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 17 of 17.
“While under this proposal the ATO will retain flexibility to remit in cases of financial hardships, it will require discretion from the ATO, and the feedback I get from small businesses in Warringah is they are not seeing any discretion or flexibility from the ATO. In fact, they are seeing a crackdown that makes it incredibly hard for them to remain operating. To ensure that we do actually have sensible things that help small business, I have an amendment to suggest to this legislation to improve it. The government circulated an amendment to extend the instant asset write-off until 30 June 2025. We've been having a debate about this instant asset write-off for some two years now, and it's really unacceptable that the delay has meant that small businesses can't rely on it.”
“Many in this place talk a big game in terms of small business, but the reality is, both for the major parties in opposition and in government, big business has their ear and all too often small business is mentioned—there's a lot of talk—but very little action occurs when it actually comes to putting detailed proposals that will help small business. With the question around the removal of interest deductibility on tax liabilities, I support improvements to tax integrity, but we must ensure, when we're closing loopholes, we're not in fact making it even harder for small businesses to survive. Through this change, there is a risk of disproportionately impacting small businesses who are already struggling with cash flow.”
“The next schedule addresses the extension of the ATO's notification period for retaining refunds relating to the BAS statements in an important measure to combat fraud. With scams becoming more sophisticated, especially through social media, it's even more critical. As I understand it from the minister, the measure will provide the Australian Taxation Office with the breathing room they need to investigate and crack down on fraudulent statements. I support this. This measure appears to be fairly well founded, especially if it supports efforts to uphold tax integrity. I am concerned, though, around protecting small business.”
“The AUSEV company are transitioning and making sure that we have fully electric, heavy-duty utes that can work on mines and other sites. This is an incredibly positive move, but I don't believe they receive support from their local member. The reality is we still have too many loopholes. There are still too many people using passenger vehicles and utes that aren't always for commercial or trade use. These are heavy, dangerous vehicles on our roads, and are high-emitting vehicles. This loophole for utes that remains in the legislation is bad and needs to be addressed. I urge the government to address this. Stand up and put forward some serious plans to enable the transition to happen and close that loophole, when it comes to that.”
“Anyone who has travelled in an electric vehicle will know that respiratory illnesses, noise and all those aspects are improved so significantly. We are developing more solutions when it comes to electrification of heavy transport as well. But this legislation, whilst it is closing a little bit of the loophole around the tax incentives and definitions around electric and plug-in hybrid—as I said, it's keeping this loophole for plug-in hybrids. I know there are regional members of government that have been lobbying to keep plug-in hybrids in this legislation. To me, it stems from that misunderstanding and the lack of experience of driving electric vehicles to understand that they deliver. For example, when it comes to the utes, I met with an Australian company—ironically in the electorate of the opposition leader, in Dickson.”
“We know the Sector Pathways Review and the Climate Change Authority put out sector pathway recommendations, but they're really not sufficient. They're not driving enough ambition yet. We know, when it comes to our transport sector, that we need to get to net zero. We have the ability to do that. The first and easiest way is around passenger vehicles. That fleet needs to get to net zero. I've been on a number of inquiries, and the amount of misinformation that still gets peddled out there is quite staggering really. The reality is the faster we transition to fully electric vehicles, the sooner we cut emissions, and we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We really cannot afford to delay. There is a silver lining to this as well, which is noise pollution.”
“The reality is a number of players in the field are improving the issue when it comes to access to charging facilities in our regional and urban areas. I know that the NRMA and others are installing a lot of fast-charging facilities. The reality is most average users do not do a huge number of kilometres, and the range of electric cars is absolutely sufficient. I have, for example, travelled by electric car from my electorate down to Canberra. I've gone to Jindabyne and to the Snowy Mountains. I've done a number of long journeys and there is a really good network out there. This constant misinformation seeks to drive doubt around range and encourages people to think that they have to hold onto the past when it comes to combustion vehicles and needing ongoing reliance on fossil fuels.”
