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 4 of 17.
“The government has committed $182.6 million over four years, with $19.6 million ongoing, to make the child support scheme safer and more effective by addressing weaponisation, financial abuse and noncompliance. In the scourge of domestic violence, it is quite shocking that we still essentially have institutionalised facilitation of financial control. The child support system does not work because, too often, mothers are left with a child support debt from their ex-partners, and then the Commonwealth seeks to recover a debt against them from the family support payment. The government knows this is a problem; it's recognised that women make up the majority of recipient parents and that the system has too often been used by perpetrators of family and domestic violence to continue control after separation.”
“The government's own economic inclusion advisory committee has again recommended lifting JobSeeker, youth allowance and related working-age payments as a first priority. Yet there was nothing in this budget for all those people. ACOSS has also pointed out that the budget settings effectively freeze JobSeeker, in real terms, over the forward estimates, with no one-off increase and no change to indexation. That is not adequate cost-of-living relief. It means asking people with the least to absorb the most pressure. Finally, in relation to the budget's investment in child support reform, this is welcome. It's long overdue, and something I've been advocating for for many years.”
“At a time when rent, food, transport and energy costs remain high, the government has not delivered the serious increase to JobSeeker that community organisations, economists and its own advisory bodies have repeatedly called for. Organisations like ACOSS have warned that JobSeeker remains just $409 per week, around 42 per cent of the minimum wage, and says the payment must be lifted beyond this pitiful level. It's not just a welfare issue. It's a dignity issue, a poverty issue and a participation issue because the level is so low people can't even get back into the workforce. It is simply unsustainable. ACOSS and UNSW research found that less than a quarter of people surveyed said they could live on JobSeeker.”
“These are not high wealth, high net worth—this is not a question of earning an income from investments instead of an income from working and being taxed on that wage. They are already paying tax through their wages. They are simply trying to save and create a buffer, and now the government's proposal is to come and yet again tear down that aspiration. I would urge the government to separate out their approach when it comes to property investment compared to innovation and productivity when it comes to small business, start-ups and, in particular, shares. This budget also really failed and left many people behind. The government talks a lot about not leaving anyone behind, but, in a cost-of-living crisis, there was nothing in this budget for the most vulnerable in our communities.”
“The Treasurer should release the modelling so parliament can assess genuinely whether these reforms are finding the right balance because overwhelmingly the feedback from the community, from that very generation that the government is claiming to be there to support, is strongly against it. They feel absolutely blindsided by these actions from the government. I can only convey the stories that were put to me. Young professionals are working really hard. They've got good incomes, but, between high rents or high mortgage rates, they have barely anything left over every month. They are just going pay cheque to pay cheque. What little they are able to save or put aside, they are putting into start-ups, into shares or into ETFs in the hope of building a little bit of a buffer for their economic circumstances. Let's be really clear.”
“And, in fact, the strong concern is that it will weaken productivity and investment. Intergenerational equity is not achieved if we make housing fairer for young Australians but make it harder for them to build businesses, invest in innovation, access employee equity or grow any kind of buffer or nest egg outside of property. The objects should be clear: reduce the tax advantages that have encouraged passive speculation in existing housing while protecting the investment pathways that support entrepreneurship, that support productivity, that support clean energy, small business growth and long-term economic resilience.”
“I think there is a social licence around these changes when it comes to property investment, but the government has not made the case, and there certainly is no social licence and there is no clear productivity argument around applying the capital gains tax changes across business investment shares, employees equity startups, venture capital and small business succession. That's why I've written to the Treasurer again seeking the modelling and the rationale for the 30 per cent minimum tax rate around capital gains, seeking the evidence for these. What is the evidence to underpin extending the changes from property investment to that much broader application? The strong feeling and the strong feedback is that people are incredibly blindsided. The government simply does not have a mandate to extend those changes beyond investment property.”
“When property investors are outbidding young first homebuyers, it is not a level playing field. I support the principles of winding back tax settings in relation to investment properties. The current tax settings that have encouraged investment into existing housing rather than new supply. Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts have too often operated together to make established property a tax preferred investment vehicle rather than a place to live. But good reform has to be well designed.”
“It's nowhere near enough. The budget itself confirms $200 million under round 3 of the Disaster Ready Fund while the risk facing communities continues to escalate. Frankly, it's backwards to spend billions after disasters, but only a fraction of that amount preventing that damage and helping communities build their resilience beforehand. Every household understands that basic principle. The other big message that came out of the budget papers and these appropriation bills is the question of intergenerational fairness. The test of tax reform should also be in that respect. For too long we have known that the housing crisis has been worsening. Australia's housing tax settings have rewarded those who already own assets, while younger Australians are left trying to save a deposit in a market where prices have run far ahead of wages.”
