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 6 of 17.
“In Warringah, I have had a huge amount of correspondence on this issue from residents in the community urging me to support an expansion of genetic screening for disease prevention in adults—in particular, for those with predispositions to cancer and heart disease—and to understand that genetic aspect and how it can then impact children or prospective children. We have amazing organisations like the Fragile X Association, which is founded and based in Warringah. All of these areas rely on continued support for genetic testing. It is so important. Warringah residents want more funding and enacted protections for this critical issue to ensure that genetic testing does occur and has support. Concerns about genetic discrimination in insurance are not new.”
“I have previously supported serious consideration of a legislative ban in this area, and I continue to take the view that legislation, not industry self-regulation, is the appropriate response when we are talking about life-and-death situations for so many Australians. The government's decision to legislate is therefore an important step, and it reflects years of advocacy, consultation and multipartisan work. Ultimately, the reform is about giving Australians confidence that seeking potentially lifesaving information for themselves and sometimes their families because it will impact their kids and other aspects will not later be used against them in preventing them from accessing insurance.”
“It means that Australians will not go and get the testing they should because of the fear of not being able to then have life insurance. It's why the issue goes not only to insurance settings but also to fairness, access to preventative care and public trust. For too long, the existing framework has created the wrong incentive. People have been left worrying that following medical advice, undertaking testing or participating in research could jeopardise their financial security. That's a profound policy failure. Genetic testing can help people act early, manage risk, make informed decisions, access preventative care and, in some cases, save lives.”
“I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I support stronger legal protections against genetic discrimination in life insurance, and I support a legislative ban, not continued reliance on industry self-regulation. At the heart of this debate is a very simple principle: Australians should not be punished for seeking information about their own health and genetic predisposition. If a person undertakes genetic testing to better understand their risk of disease, that should be recognised as responsible, forward-looking health care but not be used as a basis for making insurance harder to access or to afford, because that then disincentivises.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to your previous answer. Treasury has downgraded predicted revenue from the PRRT at successive budgets. Will you admit that the government got it wrong and properly secure revenue for Australians from its gas at a time when Australians, primary producers and small businesses need targeted support to meet rapidly increasing costs?”
“It is unacceptable that we continue at the federal level to pass the buck down to states and territories and allow them to lock up children as young as 10. Overincarceration, deaths in custody, punitive youth justice settings and the failure to address systemic bias show our systems are broken. In workplaces and universities, it means complaints systems people actually trust. It means leadership accountability, workforce diversity, proper data and consequences for repeated failure. In politics, it means ending the cynical use of fear, division and coded rhetoric for political gain. The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination asks whether we are serious about eliminating racial discrimination. On the evidence so far, we're still far better at naming racism than ending it.”
“When racism is tolerated in this building, it sends a message to all Australians watching that abuse is normal. It can't be. I'm calling on the government to publicly respond to the national antiracism framework and commit to an implementation plan with timelines, accountability and funding. In health, that means embedding cultural safety standards, antiracism training, interpreter access and community led services. The commission's review on health inequities could not be clearer. Racism in the health system contributes to poor health, chronic illness, mistrust and premature death. In justice, it means legislating a federally consistent age of criminal responsibility so we stop locking up children. It should be 14. We have signed on to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
“Leadership means treating all racism seriously—antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Aboriginal racism—because the statistics are too ugly to avoid. It's about treating all incidents with the same urgency and seriousness. I was appalled by the delay in the consideration of the attempted terrorism attack on the Invasion Day rallies in Western Australia, the delay in calling that what it was and the continuing double standards in how different acts of racism are treated. Leadership means calling out racist conduct inside this parliament as well, not just outside it. As I said just recently, the immigration law amendments by the government are racist policy. They are seeking to classify people as a whole and treat them as a group on the basis of race or nationality.”
“I've heard great sentiments and great contributions in this place from members of the government; what we haven't heard is a commitment from the government to implement the recommendations or to fund the implementation of the recommendations. We see some groups obtain results much quicker, yet this antiracism framework has sat there on the shelf for two years now. The recommendations are clear; what's missing is the commitment and political will of the Albanese government to implement them. We can't keep commissioning reports, thanking people for their lived experience and then shelving the implementation. A framework without delivery is not reform; it's just delay with better branding. Leadership also means refusing to exploit race, religion or ethnicity for political gain. Too often in this place, that is what we see.”
