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 2 of 17.
“It said that she had been questioned by the National Anti-Corruption Commission even though the National Anti-Corruption Commission had already found that there was no corruption issue. In fact, there were strong inferences that the very referral led by ex-Liberal MP Jason Falinski was politically motivated, yet the NACC backed down from taking any kind of public stand around that concern on such a politically motivated referral and, in fact, declined to make any public statement to that effect. Without requirements for minimum standards in political advertising, candidates and communities will have no protections, and that situation will recur, and they will be scammed by bad faith actors.”
“The Voice referendum exposed how misinformation can overwhelm democratic debate, with false claims repeatedly circulated to sow confusion, undermine trust and influence voters on the question of national importance. AI is already entering political campaigning. Labor used generative AI to mock Peter Dutton's nuclear policy, while Queensland's LNP used AI generated content against Steven Miles. The technology is moving faster than the rules. In the 2025 election, community Independents were targeted by third-party campaigns led by ex-Liberal MPs across Wentworth, Warringah, Mackellar, Kooyong and Goldstein. In Goldstein, a mobile billboard depicted the then Independent member emerging from a genie's bottle under the headline 'All smoke'.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The major parties refuse to act. For too long, they have used the lack of political advertising regulation to mislead and deceive voters. This bill is about a simple principle: protecting voter rights from scams, the same way we protect consumer rights. The major parties have refused to do this for too long. Why I would say can be obvious. But with the rise of the far-right movement and post-truth politics, supercharged by AI and social media platforms, this is only going to get worse and absolutely must be addressed without any further delay. In 2022 and 2025, fake signage falsely depicted Independents as Greens candidates. This was not policy debate; this was an attempt to mislead voters about who candidates were and who they represented.”
“To the Prime Minister: following on from the member for Wentworth's question on Tuesday and the very vague answer received from the minister, to be very clear, will the government ban be true to the Murphy report and ban all inducements in gambling and gambling advertising to protect Australians from the predatory gambling industry?”
“It restricts schedule 1 to real property now, where the government says the core problem lies. Once the government has done the modelling, consulted properly and settled the detail for other asset classes, the parliament can then have a proper debate about whether or not CGT changes should apply beyond property. It avoids capturing shares, ETFs, business equity, startup capital and other productive investments that are not the source of the housing affordability problem. It's a cleaner and more defensible approach. I recognise that this has been a difficult debate and that it has taken courage from the government to bring a debate on housing investment in changes to CGT and negative gearing. I welcome it. I took that to the last election, but there is just so much uncertainty around the rest. I commend this amendment to the House.”
“Australia needs more capital flowing into productive enterprise startups, renewable energy and growth businesses, not less. The object should be clear: reduce tax advantages that encourage speculation in established housing while protecting investment pathways that support productivity, entrepreneurship and long-term economic resilience. The government has said there will be carve-outs, but the parliament has not seen what they are. I am not in a position to genuinely say to the people of Warringah that I think the carve-outs have met the right balance or are fair. We don't know which businesses will be protected, which asset classes will be exempt, how startups will be treated, or whether ordinary investors and employee equity arrangements will be caught. And that's precisely why my amendment is appropriate.”
“For entrepreneurs, early employees and local investors, capital gains can be the reward for taking risks, for accepting lower wages, for reinvesting profits or for building a business over many years. Integrity in our trust system is also important, and income-splitting should be ended. But many family businesses and small operators also use trusts for legitimate reasons. The suggestion that businesses can simply restructure into companies is too simplistic again. Restructuring can mean legal costs, accounting costs, state taxes, transfer costs and additional administration. For small operators, that is not a minor inconvenience; it can be a major barrier. There are also concerns around investment in clean energy and innovation.”
“Many are not wealthy investors living off passive income, as has been suggested by too many members of government. They are working Australians trying to build a financial buffer outside the property market. The government may say that there will be amendments, carve-outs and extensions. But that leads us to the difficulties. We simply do not know where that is going to land. We are not privy to the negotiations around where the thresholds for business are going to be. For many young Australians who cannot get into housing shares, ETFs or employee equity are among the few remaining pathways to save, invest and build some financial security. Small businesses have raised similar concerns. Shares, startups and business equity are not the same as passive property investment.”