“APRA also found that more frequent and severe weather events are driving premium increases as insurers reprice risk. If people cannot afford to insure their home, then they are exposed to a financial risk. If lenders become concerned about underinsurance, then mortgage risk rises. If businesses cannot afford cover, their investment is delayed. If councils can't afford to protect local infrastructure, then roads, stormwater facilities, beaches, parks and community facilities deteriorate. Yet the Commonwealth's main resilience financing vehicle, the Disaster Ready Fund, remains far too small for the scale of the task. The government describes the fund as its flagship disaster resilience initiative, but it provides up to $1 billion over five years, which is $200 million a year. Let's just stop for a moment and think about that perspective.”
“We have to find ways to ensure that insurance is affordable and available for the vast majority of our communities and that there is support underpinning it. We need to make sure we can fix damaged infrastructure, and emergency appeals are there, but we have to build in that resilience. Australia's first National Climate Risk Assessment confirms what communities are already living through: more frequent and severe floods, fires and cyclones; greater exposure to sea-level rise; higher costs; reduced productivity; and worsening inequality. Insurance is one of the clearest price signals of this risk. APRA found that, between 2010 and 2025, Australian home insurance premiums rose at an average rate of 7.2 per cent while wages grew by only 3.1 per cent.”
“I've heard directly from a constituent whose insurance premiums have jumped sharply and from residents in flood affected pockets of Warringah who have been priced out of cover or denied cover altogether. This is the future we risk normalising if we don't invest in resilience: more households exposed, more businesses disrupted, more public infrastructure damaged and more Australians left wondering whether they can afford to insure the homes they've worked their whole lives to buy and support. Warringah is not asking for special treatment. So many other communities are concerned about this, and it shouldn't be up to the communities and local people to have to deal with this alone. The government must step up to that resilience piece.”
“Coastal erosion is already a live risk for communities across the northern beaches, with several beaches classified by the NSW government as coastal erosion hotspots. These risks are not abstract modelling exercises. They're planning, infrastructure, insurance and household budget issues. For so many people, they work their entire life to invest in their home, and then they're unable to insure that home against the highly likely risk of disaster—and the government know this. Their own risk assessment shows that risks are escalating, compounding and cascading when it comes to people's homes, and so many are unable to insure their home. There is a complete vacuum from others in this place in even acknowledging those risks or having a plan for Australians.”
“Northern Beaches Council has identified the long-term climate risks facing our region, including sea-level rise and more frequent extreme weather events: bushfires, coastal floods, storms, floods and droughts. Council has also recognised that roads, stormwater systems, seawalls and buildings need to be able to withstand the impacts of the next 50 to 100 years, not just the conditions of the past. Yet local government is not being equipped to deal with those costs. The northern beaches has already experienced the real-life effects of bushfires, storms and flooding, with impacts on property, clean-up costs, repair bills, insurance costs and community wellbeing. We see it on our beaches too.”
“In fact, there was so little allocated to adaptation and resilience. We have to be really clear that climate resilience is not separate from the cost of living. It is now one of the front lines, in fact, of the cost-of-living crisis. When homes flood, when bushfire risk rises, when coastal storms damage infrastructure and when insurance premiums rise, mortgages become harder to maintain, councils face higher costs and taxpayers are left footing the bill, and still there is no proper acknowledgement from the government in respect of this. In Warringah, climate risk is not theoretical. Our community is coastal, urban, bushland adjacent and highly exposed to the natural hazards that are becoming far more frequent and more severe.”
“I've called for Australia to scale up investment in climate risk reduction and adaptation to at least a quarter of a per cent of GDP, which would make it commensurate to the actual cost that occurs to the economy. It's a modest benchmark compared to the scale of the risk, and it would provide a clear, stable and accountable floor for national resilience investment. The government should not treat adaptation as a discretionary grant program. It should be treated as core national infrastructure, core national security and core cost-of-living policy. The government conducted the first National Climate Risk Assessment, and the outcomes were dire; the findings were incredibly serious. Yet there was no response in the budget that was commensurate to the seriousness of those risks.”
