pressures. What we need is ambitious reform. We can't have a 21st century economy continuing to fund 19th century industries.”
“We also saw that there was no consideration of climate resilience, though climate will have the biggest impact on future generations and intergenerational inequity, given the debt and the cost that will come from it. There was no focus during that productivity roundtable on climate risk or on investing in the resilience of the economy. The insurance sector wasn't even at the table, and how we're going to actually mitigate risk was not addressed. What we do know is that Australia's tax system is outdated. It no longer reflects the realities of modern life. Young Australians are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden. They're locked out of homeownership due to an inflated property market and tax incentives that favour investors.”
“I thank the member for Curtin for raising this matter of public importance. It's clear that the Economic Reform Roundtable held last month highlighted the growing issue of intergenerational inequality in our tax system. There's a little bit of irony in that coming out so clearly when there were very few young people sitting around the table to give input. It was certainly noted that the same usual representatives were there in relation to industry, unions and other interests. I call on the government: if genuine intergenerational inequality is going to be addressed, there has to be a broader analysis and taking on board of different perspectives.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Climate change is projected to cost the economy up to $76 billion per year by 2060, making it one of the biggest threats to national productivity. The government has not released the national risk assessment nor the ONI report and is continuing to approve projects that will make this economic risk worse. You did not have adaptation or resilience at the table when it came to the Economic Reform Roundtable. What can you tell the Australian people about the financial exposure to climate risk of the economy?”
“This also frequently appears to be on-purpose targeting by the IDF. Over half a million people are facing starvation. UNICEF estimates that at least 132,000 children under the age of five are facing starvation and malnutrition. As Usman Khawaja reminded us last week, this is not about politics or religion; it's about human rights. Australia has a proud legacy to stand up for. Israel is no longer a values aligned nation or ally, and I call on the government to take all actions possible.”
“Last week, I attended the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine roundtable with Usman Khawaja and Medecins Sans Frontieres to hear directly about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We heard from Scarlett Wong, a Warringah constituent and former MSF field psychologist, who spent nearly a year in the West Bank providing psychological care to traumatised Palestinians. Her deep distress at the scale of human suffering just could not be ignored. Gaza's healthcare system is in complete collapse. At least 94 per cent of hospitals have been damaged or destroyed, targeted by the IDF. Nearly 1,400 health workers, doctors, nurses and medics have been killed in this conflict. Over the past 22 months, this conflict has become the deadliest in history for journalists, with at least 247 journalists killed according to the UN Human Rights Office.”
“We need this immediate release of current home-care packages today, not 1 November, not when it might be convenient. We need to make sure we have the skills and the committed workforce to deliver these services. I'm urging the government to act. We've seen in question time this week constant delays and, really, bluster from the minister but not real action. It's time for home-care packages to support older Australians.”
“Unfortunately, this will not work, and there are no intervening provisions. It will make do for those who have been approved and it puts a short-term dent in the current waitlist, but it does not progress the problem. Too many are dying waiting to be assessed or waiting for packages. There is no sense economically. It leaves families across so many areas desperate for support. Every day of delay costs lives, dignity and health. In July, I joined David Pocock and crossbench colleagues in calling on the government to act without delay. We wrote to the minister for aged care, urging immediate release of additional packages—some 20,000. This is not just about packages; it is about people, the dignity of older Australians and the wellbeing of their families and communities.”
“More and more seniors turn up to emergency departments with non-urgent needs because it is the only way for them to get help. This is exhausting our health system and placing an unsustainable strain on other healthcare workers. At the centre of this crisis is the lack of home-care packages. The purpose is to ensure that people can stay at home for longer with the care they need, yet today over 121,000 Australians are waiting to be assessed. Another 87,000 have been approved but are still waiting for services. These delays mean older people are forced into residential care too early; remain stuck in hospital beds, blocking access for others with urgent needs; or simply die waiting for help. The government promised 83,000 new home-care packages in July but delayed them until November.”
“The government's response to the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in May 2021 assured us that 'the respect for senior Australians is, and must be, a national priority,' and yet here we are, with Australia's aged-care system in deep crisis. The lack of access to home-care packages hurts older Australians and their families. Meanwhile, our hospitals will remain overcrowded, our nurses overstretched and our seniors left without the care they deserve. In Warringah, my office recently met with a nurse who described the heartbreaking practice of so-called 'granny dumping'—families leaving elderly relatives at hospital emergency departments because they cannot access home-care packages or aged care.”
“I move: 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) acknowledges that the government is looking to find a solution to ensure that people in the NZYQ cohort, who were seeking refugee status and broke Australian laws, are not able to stay in Australia; and (2) notes that: (a) procedural fairness and natural justice are cornerstones of our justice system, however this legislation has immense overreach by curtailing the Court's ability to apply these where a decision to remove a person to a third party has been made; and (b) the ramifications of this legislation will be ongoing, with real-life application for all people on bridging visa E, including those on fast-track and transitory visas".”