“Some of these changes are necessary and overdue; however, there are concerns regarding unintended impacts, in particular in relation to the second schedule and the impacts on small business. First of all, on the luxury car tax changes. We know, from a decarbonisation point of view, transport is a low-hanging fruit. It is an area where we can and must accelerate our decarbonisation. The world is transitioning; we do not have a local car manufacturing industry, so we have to, as a matter of urgency, move towards electric vehicles. There is a lot of misinformation as to the safety and the range of electric vehicles. Much of that comes from those trying to hold back, trying to hold onto fossil fuels and old combustion engines.”
“Today I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentive and Integrity) Bill 2024. For many, this is essentially an omnibus bill that brings together a number of schedules covering the very different areas it touches on. The omnibus bill tries to close loopholes and encourage transition to electric vehicles in one of its schedules. It has three key parts. First, it tightens up the luxury car tax rules, but it really does not go far enough. It introduces that only electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles qualify for tax breaks. I will say more on that in a minute, because there is an issue around this remaining area of plug-in hybrids. The second part of the bill removes the ability to deduct interest charges on tax liability. The third schedule extends the ATO's notification period for retaining BAS funds from 14 to 30 days.”
“The telcos are a major player, especially when I look at social media and Facebook and Meta entities, in assisting in delivering scams to the victims. They are facilitating that, so they also bear that responsibility. But, of course, getting behind the wall of information in those kinds of organisations is simply impossible for victims. I do thank the government, I understand, for accepting that this reversal of onus is necessary, when it comes to that compilation of information and that certificate of compliance, so that access to dispute resolution can operate. I think it's important, though, for the government to continue being vigilant, to make sure fair compensation is occurring. I urge all consumers and victims out there to absolutely report scams. They profit and thrive with secrecy, with shame or anxiety about reporting.”
“Another example might be a social media platform providing specific details of when they became aware of the scam activity and what steps they took to respond. It's important that everyone involved in this matrix takes some responsibility. We've had discussions around whether it should be, for example, an automatic presumption of compensation against the financial institutions. I accept that there are often three elements to scams. We have the victim, who has unwittingly consented to authorising a payment. We have financial institutions that have access to who that payment is ultimately going to, so they bear a responsibility in introducing friction and in ensuring people are generally aware of what they are authorising. Then we have the telcos. I accept this.”
“These amendments improve the internal dispute resolution process to require businesses to provide this statement of certification that they have complied with their obligation under the bill, and there will be a civil penalty provision that carries with this, and these certificates will be admissible in later proceedings. I ask the minister to make sure, though, that the explanatory memorandum includes details relating to the specificity requirements that will be placed in the rules, to ensure customers have enough details to satisfy their compliance with their obligations. It might be by providing details that at a specific time the customer confirmed the name of the account to receive the funds through a confirmation of payee mechanism.”
“They require the companies and the banks, financial institutions and telcos involved in a scam, as a party to the scam, to provide the victims with a statement of compliance with the Scams Prevention Framework to then access that internal dispute resolution. Associated with that needs to be what that Scams Prevention Framework ultimately looks like, I appreciate, and I have some questions in that respect. What this means is that it's not just for the victim to have to establish the case from scratch that they are entitled to dispute resolution and thus compensation. There is a reversal of onus, which is important. It strengthens the integrity of the framework and will ensure that vulnerable customers will be able to have a better chance of access at dispute resolution and, ultimately, compensation from the regulated entities.”
“Under the current proposed legislation, to bring forward a claim for compensation, a victim will need to gather information from companies—the banks and the telcos—to establish whether or not the companies have complied with the code. That is simply not realistic. I've raised this with the minister. Understanding that David and Goliath battle is important. The information is not readily available, and there is no requirement for the companies to hand it over willingly. I think it's fair to assume that getting to that information, with the scale of these organisations, would just be impossible for the victims of scams. It's a David and Goliath battle. My amendments go some way to bringing power back to consumers by at least reversing the onus of proof when it comes to accessing dispute resolution.”