“Racism is not a fringe issue; it shapes health outcomes, education outcomes, justice outcomes, employment outcomes and social cohesion. The Australian Human Rights Commission delivered the national antiracism framework in November 2024. I have in fact spoken about that framework a number of times in this place. It contains 63 recommendations across legal reform, justice, health, education, workplaces, media and arts and data collection And yet—I say to members of the government—we have not had a response. The government must publicly respond to the national antiracism framework and commit to an implementation plan with timelines, accountability and funding.”
“As of the December quarter of 2025, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people accounted for 37 per cent of all prisoners in Australia, despite making up a smaller part of the population. The imprisonment rate for First Nations men was 4,774 per 100,000—so much higher than for any anyone else. Racism is not only about individual prejudice; it's institutional, and we can see that through our state and territory laws. They are, at their heart, racist in how they are looking at the incarceration of young people. We know Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are overrepresented, and, once engaged with the criminal system, incidence of recurrence is much greater and the likelihood of being able to change someone's life's direction is so much less.”
“In workplaces, new research released this week found that almost 60 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees experience racism and, at the current rate of change, it could take 118 years before Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers no longer hear racial slurs and jokes at work. I mean, that is just ridiculous. In universities, the Human Rights Commission's Racism@Uni study found that racism is widespread and systemic across the sector. Almost 70 per cent of respondents reported indirect racism, and 15 per cent reported direct interpersonal racism. Trust in complaint systems was found to be extremely low. Clearly, in the university sector, these are major issues that need resolving. In our justice system, First Nations people remain grotesquely overrepresented. We are absolutely failing on this front.”
“It sits inside the story of dispossession, the White Australia policy, exclusion, overpolicing, undertreatment and political scapegoating. More than half of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people surveyed in the 2024 Australian Reconciliation Barometer said they had experienced racism in the past six months, and 56 per cent believe Australia is a racist country. Among younger First Nations adults the numbers are worse: 63 per cent of the 18- to 24-year-olds and 68 per cent of the 25- to 34-year-olds surveyed reported experiences of racism.”
“It's the day when, in 1960, police in Sharpeville in South Africa killed 69 people at a peaceful protest against apartheid laws. Since then, there have been many more incidents of murder and killing around the world based on racism and racial hatred. Last year marked the 60th anniversary of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which is the treaty that commits states to take immediate and effective action to eliminate racial discrimination. It's a day, as I said, that comes from bloodshed. It comes from the recognition that racism can be embedded in law, normalised by institutions and protected by silence. That history matters in Australia. Racism here is not incidental to our national story.”
“Nearly half of all Australians are born overseas or have at least one parent born overseas. More than one in five Australians speak a language other than English at home. This continent is home to the oldest continuing culture on earth: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. That diversity is one of our great strengths. But diversity is not justice, and diversity means very little if institutions continue to entrench racist barriers and norms. Today should not just be about condemning racism in principle and talking about the small things that can be done. We actually have to talk about eliminating it in practice. The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is observed on 21 March, and it's important to acknowledge why that date has been selected. It's a day marked in tragedy.”
“The Australian Human Rights Commission has been explicit: racism in health care is a public health emergency, and racism in Australia remains a whole-of-society problem requiring reform across law, justice, health, education, workplaces, media and data collection. This day cannot just be about moral statements and symbolic outrage. It actually has to follow with action. March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and should force some honesty in this parliament. The truth is, Australia doesn't do enough to celebrate our multiculturalism. It likes to celebrate it, but it's still far too reluctant to confront racism with the seriousness it deserves and really call it out when it's occurring. Australia is one of the most diverse countries in the world.”
“I'd like to start by acknowledging the traditional elders and owners of the land on which we meet, and pay my respect to elders past and present—acknowledging, of course, that we can't talk about racism without acknowledging that incredible custodianship of First Nation Australians. We don't talk about racism enough in this place, I would say. When we do, too often we talk about it in the abstract, when racism in Australia is still structural. It's persistent and it causes real harm. It damages health. It drives exclusion. It distorts who gets heard, who gets hired, who gets believed, who gets care and who gets punished.”
“If the NAIF were focused on actually building adaptation and resilience for northern Australia, I would be applauding, because that would actually make sense. But, if we don't have guardrails to ensure that the NAIF is not used to make the very problem those communities are going to face worse, then this is just bad spending.”