“Earlier this year I wrote to the Treasurer, urging the government to put climate adaptation and resilience at the centre of national economic management because resilience needs to be done in advance. You don't just do it at the last minute, because sustainable economic management and community safety can't be achieved while we continue to spend far more cleaning up after disasters than preventing damage in the first place. The economics on this are clear. Over the last three federal budgets, the Commonwealth has allocated about $2.5 billion to climate adaptation, resilience and disaster preparedness, while natural disaster relief is expected to cost around $9.86 billion over the same period—significantly more, nearly five times more, on recovery than prevention.”
“I rise to respond to the government's budget papers and the appropriation bills for 2026-27. The budget contains measures that respond to some immediate pressures, but it fails the bigger test on a number of fronts—and I want to deal with some of those tonight. Firstly, Australia is not investing seriously in protecting households, communities and the economy from climate risks that are already arriving. The government has rightly spoken about resilience in relation to fuel security, supply chains and global volatility, but the same urgency is completely missing when it comes to climate resilience—the floods, the fires, the storms, the coastal erosion and the heatwaves that are already driving up household costs, insurance premiums and disaster recovery bills. The government was all but silent on that on budget night.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Many young Australians are angry at the government for extending CGT changes beyond investment properties. After paying for high rents or while just managing with a mortgage and paying taxes on their incomes, many are starting new businesses on the side or investing in shares to build a buffer, and they now feel blindsided. What modelling has the government done on extending CGT changes beyond investment properties, and will you release it?”
“There are many, many questions in relation to this partial divestment, and I urge the government to provide transparency.”
“Before any divestment proceeds, Defence and the government must clearly explain what capabilities are being retained, what capabilities will be impacted, what is being moved and what the cost-benefit will, in fact, be. The site includes some bushland—an Angophora forest that has not been utilised and is not considered critical. But that doesn't mean it lacks public value. It's remnant bushland, part of the ecological character of Sydney Harbour, and must be protected and conserved. It cannot just be divested and sold to the highest bidder to ensure we have luxury accommodation. There is a strong view in the community that that Angophora forest should either be put into the care of New South Wales national parks or into the Sydney Harbour Trust for conservation.”
“What is suspected is that there is very little cost-benefit; it's actually a convenience for Defence, and other costs will be incurred in other places. I've submitted a freedom of information request to see greater transparency about the assessments underpinning this proposal. The community deserves to know how the real costs, the operational impact and the rationale behind breaking up capabilities that have been co-located at HMAS Penguin for a reason. These assets are also not held by Defence just as an asset to be sold off to the highest bidder. These are held in trust for the Australian people. That has occurred over a very long period of time, and any decision to partially divest or divest in full has to be really justified.”
“The question around this government's decision to partially divest the site and its use raises many concerns. There is a huge lack of clarity around what assessment has genuinely been done and the cost-benefit assessment that has been undertaken in relation to HMAS Penguin 's existing Defence capabilities. Some capabilities have been assessed as critical and are proposed to remain on the site. That includes Navy clearance diver training and an underwater medicine unit. Others that have always been co-located in this site for a very good reason have been determined as 'not being critical' and can be relocated. But there has been no transparency under the alleged actual cost-benefit assessment of that relocation.”
“I want to raise the issue of the Defence announcement around the partial divestment of HMAS Penguin . HMAS Penguin is far more than a line in the Defence property portfolio. First and foremost, it continues to deliver critical navy capabilities to Australia. It is also public land with significant environmental, military and cultural heritage, and it forms part of the living fabric of Warringah and the broader Sydney Harbour. On Friday 8 May, our community came together at Mosman Art Gallery to raise our views and get some further information from the department. I thank them for coming and for this public consultation, but it felt very much like too little, too late, as what was made clear was that the decision to partially divest had already been made.”
“Compensation debts owed to survivors of specified child abuse offences will not be extinguished by a perpetrator's bankruptcy where the relevant criteria are met. That is important. I also welcome the fact that historical compensation orders may be eligible, provided they are still legally enforceable. I hope that finally results in payment to so many that hold compensation orders. I commend this bill to the House. I thank everyone who has so actively campaigned and advocated for these changes. I can't begin to understand the trauma and the difficulty for so many, but, if this plays a small part in helping gain redress, I welcome it.”
“The bill creates a pathway for survivors to apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for information about a perpetrator's superannuation. That matters, because survivors often don't know where a perpetrator's superannuation is held or whether there are amounts that may be available. The survivor may then apply to a court for an order releasing certain amounts from superannuation, where compensation remains unpaid after 12 months. It's important to understand that this is distinct from proceeds of crime laws. Proceeds of crime laws are generally about the state confiscating assets linked to criminal offending. This bill is very different. It's about ensuring unpaid compensation reaches survivors. It's targeted and practical, as I've said. Again, this bill is about accountability. It also addresses bankruptcy.”