“Note: This means subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision of an SPF principle for the purposes of section 58FJ (about civil penalties). (4) A statement of compliance given by the entity under this section is admissible, in any proceeding that: (a) relates to the complaint; and (b) is under or relates to an SPF EDR scheme; as prima facie evidence of the entity's position, at the time of making the statement, on the matters in the statement. (5) Nothing in this section limits or affects the admissibility in a proceeding of any other statement or evidence. As many have discussed in relation to this legislation, there is a David and Goliath battle when it comes to victims and banks, financial institutions and the large telcos and social media platforms, which are all too often part of scams reaching consumers.”
“(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the statement of compliance must: (a) include a statement by the regulated entity about whether, based on information reasonably available to the entity at the time of making the statement, it has complied with its obligations under the SPF provisions that are relevant to the complaint; and (b) contain the kinds of information prescribed by the SPF rules that are relevant to the complaint; and (c) not contain the kinds of information (if any) prescribed by the SPF rules that are relevant to the complaint; and (d) be in writing and signed by a person who is an authorised representative of the entity of a kind prescribed by the SPF rules; and (e) be given in accordance with the timeframes, and in the manner and form, prescribed by the SPF rules. (3) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision.”
“(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 29 (after line 16), after section 58BZD, insert: 58BZDA Giving a statement of compliance — civil penalty provision (1) A regulated entity contravenes this subsection if the entity: (a) is undertaking internal dispute resolution in dealing with a person's complaint of a kind described in paragraph 58BZD(1)(a) or (b); and (b) does not give the person a statement of compliance in accordance with subsection (2). Note: This subsection only applies to the entity when the SPF rules prescribe matters for paragraphs (2)(b), (d) and (e) that are relevant to the complaint.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (before line 4), before the paragraph beginning "When undertaking such internal dispute resolution" in section 58BZB, insert: When undertaking such internal dispute resolution about a complaint, the entity must give a statement, relevant to the complaint, about whether it has complied with its obligations.”
“I will support this legislation—as amended, when I do so in the consideration in detail stage—but I urge the government and the opposition to keep a vigilant eye to make sure compensation for victims improves in Australia.”
“For example, one constituent called with an online jobs scam which resulted in a loss of $40,000. She was out of work and struggling to find new work to support two young children, she had an unexpected large repair bill with her house, and she was lured into a scam mimicking a big employer. As a result, she lost significant money, which really made a difference. These are sophisticated scams. They're set up with group chats and staffs and terms of employment. It's really important that that be reported and that we have the resources to crack down on it. Individual stories tell us a lot. They tell us about the sophistication. We need to make sure we do more. I would like to thank CHOICE and the Consumer Action Law Centre, who have relentlessly advocated on behalf of scam victims. We know we can do more.”
“I think Australia and the government need to be mindful of whether or not this legislation works. Hopefully, this is about more than just providing an avenue to recoup money for victims. It has to be about protecting the integrity of our systems to build a greater sense of security in an increasingly complex digital world. Scammers are evolving, as many in this place have noted. So too must our response to them. Whether it's through fake investment schemes, identity theft or fake job advertisers, Australians are being targeted with alarming frequency. As I said, in my office I receive regular phone calls from constituents who have been scammed. They get in contact with the office because they are distressed and have little to no way to seek redress or to get their money back. We really need to make sure we are doing more.”
“We see New Zealand and Singapore moving in the direction of the UK by introducing measures for greater liability of the financial institutions, the argument being that the banks can see who the money is being transferred to. They can see what's happening. They have the capacity to prevent it. They then also have the means to recoup money from a Meta or a Facebook, for example—the next step of recovery—if the responsibility lies with them. I hear the concerns of consumer groups that there is still too much onus on victims, and I'll monitor closely whether or not we have an improvement in the amount of money victims are able to be compensated—whether this legislation goes far enough. The UK has gone out the furthest. As I said, New Zealand and Singapore are moving in the direction of the UK.”