“But schedule 1 requires amendment, and that is the amendment I have moved. This bill goes much further than housing. It extends the CGT changes across shares, ETFs, managed funds, startups, small and larger business assets, employee equity trusts and family business succession. If the government's policy target is speculative investment in established housing, then the legislation should target that. It should not drag productive investment, business risk-taking and modest long-term savings into the same net. The government has framed this package as reform for workers, first home buyers and future generations. But the concerns raised consistently with me in Warringah are that the CGT changes are not properly targeted. Young professionals, small-business owners, startup founders and families feel blindsided.”
“The government argues that this legislation is about making the tax system fairer between income earned from wages and income earned from passive investments. But that framing is too simplistic. A capital gain is often realised only after many years of risk, delayed reward, reinvestment, losses or uncertainty. If we want an economy that backs enterprise, innovation and productivity, we must recognise and reward responsible risk-taking. I support the principle of reforming housing tax settings. Negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions have too often encouraged investment into established housing rather than new supply, and that has contributed to a market where too many young Australians are locked out. That is why I support the bulk of this legislation, schedules 2, 3 and 4.”
“An Australian CBAM, alongside a fossil fuel export levy set at the same effective emissions price as the safeguard mechanism, could help protect Australian industry, support cleaner manufacturing and raise revenue for climate resilience. Is the government preparing Australia for this shift in global trade or waiting while other countries set the rules, because they are active in this space?”
“The EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism is set to expand, and the UK is also moving towards a similar border carbon regime. These mechanisms are designed to apply a carbon cost to imported goods where emissions have not been priced earlier in the supply chain. Australia's safeguard mechanism applies to large domestic emitters, but it does not price exported fossil fuel emissions when those products are consumed overseas. Similarly, we do not address the imported emissions that come into Australia. That creates a serious risk. Other countries may collect carbon revenue at their borders on Australian products while Australia misses the opportunity to raise revenue at Australian borders and reinvest that revenue here.”
“Polling also shows strong public support. YouGov polling from May 2026 found that 74 per cent of Australians support aid being maintained or increased. The government can't claim that there is no public support to rebuild the aid program, but what there is is an overestimation. The public believes we are providing much more aid than we actually are. The numbers are much lower than the public perception. The next question I have is in relation to a CBAM. Does the government intend to implement an Australian carbon border adjustment mechanism? Has the government modelled the revenue that could be raised through a CBAM or fossil fuel export levy? Can the government ensure Australian industry is not disadvantaged by competing against imported products that do not face equivalent emissions costs?”
“Official development assistance across OECD Development Assistance Committee countries declined by 23.1 per cent from 2024 to 2025, the largest single-year decrease on record. Australia's own contribution remains historically low. Australia's ODA as a share of gross national income has fallen to 0.18 per cent, below the OECD average of 0.26 per cent—we're already talking about everything being very low here—and behind comparable partners, including the UK, Japan and Canada. This is all the while we have two billion people—around one quarter of the global population—living in conflict affected areas. Foreign aid is not charity; it is preventive statecraft. It supports regional stability, economic development, health security, humanitarian response and the ability of countries in our region to resist coercion.”
“Firstly—and these questions are in relation to foreign aid—will the government commit to returning Australia's foreign aid budget to at least one per cent of the federal budget, as called for by the Australian Council for International Development? Secondly, given that aid is now just 0.63 per cent of the federal budget, in what year does the government expect Australia's aid contribution to return to at least one per cent? Thirdly, how does the government justify aid declining in real terms when global official development assistance fell by 23.1 per cent from 2024 to 2025? Conflict and global instabilities are increasing, yet investment in preventing these crises is moving in the opposite direction.”
“Australia's international affairs budget is $76.18 billion, or some 9.5 per cent of the total federal budget. That includes defence, development, diplomacy, intelligence and international policing. But the distribution of that funding raises serious questions about whether the government is investing in the full range of tools needed to protect Australia's interests. Defence dominates the international affairs budget, accounting for approximately 82 per cent of total spending. By contrast, official development assistance is just $5.2 billion, only 0.63 per cent of the federal budget. At a time of increasing conflict, geopolitical instability, climate disruption, humanitarian need and regional concerns, we need to make sure that we are adequately investing in all forms of statecraft.”
“But if we want young people to keep showing up, engaging and believing their voice matters governments must show that listening leads to practical action on the pressures shaping their future, including the fairness around issues like student debt, for example. So many of those high-school students worry about the debt they will incur at university. We know the government can fix the unfair timing of HECS indexation by moving the indexation date to after compulsory repayments are credited to student loan accounts. That is just one way the government can genuinely act on the concerns of young people.”