“A modern public finance institution should not be technology blind where the technologies in question carry radically different long-term risks for the communities that they are intending to help. Let's be very clear—we are on track to at least 2.5 to 2.6 degrees of warming. The consequences for northern Australia are dire. Those areas will have severe impacts. We are talking about heatwaves, a number of days per year that will be incredibly difficult, we are talking about their vulnerable communities becoming more vulnerable and we are talking about a much higher risk of floods and disasters. So let's be really clear—is this concessional funding supposed to make this problem worse or better?”
“The amendment deals with funding decisions; making this legislation consistent with current law around the Climate Change Act and the net zero by 2050 obligation; prohibiting finance under the NAIF for gas facilities, including pipelines; and mandating consultation with First Nations for funding decisions under the NAIF. Too often we hear of First Nations communities who are being sidelined from public consultation in northern Australia but who are going to be impacted by projects, and that is just wrong. I don't understand how the Albanese government can continue with a process that does not embed proper consultation. Left unamended, this bill extends the NAIF without clearly defining the public interest boundaries of that extension.”
“If they need taxpayer backed support to proceed, then parliament is entitled to ask whether the public is carrying a risk for those projects whose private returns are already substantial. Are we asking the NAIF then to fund projects that will ultimately be stranded assets? It reinforces the case that scarce public capital should be directed to public interest infrastructure, not used to the risk fossil fuel expansion. I totally support that the bill has a legitimate purpose in extending the NAIF's decision-making window and maintaining an investment vehicle for northern Australia. There is a case for continuity, and I know the need is dire across so many areas. But there is definitely clear need for guardrails to ensure public funds are not used to further fund fossil fuel expansions.”
“In accordance with that analysis, the sector's total profits or losses are just staggering, and yet somehow public funding should be available to help fund infrastructure. It simply is obscene. When we think about what's sensible economic management, the pressures on the budget and every other aspect of the economy, we should be asking, as a basic public policy question, why should public concession finance be available to support an industry generating superprofits on a scale that is just breathtaking? If gas proponents say their projects are commercially attractive then they should be able to finance them on that basis. They should not be requiring concessional finance through government funding.”
“That is precisely why we need to do something about this. The funding pipeline remains heavily weighted towards resource extraction and associated industrial development. We need legislative guardrails. A facility can avoid direct fossil fuel approvals in recent periods and still remain structurally open to fossil fuel funding. The issue is both what the NAIF has funded recently, and what this bill still allows the NAIF to fund in the future. On gas company profits, I've sought from the Parliamentary Library an analysis of just how much profit there is from the ATO office. The statistics show that the oil and gas extraction sector report incredibly large profits in the most recent available year.”
“Fossil fuel related projects continue to be funded under the NAIF from decisions made by the Morrison government, and the Albanese government has done nothing to stop that. The Olive Downs Steelmaking Coal Project, approved in 2021, produces 4.5 million tonnes of steelmaking coal per annum. Funding for the Onslow Marine Support Base expansion project, approved in 2017 and funded by a 10-year loan, supports vessels operating in the offshore oil and gas industry in Western Australia. A loan to the Chichester Solar and Gas Hybrid Project in Western Australia, approved by the NAIF in 2019 at a total cost of $90 million, is to be repaid over 22 years. It is clear there are still a number of projects, including fossil fuels and gas in particular, that are getting access to public funding through the NAIF.”
“First, back the infrastructure that actually prepares the north of Australia for the future it is facing. This includes transmission, storage, road, port resilience, community infrastructure and clean energy. Second, stop treating gas expansion as if it were nation building. It is not. It is just writing a blank cheque for gas companies to make superprofits. Third, require public financing to be consistent with Australia's climate law. This is not antidevelopment; this is smart and responsible investment into our future. Even the NAIF's own public messaging now talks about helping northern Australia transition to a renewable energy superpower, yet the legislation still lacks a clear prohibition on fossil fuel funding. That contradiction should be resolved in law, not in marketing copy.”