“Should the bank be liable for the loss because they've enabled the money to be transferred? Should Facebook be liable because they have given a platform for the scammer to reach the consumer? Or is the victim responsible because they haven't taken due care and diligence? So where we allocate responsibility is important, but at the moment the onus falls too much, too heavily, on the victims, and there is not enough responsibility put on the big institutions, who have access to the means, the capacity and the resources to put in place greater protections. This legislation is a step towards introducing that, but it is still being criticised as not being strong enough.”
“At the same time, I do hear their complaint that we can't just completely let consumers off the hook for that responsibility of due diligence. We all bear a responsibility when we are actioning or authorising a transaction to take a moment to verify that transaction, to make sure we are in fact not being scammed, but also to verify who we are authorising a transaction to. I do accept that there has to be joint responsibility from all in preventing scams. Of course, there's also the role that social media platforms and online platforms play in publishing and enabling scams to happen because they give them the platform. For example, a scam is brought to a person via a Meta platform like Facebook; a transaction occurs, and the bank proceeds with the transaction.”
“At the moment the debate as well is that, if the banks were made solely liable for compensating victims of scams, that would incentivise them to put better friction in place because their money would be on the hook. Instead, the government is going for a model that's not an automatic compensation model, where there's a shared liability between platforms and banks and consumers to enable that compensation prospect. I think we need to monitor this carefully. Other jurisdictions have gone towards more of an automatic liability and compensation process. It's important to make financial institutions more responsible through greater accountability, forcing them to take greater actions on scams. We know they say, 'We're working on it,' but they're not always doing enough.”
“As, in this era, bank cheques are a thing of the past and many transactions are done electronically, that deposit was lost. The real question then falls on who should be responsible for that compensation. Obviously, the financial institution has access to the data, right? They can see who the money is being transferred to. One of the calls is that we should have greater friction to ensure that financial institutions go through that step of checking with the customer, 'Is this really who you want to be sending this money to? Is this the right person?' Of course, there might be frustration for the customer from that increased friction and delay, but I think that is better than seeing money being scammed and going to the wrong providers. That friction is within the power of the banks.”
“For example, locally we have an organisation called Manly Computer Pals, and at Christmas last year they ran tutorials for seniors to help them avoid possible scams and raise their own levels of digital literacy. We need to follow communities' leads and provide more information and education to make sure we arm consumers with the information and the tools to better protect themselves against scams, because the reality is that, as I said, scams happen to everyone—all age groups. Young people—in particular, the young professionals—get scammed in relation to funds they simply can't afford to lose. For example, a young constituent of mine wrote to me about losing a house deposit of some $100,000, as he was scammed when someone impersonated his lawyer.”
“While I support the bill, I think it's necessary to raise for future consideration the codes and the rules. The government has removed the provisions relating to identification and special treatment for vulnerable customers from the exposure draft, so there is no direct oversight over these particularly at-risk customers. Further, the bill doesn't provide any obligations or support for ongoing education and awareness programs from the government. As I've mentioned previously in this chamber, due to the lack of government initiatives in my electorate and around Australia, our communities have taken education and digital literacy into their own hands, but more can be done by the government.”
“The amendment has already been flagged by Treasury in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, and my amendment will make it law. Similarly, greater transparency means that companies will also have a clearer understanding of what is required of them under this legislation, providing them with regulatory certainty. Consumer groups have consistently raised concerns about the slow response from industry and government. We already have strong frameworks in place for other areas of consumer protection, so why is it taking so long for scams? It has for too long been put off. Nevertheless, consumer groups are concerned that more can be done. This legislation should only be viewed as a start. During the period of review, it will be important to assess how well it is working. There are a couple of other concerns that I'd like to raise.”
“This amendment will be necessary, and I'll monitor the implementation of the amendment through the rules and the codes to make sure that regulated entities provide customers with the specificity that is required to prove that they have met their obligations. It can't just be that a Meta or a bank ticks and flicks whether or not they have complied. We have to make sure that this works and that they genuinely have assessed their processes and implemented the precautions and the Scams Prevention Framework. That means that if they haven't then they should be liable and victims should be able to get compensation. This should help to bring greater transparency to the framework and empower consumers to have a fair go in getting dispute resolution and ultimately, hopefully, get compensation for their losses.”