“We have to make sure that the breadth of this legislation, who will be impacted and the possible ramifications to more groups and visa holders are properly understood and investigated. I urge the government to ensure that this legislation is properly scrutinised. If not, we are on a very slippery slope of erosion of trust in government and the erosion of a cornerstone of liberal democracy, which is the separation of powers between the executive and our judiciary.”
“I acknowledge the need to find a solution but the need to respect procedural fairness and natural justice are cornerstones of our justice systems and should absolutely be upheld. We have to make sure that the breadth of this legislation, who will be impacted, the ramifications of the legislation to more groups and visa holders are properly understood and investigated. I intend to move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name, which raises these concerns in relation to the legislation. I acknowledge the need to find a solution, but the need to respect procedural fairness and natural justice are cornerstones of our justice system and should absolutely be upheld.”
“What we're seeing all too often is that, when inconvenient judicial decisions are handed down, the government tries to find a workaround. It doesn't want to grapple with the legal principle that a decision was unconstitutional—that the powers the executive government and the policy they implemented were beyond the bounds of the constitution. Rather than tackling that aspect, the government is constantly trying to work around and find a way of ignoring the constitutional question and just tinker around the edges to try and make it work. That is not good governance. From my point of view, this legislation is deeply problematic. I move the amendment as circulated in my name, which raises these concerns in relation to this legislation.”
“We have to find a better balance to ensure we contain strong borders, have domestic security and have a strong judicial system while also making sure we have appropriate consequences for all those that commit serious crimes within Australia, in particular when they are people that have no legal right to remain. But we also have to ensure we have robust and fair processes consistent with our obligations under international human rights law. These are not just things that are nice to respect when it is convenient and that you set aside when it is inconvenient. It's when it is inconvenient that they need to be respected and upheld the most. What I'm so incredibly concerned about with this legislation is that the government is choosing the other path. It is choosing to set aside those cornerstones.”
“Later, though, some of those measures were struck down by the courts, again for being unconstitutional. The government was advised that the legislation will only impact 200-odd people in respect to this one now. But the question is: what are the wide-ranging impacts of this legislation? What are we not aware of? Where is the slippery slope we're on when it comes to procedural fairness and natural justice? I understand that there is a huge amount of litigation in our courts around the Migration Act, and that is problematic, I believe, for the government. But, rather than looking holistically at the scale of the problem, the answer from the government is to set aside cornerstones of our judicial system, and I fundamentally disagree with that approach. To me, this bill needs to be delicately understood and balanced.”
“This was quickly weaponised by the other side, as is the norm when it comes to anything to do with immigration. The group quickly became known as the NZYQ cohort, and some of them—yes—have incredibly troubling and dangerous criminal histories of violent and sexual offences. But that is why we have a judicial system. That is why we take proceedings. That is why we have prisons. We have a system to deal with that. It left the government in a difficult position, so they've rushed their response and tinkered around the edges a few times. We keep having all these attempts. Every time you curtail trust, the public loses faith that the government actually has a cohesive plan and way of approaching and dealing with this. We've seen bridging visa Rs with strict conditions, ankle bracelets, curfews and regular reporting.”
“What we have is an announcement in the media of huge sums of money being spent on a minor group of people, and we simply have no information about their rights. Are we just basically perpetrating more indefinite detention but sending it somewhere else and saying, at great cost: 'It's not our problem anymore. We will hand that problem over to Nauru'? Back in November 2023, the High Court handed down the NZYQ decision. The court said that indefinite immigration detention isn't constitutional if there's no real prospect of someone being removed in the reasonable foreseeable future. That ruling meant the government could no longer keep certain noncitizens locked up indefinitely. Somewhere between 150 and 300 people had to be released as a result.”
“I've received a lot of correspondence, in the small amount of time we've had on this legislation, from across the electorate, raising serious concerns about the human rights abuses that may occur if this bill is passed. The Pacific solution, as it was once known, posed serious concerns. The Nauru files documented numerous instances of abuse, assault, self-harm and other severe forms of mistreatment and neglect against asylum seekers and refugees held on the island. The government and major parties were complicit in that by endorsing policy that continued it. We now stand at another crossroads, where we're sending people back to Nauru for, essentially, what appears to be indefinite detention. We don't even know.”
“This should have been a light bulb moment for both major political parties years ago; we finally had a High Court judgement that identified that. Rather than grappling with that question, with what that judgement meant, what we have seen from the Albanese government—in both the 47th Parliament and the 48th Parliament, time and time again—is ways of getting around the decision, of trying to accommodate the decision without fundamentally re-thinking the question around the rights and consequences of indefinite detention. For Warringah, there is a real sense of the importance of the rule of law. I represent a community that values fairness. The rule of law—procedural fairness—is incredibly important.”