“In a decade of climate risk, the net-zero transition and the need for genuine partnership with First Nations communities, it is so important that a fund of this scale has the appropriate guardrails. The facts and statistics that put the challenges and opportunities into perspective are stark. The wider issues this bill is trying to address are real. Northern Australia does face chronic infrastructure gaps. Capital is harder to secure. Distance and remoteness increase costs. Communities need long-term funding certainty. There is a real role for public finance to crowd in private investment where markets fail. I absolutely agree, and I support this, loudly, but an effective game plan for northern Australia's development in 2026 cannot look like a replay of 2021, or even previous years.”
“In 2023, when the NAIF was expanded from $5 billion to $7 billion, I again warned this parliament that government investment in resource extraction, particularly fossil fuels, remained a major concern, and I again proposed amendments to stop public money being used to prop up further fossil fuel infrastructure. The contrast is stark. History seems to be repeating itself. On one side, we extend the NAIF and commit significant amounts of public funds, and we leave the door open for fossil fuel funding. On the other, we have an opportunity to extend the NAIF—only modernised for the decade that we're actually in. Expand it so you're generally helping the northern communities with infrastructure they need, which will help them be resilient, productive and healthy into the future.”
“Those amendments said that financial assistance must not be provided for fossil fuel based infrastructure. They have already benefited from generations of generous public subsidies. We cannot continue to do that and sensibly balance the budget. Gas was included in that definition, of course, as part of fossil fuels. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for bad fossil fuel investments, so I will be moving amendments to prohibit fossil fuel funding through the NAIF. Of course, it was not accepted under the Morrison government, but it's disappointing to see that these same loopholes exist under the Albanese government.”
“That scale makes the absence of climate guardrails and consistency even more serious and concerning. Under the Morrison government the NAIF was expanded, and critics warned it could be used to support coal and gas. In January 2022, when the coalition announced an extra $2 billion of funding through the NAIF, it would not rule out the facility being used for projects such as the Beetaloo Basin—absolute carbon bombs in the making—with devastating consequences for climate change. In 2021, when the Morrison government changed the NAIF framework, I moved amendments to prohibit NAIF assistance for fossil fuel based infrastructure, expressly including not funding natural gas projects or pipelines. Let's be clear. Gas companies are making super profits. They do not need public funding to facilitate them making money off the backs of Australians.”
“This bill extends the NAIF's life to 30 June 2036. That is considerable. That is a further 10 years. It strengthens its governance settings, including joint ministerial responsibility and future review. But the central flaw of this bill is what it does not do. It does not rule out public money being used for fossil fuel infrastructure, and it does not require NAIF decisions to align with Australia's legislated climate goals. It does not make clear the consultation with First Nations Australians. If government and parliament are going to extend this facility—extend a $7 billion financing vehicle—for another decade, then parliament must also set clear public-interest guardrails. The NAIF says that it now has 32 projects and more than $4 billion in commitments.”
“I rise to speak on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026, and I have to admit I'm getting a bit of deja vu. I've had this bill in this House previously, and I still have the same issues with it. It is an incredibly important fund and aspect, for Northern Australia needs that investment. Earlier last year I had the opportunity to travel around the Torres Strait Islands, and it's incredibly clear how much investment is needed in the northern and more remote areas of Australia. This NAIF facility is incredibly important. I absolutely support that northern Australia needs investment. It needs roads, ports, transmission, storage, water, housing, community infrastructure and clean industry. But let's be really clear: what it does not need is a publicly backed slush fund for fossil fuel expansion.”
“It helps households and businesses to plan upgrades, to cut energy bills, access government rebates and incentives, and understand the interaction between local government, state and federal supports. It strengthens resilience to extreme weather and international energy price shocks. This week, my amazing team of volunteers—I have to do the shout-out and thank you—will also be hosting free electrification events across our community and at the Neutral Bay Community Centre. In Warringah, we're committed to helping lead that transition to a more sustainable and resilient economy.”
“Shared solar, battery storage and strata-friendly programs are essentially but sadly missing, as are government incentives for household energy efficiencies and rolling them out to stratas. In Warringah we're already seeing what home electrification can achieve. For example, Rob McKay, a Cremorne resident, helped lead his nine-apartment strata block through the installation of a rooftop solar and battery system. He told us that this was a real feel-good story for him and his neighbours, saying: It reduces your power bill significantly. It reduces demand on the grid, and we are lowering greenhouse gases. It's also been good for community building in our block. This is exactly why I launched the new Warringah Sustainability Guide.”