“They raised their concerns about cost of living and housing with honesty. Many fear they will work hard and still never be able to buy a home or live and remain in the Northern Beaches where they grew up. They also raised the government's changes and current debate on the changes to capital gains tax. Whilst they welcomed the prospect of housing being more affordable, they relayed frustration about the proposed changes when it came to shares and ETFs, which many have seen as a pathway to building a financial buffer and independence. Their message was clear: young people are not disengaged; too often politics is disengaged from them. Have Your Say Day represents the best of Warringah's young people: thoughtful, constructive and ready to contribute.”
“Whether you like politics or not, politics is in your life because the decisions we make in this place will shape the opportunities and the prospects of your life as you go on. Students discussed complex local, state and federal issues with confidence, thoughtfulness and responsibility. Students made clear that unreliable transport in the Northern Beaches is affecting school, work, safety and their independence. We heard about delayed, cancelled and overcrowded buses; long commutes; students being left without safe options late at night; and the need for more frequent routes. Students spoke powerfully about mental health, school pressure, uncertainty about the future, stigma about asking for help and the importance of safe third spaces where young people can connect outside home and school.”
“On 20 May, high-school students from across Warringah came together for Have Your Say Day 2026, which is a youth led civics consultation event that is supported by Northern Beaches Council, Stella Maris College and the New South Wales Office for Youth. I was delighted to attend and hear directly from students about the issues shaping their lives and the practical solutions they want us as decision-makers to take seriously. Federal politics needs a lot more events like Have Your Say Day. It's part of how members of parliament can listen and genuinely better connect with young people and emerging leaders in our communities. As I often say, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. In the 1980s, your Labor mentor Tom Uren fought to stop the Commonwealth from selling off HMAS Penguin at Balmoral. In 2021, you invoked Uren in parliament, saying that Sydney Harbour belongs to the nation and should stay in public hands. So why is your government now planning to sell off parts of HMAS Penguin at Middle Head, against community wishes, and will you commit to setting aside angophora remnant bushland for conservation and keeping historic buildings in public hands?”
“There is not enough time to raise all the concerns with this bill, but I move the amendment as circulated in my name so that more investigation into this legislation can occur: That all words after "but" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "notes that: (1) the Government's capital gains tax reforms should be limited to investment property; (2) proposed changes affecting business assets, shares, exchange traded funds and trusts should be referred to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny before proceeding; (3) an inquiry should examine the potential unintended consequences of the proposed changes, including impacts on small business, young investors, productivity, risk-taking and household financial resilience; and (4) the Government should consider targeted exemptions or thresholds for modest share investors, so younger Australians are not penalised for using shares and exchange traded funds to build financial security outside the property market".”
“COSBOA have raised their concern around the definition of 'small business', and I hear from the government that there are negotiations. But, again, here we are being asked to vote on legislation when we don't know where it's actually going to land, who is going to be carved out or where the definition of 'small business' will be. There are so many issues, and then we have the impact on trusts. Some 370,000 small and family businesses operate through trusts, yet we don't have clear visibility.”
“That is the central problem with this bill. Small and medium businesses in Warringah have raised similar concerns. Shares, startups and business equity are not the same as passive property investment. For many entrepreneurs, early employees and investors, capital gains are the reward for taking risk, building a business, accepting lower wages and backing innovation. There can be years of no dividend from an investment, and the government now, by saying that it should all be treated in a flat way, is not recognising the risk and the years of delay that go into being an entrepreneur. These are not multinational corporations with large balance sheets. They are often local employers and family businesses who have spent decades building something.”
“For many young Australians who cannot get into the property market, investing in shares, ETFs or startups has become one of the few pathways available to them to build that nest egg, that economic buffer. The government says this is about intergenerational fairness. Well, intergenerational fairness is not achieved by making housing slightly fairer while reducing other pathways for young Australians to save, invest, build businesses and create financial security. We must be careful that, in trying to fix one unfairness, we're not creating another. If the target is speculative investment in existing housing, then target that. Do not drag productive investment, modest savings, employee equity and startup capital into the same net without clear evidence and information and modelling around unintended consequences.”