“So while I support the intention of the government to form a solution, I note there are serious concerns about the impact of this bill. These are not just my concerns. These are concerns being reflected by the legal fraternity and by many who are making submissions and urging the government to step with great care in this area. Curtailing fundamental and crucial elements of our legal system is seriously not the best way to solve the political problem that they have at the moment. Of course, this has all come about as a result of indefinite offshore detention, which was an incredibly problematic and bad policy for so long. It remains a bad policy of the government. We finally had a High Court judgement that determined that indefinite detention was not legal and could not continue.”
“I think it's important, because it is so significant, that all of this be very carefully scrutinised and that any unintended consequences be identified. It should be put properly to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I understand the government has a problem it needs to solve. The NZYQ decision left a group of people in our community with serious criminal histories, and, while the avenues through the Migration Act have been exhausted, the government now needs to look at other tools to deal with this group of people. It's a community safety issue, it's a political problem, and it gets weaponised all the time by the opposition. Of course I understand there needs to be a solution, but that does not mean you set aside key fundamental principles of our judicial system.”
“What is really concerning now is that question of trying to remove it in certain situations where it's simply inconvenient and maybe taking up a little bit too much time from the government's perspective. We have a situation where the High Court has already ruled that in some instances procedural fairness is not required. Why is it necessary for this legislation to go beyond that ruling, to extend it to further cases and to extend it retrospectively? I have a major issue with that aspect. Ministerial intervention into the judicial system is incredibly concerning. Unfortunately we're seeing it all too often from this government around a number of issues. We have a fundamental judicial right in relation to natural justice and procedural fairness, and this attempt by the government to curtail it is incredibly concerning.”
“This bill, the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, is incredibly problematic, as I commented yesterday in this place in relation to the motion. The motion should have succeeded, and this bill should have been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. There are great concerns around intervention by government, around ministerial intervention into the judicial system. We have separation of powers for a very good reason in our liberal democracy, and that is to ensure there isn't overreach by the executive branch into decisions. We have the judicial branch there to implement, to ensure we have case law and to ensure that we have elements of natural justice, which includes procedural fairness as a fundamental principle.”
“It is far too narrow. The complications of being able to apply for it are difficult, and this needs to be changed. We also have system weaponisation, where too often the system makes it even harder for women trying to get support. We see this through child support payments, where we have that link between the income test and recovery attempts. There are so many areas in which systems abuse is facilitated for perpetrators, so we really have to rethink that model urgently. We are now some time on. I urge the government to implement all the recommendations of the review.”
“We have been trying to push the government to move on this, and it is linked so many issues, but it is also linked to domestic and family violence. We know the combination of alcohol and gambling fuels domestic violence incidents. The evidence is clear. There's no point in saying you're doing the right thing if you don't tackle these two massive areas. We know alcohol was involved in 20 per cent of domestic homicides. During major sporting events like State of Origin, family violence reports spike by up to 40 per cent. In New South Wales, the extension of takeaway alcohol sales by one hour led to 1,100 additional domestic violence assaults in the following 38 months. The data is there. The government just needs to act. The member for Wentworth has raised the question of eligibility for the family violence crisis payment.”
“But they are chronically underfunded and overstretched. Long waitlists mean women and children are left at risk at the most dangerous moment: when they are trying to leave. We are one year on from the rapid review. Cast your mind back to May last year. Obviously, the numbers of women killed were reaching crisis point. There was a lot of pressure. The government announced a rapid review to try and move the dial. They brought together experts. They called it a national emergency, and there were key recommendations that came out of that rapid review report. Unfortunately, some key recommendations remain unaddressed. The government is still sitting on its hands because it doesn't want to tackle these hard decisions. It means tighter restrictions on alcohol sales, delivery times and advertising. It does mean banning gambling advertising.”
“Since then, sure, the government has announced $4.7 billion over five years for frontline services in partnership with the states. These are welcome commitments, but the reality is that they are not shifting the dial. Ninety-four per cent of New South Wales services report increased demand. There is a two-month average wait for critical support for women and children needing to access those critical services, and, for a woman in danger, a two-month wait is far too long. In Warringah—and this problem is a scourge everywhere—we're fortunate to have incredible local services: Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, Mary's House, Women & Children First and the Women's Resilience Centre. All are manned by so many incredible volunteers doing amazing work. They provide crisis accommodation and wraparound support.”
“Even the fact that we have such a disparity of numbers is frightening, and it highlights the level of crisis this is. We know that in 2025 there have been, on some counts, 48 women killed already. On average, one woman every nine days is killed by a current or former partner. If that is not a national crisis, I don't know what qualifies as one. It is an absolute tragedy, and more needs to be done. It's not good enough to just say, 'We are the government that has put a record amount of money out there, and we have a national plan over this decade to eradicate domestic and family violence.' Unfortunately, it is not working. It's not moving the dial yet. In May last year, I brought a motion to this House calling for stronger action.”