“This week it emerged that some of the loudest voices against climate action and a transition to renewable energy—Pauline Hanson, Matt Canavan and Kevin Hogan in this place—access subsidised solar support for their own homes. It shows that, no matter your politics and what you say in this place, the benefits of renewable energy are abundantly clear in reducing cost-of-living issues. Australia must accelerate the rollout of clean energy across the economy. We must electrify homes, apartments, transport and small businesses so Australians are less exposed to oil and gas price shocks. We need to ensure apartment residents are not left behind in the clean energy transition.”
“The ongoing conflict involving Iran has now triggered oil price spikes and renewed volatility in global energy markets. It's a clear reminder that, in an era of geopolitical instability, Australia needs energy sovereignty more than ever. Clean energy storage, efficiency and electrification are not just climate solutions; they are economic resilience and national security solutions. Recent global shocks show that Australia's dependence on oil and gas leaves us exposed to crises beyond our control, but renewable energy, generated locally and supported by storage, gives us more control over our energy costs and reliability. Increasingly, defence and security leaders are also recognising and calling for climate change, as a national security issue, to be elevated in how we address it.”
“Given the robodebt disasters, Australians have every right to ask: what has actually changed since then? Robodebt was one of the darkest chapters in Australian public administration. The real test now for the Albanese government is whether we are going to close those transparency gaps, put meaningful safeguards in place—when automation is used, make sure there is oversight by people to make sure these challenges or automated decisions can be overruled—and make absolutely certain that nothing like robodebt can ever happen again. I know there are many people in my community and other communities around the country who are seriously concerned around the use of automation when it comes to the aged-care system.”
“Public servants must feel empowered to speak up when something is unlawful or unethical, ministers must ask hard questions about the advice they receive, and, importantly, whistleblowers must be protected, and our institutions must ensure that Australians are never again subjected to automated systems that disregard basic principles of fairness or legality. Worryingly, my office has recently received reports of automated systems now being used under the Albanese government to determine what aged-care services are provided to elderly people. It means vital decisions affecting highly vulnerable individuals are being made by a rigid algorithm with limited human oversight. And we know that some types of automation are still being used when it comes to the welfare system, as well as the ATO.”
“Transparency matters in cases like this, not only for public confidence but for the victims of robodebt, who deserve clarity about what happened, why and who was responsible. It raises two important issues: first, reforming the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, to ensure public accountability by defaulting to public hearings rather than closed-door hearings—the public deserves to know what accountability is being required—and, second, the danger of continuing to roll out automated assessment tools. Robodebt exposed more than just policy failure; it exposed failures in accountability, culture and government oversight.”
“The NACC investigated several referrals, and today we learnt the outcome: very little. But much of the investigation has taken place behind closed doors, with only limited public explanation about how the findings were reached, and still the original referral matter remains confidential. That means we don't know, for example, whether any members of the previous coalition government, aside from Scott Morrison, were referred for assessment. There is no reason why those details continue to be kept secret. The Albanese government, with the NACC that it created, which fails the pub test in terms of providing public scrutiny, has—this process has failed the Australian people.”
“The system treated people not as citizens and people deserving fairness and dignity but as data in a cruel, automated process. The National Anti-Corruption Commission may have handed down its findings, but, for many Australians, serious questions remain. How did a scheme that was known to be legally flawed continue for so long? How did warnings go unheeded? And why, after the royal commission referred multiple individuals for investigation, have Australians been left in the dark about how those referrals were assessed? When the final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was published in July 2023, one part was sealed. It contains the names of people the commissioner believed may have engaged in wrongdoing, and evidence supporting those referrals. The public deserves to know what was in that sealed section.”
“Today the findings of the investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission into the robodebt referrals were released. It found that two public officials engaged in serious corrupt conduct, while four others, including former prime minister Scott Morrison, were cleared. But today's findings leave major unfinished business. The robodebt scheme was not a minor policy mistake. It was an illegal automated debt collection system that wrongly pursued hundreds of thousands of Australians for debts they did not owe. More than 443,000 people received false debt notices, often demanding thousands of dollars. For many, the consequences were devastating: financial hardship, fear, mental distress and, in some tragic cases, suicides. This program destroyed lives.”