“Schedule 1 extends these changes across shares, managed funds, ETFs, business equity, trusts and other capital assets. I've heard from young professionals, small-business owners, startups, founders and families who feel completely blindsided by these changes. One constituent told me she and her partner have done everything they were told to do. They've studied. They've worked hard. They've got big HECS debts. They've built careers. They've borrowed responsibility within their means. They have good incomes. But, between high housing costs, bills and everyday expenses, they still feel like they are barely getting ahead. That is their aspiration, which the government is whacking with this bill. They're not wealthy investors living off passive income; they're working Australians trying to build some financial security, a buffer.”
“Parents and grandparents tell me they have benefited from rising property values, but they are deeply concerned about what this means for their children and grandchildren. Many people who have done well from the current system recognise it is no longer delivering fairness. The combination of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions has encouraged investment in existing housing rather than the new supply Australia desperately needs. Housing should ultimately be about creating a home, not simply a vehicle for investment or tax advantage. I commend the government for being willing to tackle an area of reform that has been politically difficult for decades, but what you've done is bundle this with other issues that you don't have social licence for. Schedule 1 goes much further than just property, and that's where it falls apart.”
“Currently, individuals, trusts and partnerships usually receive a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount if they hold an asset for more than 12 months. With this change, the discount would be replaced with a minimum 30 per cent tax rate indexed to inflation. The family home remains exempt from these changes, and so will new builds. I want to be very clear: I support reforming capital gains tax settings when it comes to investment property. For too long, Australia's housing system has been distorted by tax settings that favour those who already own assets over those trying to buy their first home. In Warringah, I hear about it every day. Young people who grew up locally are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford to live in the community they call home.”
“The irony is that we are in the second year of the second term of a Labor government. The government has only raised JobSeeker once, in 2023. It was a minimal change with a promise of more to come, and, yet, here we are, three years later, with nothing in this budget for the most vulnerable. This is not just a welfare issue. It's a dignity issue and it's also a workforce participation issue. When people cannot afford to secure housing, transport, health care or basic necessities, it becomes harder, not easier, to get back into employment. A strong economy is one where everyone has the opportunity to participate. This bill does not meet that test. The most significant part of this bill is schedule 1, which makes broad changes to capital gains tax arrangements.”
“Workers with straightforward deductions should not have to navigate unnecessary administration, but, again, this has been packaged as some phenomenal cost-of-living relief, when, for many people, it will have little or no financial impact because this will all be in 12 months time. More importantly, this bill provides no meaningful relief for those in our communities doing it the toughest. ACOSS has highlighted that more than four million people on the lowest incomes, including people receiving JobSeeker, pensioners and single parents without paid work, will not benefit from these tax measures. JobSeeker remains around $409 per week—less than half the minimum wage—while housing, food and essential costs continue to rise. I've raised this with the Treasurer.”
“At a time when households are under enormous cost-of-living pressure, any additional support is welcome, but let's be honest: $250 a year, in a year's time, will not make a meaningful difference to many households facing rising mortgage repayments, rents, insurance, groceries, energy and healthcare costs right now. Schedule 4 introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. This is a practical measure that will simplify tax time for some Australians, but, again, let's be clear: if you're already claiming deductions greater than $1,000, it's business as usual and the situation hasn't changed. This instant tax deduction allows eligible taxpayers to claim up to $1,000 of work related expenses without itemising and substantiating every claim, so, yes, this will reduce complexity. It's welcome.”
“It's been really clear with the community that they can essentially bank those profits, the gains they have made. It is simply setting a line in the sand to say that, moving forward, the opportunity for property investment will be and those advantages will be around new builds, which will then help boost supply. These are good things. This part of the bill is targeted, as it applies to residential property. It maintains incentives for new housing supply, and, importantly, existing investment decisions are protected through those transitional arrangements. In simple terms, this does not abolish negative gearing entirely, it just redirects it away from established homes towards new housing supply. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset, providing $250 for working Australian taxpayers.”
“I have serious concerns about the breadth of schedule 1, and I'll return to that. But I have to say up front that the whole indexation model is confusing. The public does not understand it, and you are not taking the community on board with you on that. Schedule 2 limits negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds. This reform, I would argue, has broad community support. Under the current system, investors can deduct losses from property investments against their income while later benefiting from discounted capital gains. That combination has helped push prices up, and it made it harder for first home buyers to compete against property investors. Although, people who bought properties before May 2026 will keep the existing rules.”