“In one reported case, survivor Edan Van Haren was awarded $1.4 million in damages while the perpetrator declared bankruptcy and his superannuation remained protected. That's unacceptable. There are legitimate reasons why superannuation is protected, but in these instances I welcome this legislation change. We need to protect retirement savings. I absolutely agree with that primary position. But we should not have criminals using the superannuation system to hide and move assets around. Again, this is very welcome legislation. The Super Members Council has said that superannuation is a safe haven for the future of most Australians but should not be a safe haven from justice and that the bill strikes the right balance between caution and urgency. The key question is whether this bill responds proportionally to the problem.”
“The problem this bill addresses is painfully specific. Survivors may obtain a compensation order through criminal or civil proceedings, but, if the perpetrator does not pay, the survivor is left to enforce that order. In some cases, perpetrators have been able to shift wealth into superannuation or rely on bankruptcy in ways that make compensation far harder to recover. And that is, I would argue, a grotesque outcome. The law recognises the harm, and a court has ordered the compensation, yet our system still enables that avoidance of responsibility and payment and denies practical redress to survivors. Public reporting has shown why reform is needed. Survivors and advocates, including Grace Tame and others, have campaigned for years to close this loophole.”
“If a perpetrator refuses to pay, hides money and assets in superannuation or relies on bankruptcy provisions, then survivors can be left without any practical redress despite findings of guilt and compensation orders. So this bill is about enforcement. It helps ensure that a lawful compensation order is not just symbolic but can actually lead to the recovery of funds that will help those survivors. I've previously spoken in this place about child sexual abuse as one of the most serious violations a person can experience and about the royal commission's finding that institutional child sexual abuse was a national tragedy. I've also supported reforms to make the justice system more victim centred, while making clear that further reform would be needed. The survivors law is one of those further reforms.”
“These numbers remind us that this is not an abstract legal issue. This is real. It is impacting real lives, and the ongoing consequences are often long and really damaging. It's about people who have already had agency stolen from them, who should not then be forced into another grinding battle simply to enforce a lawful compensation order. So I do very much welcome this legislation. It's important to be clear, again, that this legislation is not creating a right or a compensation from scratch. Courts can already make compensation orders requiring perpetrators to pay survivors. The problem is that an order does not always mean payment, despite the pain and the difficulty of going through court processes and getting to a compensation order and a finding of guilt through the courts.”
“Nationally, the data is really confronting. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study found that 28.5 per cent of Australians aged 16 and over have experienced child sexual abuse. That's quite confronting—28.5 per cent. It also found that child sexual abuse is often repeated, with 78 per cent of those experiencing it reporting that it happened more than once. And the Australian Bureau of Statistics has also reported that 7.5 per cent of adults experienced sexual abuse before the age of 15, and that the majority of women who experienced childhood sexual abuse never told police. In New South Wales, police-recorded sexual assaults have increased significantly over the past decade, with BOCSAR reporting that recorded child sexual assault incidents increased by around 10 per cent per year over the decade to June 2025. This is no small problem.”
“It makes existing court ordered compensation enforceable by giving survivors a targeted pathway to recover unpaid debts from certain superannuation amounts, sitting alongside proceeds of crime laws rather than replacing them. It's long-overdue reform. Survivors have already had to endure the abuse, the trauma, the legal process and the indignity of chasing accountability through systems that too often exhaust them before they deliver justice. No community, including mine in Warringah, is immune from the curse and the scourge of child sexual exploitation. Warringah is comprised of communities built around families, schools, sporting clubs, surf clubs, multifaith groups and small businesses, but they are also communities where survivors live, work, study, volunteer, raise families and rebuild their lives.”
“It was never intended to become a legal bunker for people seeking to avoid accountability for serious crimes. The bill establishes a framework for survivors of specified child abuse offences to seek visibility of, and access to, certain superannuation amounts held by perpetrators where compensation remains unpaid. It also amends the Bankruptcy Act so that relevant compensation debts are not extinguished by bankruptcy. This is not about turning superannuation into a general compensation pool. It's targeted. It applies to victims and survivors of specified child abuse offences where there has been a conviction or a finding of guilt, where court has made a compensation order and where that order remains unpaid. The bill does not create compensation from scratch.”