“With the stroke of a pen, the minister and the government will now be able to say that all that expense is for nothing. I ask the government: What consideration, undertaking or assurance is the government prepared to provide businesses, individuals and families within multicultural Australia that have gone to great expense to obtain validly visitor visas, student visas or skilled visas that are now, by the stroke of a pen, going to be invalid for periods of six months essentially indefinitely? What assurance does the government make to Australian businesses to recoup that lost expense? For all of those finding themselves in transit, what assistance and compensation will the government make to those people?”
“In this alternative circumstance, I have a question for the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and member for Bruce and for the government in relation to the situation caused by these amendments to our immigration law and temporary visas. A significant number of people will be caught in transit or having already made significant arrangements in reliance upon a validly obtained visitor visa, student visa or skilled work visa. In fact, to obtain these visas, a number of Australian businesses incur considerable cost to be able to sponsor skilled visas to come and assist them with their productivity and engagement. A number of those businesses—and I meet with them regularly—go to significant expense.”
“To impugn on them an assumption that they will automatically overstay or no longer return, when they have already jumped through hoops to show their intention to return, that this is temporary—the government is absolutely conflating the issue of humanitarian visas, conflating that with temporary visas and this absolutely Trumpian amendment that has had no consultation. And, with respect, if you really want to stand by this legislation, let it be tested in your communities with the full explanation and not just the gaslighting that we're seeing in this place.”
“I think we have to be really clear about what the effect of this legislation is. This is not temporary legislation. This has no guardrails and no sunset clause. This is an indefinite opportunity for the government of the day to nominate an event occurring and then determine that anyone with a valid temporary visa for tourism, for study or for business will not be able to exercise the right that they have paid for with that visa and come to their communities. So many people in multicultural communities know how important and hard it is for these temporary visitor visas to be obtained.”
“In relation to the comments by the member for Bruce, I'd ask: has the minister or members of the government indicated to their communities that, after going to great lengths and cost to have, for example, relatives come on visitor visas or seeking to come on tourist visas or student visas, at the stroke of a pen, from actions occurring outside of Australia—not always linked to military conflict; there is no limitation in the legislation limiting it to military conflict—all those efforts to obtain visas will be for nothing? Are your multicultural communities aware that the government of the day can determine that a group of people is not welcome here, to take effect for their visitor visas, their tourist visas, their student visas or their attendance here for work or funerals or other events?”
“We know that ministers being granted indefinite discretionary power is dangerous, so the amendments that I'm moving are to make sure that they are done by disallowable instruments to ensure that we have clear parliamentary scrutiny over these decisions. We need to have a review mechanism for affected individuals. There is no sunset clause to this legislation for how long this extraordinary power could remain in place. It is such a dangerous precedent, and it is shameful that members in this place are not speaking up against this legislation. The fact that you can pause these visas indefinitely, even though someone might be in transit, without any thought of compensation—”
“In the legislation there are no guardrails. The hypocrisy of the briefing I received with my colleagues in relation to there being guardrails was staggering. There are no limitations on how many periods of six months can be instigated, which says it is an indefinite power to block people from coming on valid visas, with no thought of compensation or anything. The rushed nature of the process speaks for itself. Surely you wouldn't want too much scrutiny when you're putting in place policies like this that are just copying Trump. This legislation was debated with less than one hour's notice and with no indication that there would be a rush through of the second debate. This legislation is just simply wrong. Your communities know this and so many members of this House know that this legislation is wrong.”
“While clearly targeted at Iranians today, in the future it can be unfairly applied to any nationality such as Lebanese or Palestinian temporary visa holders caught up in the current Middle East conflict. There's nothing restricting these unprecedented powers just to this conflict, so I'm shocked at the hypocrisy that is being shown by the government and so many of its members. It shows how much our system is simply broken. Why are we not hearing from Labor backbenchers speaking up about this legislation? How are you representing your multicultural communities? How are you giving them a vote, a voice? You are incapable of properly representing your communities. These amendments make sure that we restrict what kind of event can be contemplated for this. Of course, they also ensure that this is not indefinite.”
“Let's be really clear, to get a visitor visa from Iran is not easy. The government makes it hard already, and this bill suggests that now all that effort could simply be for nothing, at the stroke of a pen from the minister. This amendment would allow the government to designate whole cohorts of visa holders from particular countries and prevent them from using lawfully granted visas. Let's be really clear to call this what this is. It is racist policy. Any future government will have access to this legislation. This is not temporary legislation put in place with the current conflict. These measures will be ongoing and can be used in so many ways.”