“Essentially what the government is saying is: 'We will put everyone on an equal par. It doesn't matter if you're just prepared to shop for a job or take risks and not be paid for years as you invest into an opportunity; you will all be treated the same way.' That is not how we grow productivity. That is not how we encourage investment. It is not how we are going to make the best of Australia going forward. In relation to what the bill actually does, it has the four key elements of the government's tax reform package. Schedule 1, which is the most contentious, makes significant changes to capital gains tax arrangements. It replaces the existing 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with a return to cost-base indexation and introduces a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on real capital gains from 1 July 2027.”
“As I said, the detail we have so far is not good enough for me, but it's also not good enough for the majority of the people from Warringah who have contacted my office. There are clear groups of people really frustrated and disappointed with the government. They want change to capital gains tax in relation to property investors. They want affordability, so first home owners can have a fair shot and not compete with investors. But they also want to have an opportunity for aspiration. They want an opportunity, after they have worked their day job, been paid their wages and contributed. If they are going to take risks, invest, try and raise our productivity and build a buffer through investment, shares, a small business or a startup, they want to know that those risks that they are prepared to take can be rewarded.”
“Again, it just goes to show the political manoeuvring and the disappointment; you're bundling together all the various aspects of this legislation and these reforms on a vague promise: 'She'll be right. We will work out the details later; just trust us.' That's just not good enough for the majority of the Australian people. And it's not good enough for me, because I take seriously my responsibility to the people of Warringah to ensure that the legislation has the detail and that I have the details before me when I make a decision to support legislation or not. So let's unpack what is in this legislation and why it's so frustrating, because there are clear groups that are frustrating.”
“In particular, as members in this place, we can't really do our job of scrutinising this legislation properly. The time for the debate in relation to this bill has been inadequate. The consultation and the refusal to have it properly investigated at committee are all major issues. There are some parts I very much support and welcome. Prior to the last election I went to my community supporting winding back capital gains when it came to property and investors. There was a strong case there. I was frustrated when the government and in fact the Prime Minister made repeated promises it wouldn't touch it, because ultimately these are areas that need changing. We have to pull the demand-side levers as well as the supply levers when it comes to property pricing.”
“That's why it is so incredibly frustrating when I look at the debate in relation to this reform. I know major tax reform requires transparency and scrutiny. It requires courage and it requires bringing the community along. Instead, what the government has chosen to do is package housing reform, cost-of-living measures, capital gains tax changes, trust taxation and small-business impacts into one omnibus bill. From many members of government, we're hearing that the justifications for this are fairness and affordability of property. But this bill goes way beyond that, and the public isn't buying it. They're not accepting that this is just about making property and homeownership more achievable. That's why the course the government has chosen to take in relation to this is so incredibly frustrating.”
“Some have broad community support and clear policy rationales; others are complex, contentious and far-reaching, and the government still cannot articulate exactly what will be the unintended consequences, what will be the scale or the reach of these measures, who will be caught by them, where the carve-out will be, or what the definitions of who this applies to will be. The government is asking this parliament to pass major economic reform without providing the modelling, the evidence, the consultation needed to understand its full impact, or the clear information about how small business will be defined, what carve-outs are going to be negotiated or who will be impacted in the end. That is not how you make significant tax reform that lasts or that has social licence and consensus.”
“Australia needs serious tax reform. We need a system that is fairer and more efficient, that rewards work, that improves housing affordability, and that also supports productivity and ensures the burden of fiscal repair is shared fairly. But good reform is not just about the policy objective; it is also about the process, about how you get there and how you bring the community along, the consultation that you engage in with communities, with business, with all the sectors. Unfortunately, the process the government has followed here in this instance is just not good enough. This is a substantial bill. It contains really important and significant reforms, some very much needed, but it also bundles together several very different measures, and measures that do not have social and social licence or support at this stage.”
“I want to start out by shouting out some school students we have here watching. It's always exciting to see them here, because the decisions we make in this place very much impact the prospects and opportunities they will have in their life as they grow up. And while many young people too often think they're not interested in politics, I always remind them: if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. Decisions will be made that impact your life, and whether you like politics or not, it is in your life. We make the decisions and the laws that, ultimately, will shape their opportunities, and that is very relevant for the debate we have today in relation to these bills to give effect to the government's budget. Some aspects I support, but for some I am really deeply frustrated that we are in the situation we're in.”