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 is incredibly important legislation. It honours the incredible bravery of so many in coming forward to highlight this problem, people who have already been through so much to get to this point: victims of child sexual abuse. This bill is built on a simple proposition: a compensation order made by a court should mean something. We would think that goes without saying. It should not be possible for a convicted child sexual abuse perpetrator to hide assets in superannuation, declare bankruptcy and escape accountability. This leaves a survivor holding a court order that is, in practice, worth less than the paper it's written on. Superannuation exists to provide dignity in retirement.”
“If young people are not included in decision making, they will live with the consequences, because if you're not at the table, you are on the menu. We cannot encourage young people to engage, then ignore what they tell us. Representation can't be symbolic. It is practical and necessary. I will continue to bring the youth voices from Warringah into this House, because, when young people are at the table, our democracy is stronger and our future is fairer. A special thank you to the five students from my youth advisory council, Annabelle, Ambrose, Juliet, Molly and Violet, who helped plan the event. Thank you to Mosman High School, who generously hosted us, and to Raise Mentoring and their youth advisory council, who came and shared their insights—Isla, Darcy and Julia were incredible speakers.”
“One noted: By the time I have finished this sentence, AI has already finished drinking a litre of water, and more. Their message was not anti-technology. It was a call for ethical, transparent governance guided by the public interest. They said: The government needs to reclaim the power to AI. Because if multiple companies control it, then who knows what information will become. These young people are not waiting quietly. I'm proud that a young woman from Warringah, Gemma, has in fact just been announced as a National Youth Parliament representative. That is what being at the table looks like, and I want more young people in Warringah and around Australia to know this. Politics is not a closed shop.”
“Students spoke powerfully about the need for an environmental duty of care and about our responsibility to future generations who cannot yet vote. They are those people, and they are frustrated. One grounded that duty right here in Warringah, telling us: Dee Why Lagoon and Middle Harbour, some of our most central waterways, are among Australia's most densely microplastic-polluted. They warned clearly that inaction has consequences, saying: If we continue to let this pollution into our waterways and into our community, we are risking our wildlife, our natural wonders and our national identity. That same intergenerational responsibility shaped their concerns about artificial intelligence. Students raised concerns about bias, power and environmental impact.”
“The students called for more counsellors in schools, earlier intervention and an end to stigma. These were not abstract ideas; they were clear policy priorities for those most affected. They also brought up equity and dignity. Equity emerged again and again, particularly for women and gender-diverse young people. On reproductive health care, one student said plainly: Universal reproductive healthcare is a need. Another was unequivocal, saying: Women deserve free period products— in schools and in other public places— We deserve them now, and inequality should be eliminated. These young people are asking for dignity, access and fairness and for this parliament to take their lives seriously. Others raised an environmental duty of care and artificial intelligence.”
“Throughout the day, students asked me what it was like to come into parliament after a career as a professional skier and as a barrister. They asked me what it was like being a woman in politics. Those questions were not abstract; they were about whether people with unconventional pathways and voices like theirs could see themselves belonging in this place and sitting at the table. The strongest message of the day was on mental health, and that's why it was so important. It was a really clear call. One student told me plainly: Half of all young Australians suffer silently with extreme psychological distress. This is unacceptable. Another explained why adolescence matters, saying: Your adolescence is the most fundamental period to gain skills on how to tackle mental health issues, but wellbeing programs in schools are not doing this.”
“I wanted to come here to relay the youth voices of Warringah. Now remember, I rise to speak about representation and whose voices are heard here in this place and in this parliament. For me, it's so important that we make sure we hear the voices of our young people. This month I hosted a youth voices forum in Warringah. It's an event I have run many times—each year since being elected. Young people consistently tell me that they do not feel well represented in parliament and that the issues shaping their lives are not being taken seriously. As I've often said to them, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. Far too many young Australians feel decisions are being made about them, without them. One student put it simply that day: Young people are 25 per cent of the population, but 100 per cent of the future.”
“I think the oceans will ultimately have a lot of the solutions we need for climate change and for keeping our way of life, but we have to first embed into law that we want to protect them. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:30 to 17:56”
“This bill is a chance to move from signature to stewardship, to bring international commitments into Australian law with real enforcement, real transparency and real ambition. There is now a clear mandate to pass the bill, fund it and use it to protect our oceans. Of course, in talking about the oceans I have to commend the work of Jas Chambers and the Ocean Decade team, who are continually raising the issues of the care of our oceans and the balance between all the different uses—the balance between conservation and marine life but also healthy fisheries and all the other industrial uses, including offshore gas and shipping. There are a lot of different uses that are supported by the oceans.”