“The onus introduces a significant barrier to getting any compensation for victims from these companies. It's a legalistic, resource-draining, time-wasting and complex task for the victim. Victims without the assistance of advocates will fall through the gaps. They're set up to fail under the current set-up of the proposed bill. The amendment I have proposed and discussed and negotiated with the government places an obligation on businesses through an increased detailed certification requirement to show that they have met their obligations under the Scams Prevention Framework Bill, rules and sector-specific codes. The onus falls on them to show that they have complied.”
“There is a remaining concern that there is an information gap and a power gap, but there's also the concern that those that generally are able to recoup or to assist with recompense to victims are ultimately those that have access to the information and the data. There is a huge disadvantage when it comes to victims compared to entities. The proposed bill places the onus on already vulnerable consumers to take on their bank, telco or social media platform, and it essentially is asking a victim to prove that the institution did not meet the requirements of the Scams Prevention Framework. That is a simply ridiculous proposition—that somehow a victim will be able to establish whether or not a Meta has generally met the requirements to ensure the Scams Prevention Framework is working.”
“The power of the legislation will be in how consumers continue to report scams and how entities, banks and telcos act on those reports and do what is needed. Through reporting scams quickly to Scamwatch for consumers, consumers can disrupt a scamming activity and prevent it being effective for future victims. No matter what, when you get those spam SMSs and scam emails, reporting them to Scamwatch is incredibly important. It is part of that process of pre-bunking and protecting consumers. It ensures the scheme is robust by providing valuable intelligence to the industry to act. I support the intent of the bill. However, I'll be moving an important amendment to strengthen the integrity of the framework and ensure that vulnerable customers will be able to have equal access in receiving compensation from regulated entities.”
“Do not feel that shame, because it happens to so many people in our community. Last year, an email came in from one of my own electoral officers, whose email was hacked, resulting in phishing scam emails being sent out to members of parliament in this chamber and having to be recalled. So we know we need greater protections. I welcome this Scams Prevention Framework legislation. It is a crucial step towards safeguarding Australian consumers from increasingly deceptive and harmful practices. This bill does provide for the protection of Australian consumers from fraud, encourages corporate accountability and brings Australia further in line with comparable jurisdictions, like the UK and Singapore, but we haven't gone as far as some have.”
“Australians were scammed more than $2.7 billion in 2023 alone. In 2022 it was more than $3 billion. We need to remember that these are not just numbers; these represent real people, real families, who are financially and emotionally devastated. The reality is that it's probably also the tip of the iceberg, because often people simply do not report scams; they're too embarrassed about having been duped. Sometimes it is a lifetime of savings that has been lost. In my electorate of Warringah, we hear from many constituents about their experiences and feel the emotional distress that being caught up in a scam causes. It can come from young people and older people. It really does not discriminate. All feel a sense of shame and embarrassment that they have been duped. So my message to everyone is: please report it.”
“Today I welcome the Scams Protection Framework Bill 2024. It's not perfect, but it certainly goes a fair way to helping Australians fight against the growing threat of scams, because so far we are failing. Consumer groups have been raising the alarm for years in relation to this, and governments have been deaf to their concerns. There has been a lack of action from industry, banks, social media companies, telecommunication sectors and, realistically, the previous government and government to date in relation to fighting back against scams, protecting Australians and helping them actually recoup some of the losses. In 2023, despite the banking sector implementing a voluntary code on scams, consumers were still wearing the cost of scams. Australia is amongst the top five most-scammed countries in the world.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. You spoke earlier of the Queensland floods. We're seeing, yet again, the impacts and escalating risk of the climate crisis. Over in the US, the damage from the Californian wildfires will exceed $135 billion. Clearly, we cannot insure our way out of the climate crisis. Action on preparation and resilience must occur now. Will the government commit to a round table to bring together construction, insurance, banking, local government and civil society to ensure better investment in climate resilience and adaptation?”