“Despite billions of dollars being transferred, as yet there is no guarantee that anything will be delivered to the Australian people. So I again ask the government: Will the government provide full transparency on any changes to the AUKUS pathway, including cost, delivery risk and sovereignty implications? What guarantee can the government provide that Australia will not face a submarine capability gap after the Collins class submarines retire in 2040, particularly if US shipbuilding capacity does not increase or a future US administration decides not to transfer the promised submarines? With more than $10 billion transferred to date, and much more being committed into the future, the Australian public deserves to know what guarantees Defence and the Australian government can provide that the capability will be available.”
“Security experts consistently identify climate change as one of the greatest threats to Australia's long-term stability. The government's own national climate risk assessment highlighted the seriousness of the risks we face, yet just $117 million was allocated to climate adaptation and disaster resilience, with most of it going to emergency response. Climate resilience is a national security issue, and, if we fail to invest now, Australians will pay far more later and will not be safe—no matter how many submarines you buy. Finally, as discussed during the MPI today, Australians are entitled to much more clarity when it comes to the AUKUS agreement. The public has no confidence that there is going to be any value for money to the Australian people.”
“The UK intelligence agencies recently released a report that found all critical ecosystems were on a pathway to collapse. Will the Australian government release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence's climate risk assessment and properly recognise climate change as a core national security threat? Will Defence release any advice in relation to national security and capability assessment that it has provided the government in relation to climate risk and its impact on our national security? National security does not begin and end with military spending. The government continues to take a myopic view of security by committing hundreds of billions to defence while leaving climate resilience severely underfunded.”
“My questions to the minister are: Will the government release the cost-benefit analysis behind the proposed relocation of noncritical capabilities and partial divestment of HMAS Penguin ? Will the government release the environmental, cultural, heritage and capability assessments underpinning this decision? Will the minister clearly identify which parts of HMAS Penguin are proposed for partial divestment, including whether remnant bushland or significant buildings are included? Will the minister guarantee that public interest will be prioritised, that the remnant bushland will be protected for conservation and that any buildings will not be sold for private commercial development? Will the minister guarantee my community that this important public asset will not simply be sold off into private ownership?”
“However, the government has also determined that other capabilities are noncritical and may be relocated, which has led to the proposed partial divestment of parts of the site, including the remnant bushland. Along with my community, I strongly oppose this decision to partially divest HMAS Penguin . I've submitted freedom-of-information requests to seek the evidence behind this proposal, including the cost-benefit assessment used to justify relocating so-called noncritical capabilities and partially divesting the site. To date, there has been no clear explanation of what is proposed to be divested. Is it the remnant bushland? Is it parts of the built environment? What buildings would be affected, what are their maintenance costs, and what assessment has been done to ensure they do not fall into disrepair?”
“This budget commits Australia to record levels of defence expenditure, including an additional $14 billion over four years and some $53 billion over the decade. Defence spending will reach more than $425 billion over 10 years. Accountability in defence spending must also include accountability in decisions by Defence, especially around its decisions on critical capabilities and managing defence assets. This is a live issue in Warringah, where Defence proposes to partially divest HMAS Penguin . Following its Defence estate audit, the government has determined that some capabilities of HMAS Penguin are critical and will remain onsite, including the clearance divers unit and the underwater medical unit.”
“What assurance will be given to the Australian people? If the US does not meet that building capacity, how will we meet Australia's capability needs in that environment? I call on the government to provide much more transparency and accountability around how those funds are found, what they are going to and what plan B is for our defence and security.”
“Extreme weather is damaging infrastructure, disrupting supply chains and increasingly diverting defence personnel from core deployments into disaster response for communities. The UK recently released its national security assessment, which highlighted the increasing likelihood of collapse of vitally important natural systems, bringing mass migration, food shortages, price rises and global disorder, thereby threatening national security and prosperity. Yet, the Albanese government has not released the ONI report. National security requires transparency and accountability. Supporting AUKUS does not mean accepting it on blind trust, and the Australian people do not do so. You do not have a clear social licence if we do not have accountability and transparency on how much is being spent and what will be delivered.”
“Australians have the right to understand, in a tight budgeting environment, how we are simultaneously hearing discussions about tightening expenditure elsewhere, including in the NDIS, other areas and social programs, but there is no accountability against these increased costs for defence. The argument is not against defence spending; it's an argument around transparency, prioritisation and evidence based decision making. The government's narrow focus on AUKUS continues a myopic approach to national security, treating military capability as the whole answer while neglecting the broader drivers of regional instability and climate risk. Climate resilience is a national security issue, yet it is all but ignored by both sides of parliament.”