“It operationalises high seas area based management tools via 'specially managed areas' and 'special management plans' aligned to COP decisions with a clear 120-day deadline for Australia to make the domestic instrument after a COP decision. It establishes environmental impact assessments for activities under Australian control where impacts are potentially serious, including a threshold that triggers referral. I understand the Senate's amendments will make a material difference. They explicitly reference 'marine protected areas' in key definitional and operative provisions while also lifting corporate civil penalty settings. The high seas are not someone else's problem but are a problem of all of us. It's a living system that shapes our coasts, our weather, our fisheries and our future.”
“The health of the high seas is linked to Australian industries like tourism and fisheries—the ocean upstream effect. Ocean systems underpin climate and ecological stability. The ocean produces roughly half of the Earth's oxygen, largely through oceanic plankton, and absorbs more than 90 per cent of the excess heat trapped by human caused climate change. So much of our way of life depends on a healthy ocean, yet, still so little focus is given to it. What this bill will do is ratify the high seas treaty. It embeds a precautionary approach requirement for ministerial decision-making, recognising that lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason to delay protective action. It creates a notification based regime for marine genetic resources and digital sequence information.”
“I think ratifying this treaty is really important—first, because we will gain influence where decisions are made. The treaty's first COP is expected within a year of entry into force. If we want influence over the high seas, protected areas and rules, then we need to be at the table as a signatory. Second, environmental degradation can't just continue as the default setting. It means destructive fishing, shipping, pollution and worsening climate pressures, which don't ultimately respect any kind of national or political borders. We know those impacts are global. Third, we gain economically and socially, especially because we are a maritime nation. We are ultimately an island continent surrounded by oceans. So the health of the oceans means the health of Australia.”
“It's a much more realistic way to assess harm in the oceans, because ecosystems are usually damaged by layers of pressure piling up, not just by one dramatic event or one action. An example of why assessing cumulative impacts is so important is ocean acidification, caused by the ocean absorbing more carbon dioxide, which gradually changes ocean chemistry and makes it harder for many marine organisms and ecosystems to cope. You can't point specifically at one particular project when you talk about ocean acidification, but the cumulative impact is what is driving the problem. Of course, the definition of 'cumulative impacts' used in this bill expressly includes the consequences of climate change, because we know the oceans are such a massive part of balancing out our global climate. That's why cumulative impacts are so important.”
“The government could take inspiration from how the international treaty is designed, as it includes mechanisms that should have been adopted in Australia's own environmental protection laws years ago—for example, the recognition of cumulative impacts. The treaty and the bill matter because they stop decision-makers looking at one activity in isolation, as if it exists in a neat little bubble. Instead, the environmental impact assessment process is meant to look at the combined and incremental harm caused by different activities together, including past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. I would argue that this should be embedded in our domestic environmental laws as well, because of that cumulative impact—nothing happens in a vacuum.”
“For decades, the law has been much better at slicing the ocean into jurisdictions than actually protecting the living systems that connect them. On 8 August 2025, along with other crossbench MPs, I wrote to Minister Murray Watt, encouraging him to ratify the treaty. When it comes to our oceans, delay is not a pause button. It's a permission slip for continued degradation, and that's why action is so important. Only a tiny proportion of international waters until now has been protected, and that is the problem. The whole rationale of the treaty is to finally create a legal pathway for large-scale high seas protected areas and other area based management tools. Prior to the treaty, only one per cent of international waters were protected.”
“We know ocean systems are connected, so stronger protection offshore, far away from Australia, far away on that horizon, will help the overall resilience of marine ecosystems much closer to home. If you live by the coast, you have a stake in ocean stewardship beyond your own postcode. The chronology is that Australia signed the high seas treaty in September 2023 and the treaty entered into force on 17 January 2026. This bill is the overdue domestic step needed for Australia to ratify the treaty and become a party with full legal effect. Australia helped negotiate this framework over many years under governments of different stripes, but we have been slower than we could have been in finishing the domestic job. It's also part of a wider failure, I would argue, in environmental governance.”
“Of course, I represent Warringah in this place, and we are so intrinsically tied to the oceans. A healthy ocean is not just some abstract concept; it shapes our local beaches, our marine life, our community, recreation and the character of the place. It is absolutely the heart and soul of so many communities around Australia and, in particular, the Warringah community. We all care deeply about nature, coastline, health and biodiversity. Every time I visit a school and they come and tell me about what they worry about, they worry about our oceans, about marine life and about plastics. The ocean is a really big part of their environment and their wellbeing.”