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 8 of 17.
“The framework contemplates equitable access, so this must translate into competitive retail offerings, transparent pricing and attention to vulnerable and remote consumers in locations where market competition may be thin. It's essential that this actually work in practice, that this not be a whitewash over the top of a problem and that we actually have people kept safe with access to a triple zero service that works. Unfortunately, we know disasters are going to escalate in severity and frequency. We know they are cascading and compounding. That means access to a reliable triple zero mobile network is essential for all Australians, especially in regional communities, where we know they are going to bear the brunt of climate disasters.”
“The policy intent and public benefit is clear: leverage new satellite-to-phone capability to reduce the safety gap across vast areas beyond terrestrial networks. People in regional and remote areas should not be structurally excluded from baseline connectivity simply because putting up a tower in their area isn't profitable. These are essential services that must be available everywhere. It is for that reason that I support the amendments circulated by the member for Indi. Inserting an explicit meaning for concepts like 'equitable basis' and 'temporary disaster roaming' ensures the inclusion of minimum standards for affordability and guarantees access during crises such as climate driven fires and floods. If baseline coverage exists but people can't afford compatible plans or devices, universality fails in practice.”
“While I can understand the practicalities of why the government has crafted the bill in this way, we have to be really clear about what the expectation is. The expectation from the Australian public is that we will not get the kinds of outages and failure of triple zero we saw in the Optus outage. Whilst the minister has built into this legislation a framework for flexibility and deference to ACMA, we have to be very clear that the standards, rules and benchmarks must meet the expectations of the Australian public. A national baseline for mobile coverage is long overdue. We already accept universal obligations for fixed voice and broadband access. Finally, the same principle is being extended to the most popular device Australians carry—our mobile phones.”
“I appreciate that, probably, providers are saying that it's going to take them time to make sure they've complied and these gaps in coverage are closed. That's concerning because that says that government has, to date, been asleep at the wheel in making sure that we don't have these gaps in service. The obligation initially centres on voice calls and SMS, not full mobile data. The framework is technology-neutral, allowing providers to meet obligations using existing terrestrial networks where coverage already exists and low-Earth-orbit satellites in areas without terrestrial coverage. The bill provides a flexible framework for the minister and/or ACMA, via delegation, to set standards, rules and benchmarks, including reliability, call quality, SMS performance and congestion tolerance.”
“The bill amends the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection And Service Standard) Act 1999 to establish a framework so that baseline mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis. Of course, there are gaps within that language and we need to make sure, again, that, in practical application, that equitable access is actually there. Initially, these changes will apply from 1 December 2027 to the three national mobile carriers—Telstra, Optus and TPG—as the primary providers. I note that date—1 December 2027. We as a parliament are still basically accepting that there will be another period of six to eight months whereby there will still be that risk of triple zero not working the way it is meant to for it to be available.”
“When something goes wrong—breakdown, injury, bushfire or flood—coverage can be the difference between help being on its way and help never arriving. In September 2025, an Optus network fault linked to a firewall upgrade meant that some customers in multiple jurisdictions could not make triple zero calls for around 13 hours. The explanations that have been provided from the government and from Optus have, respectfully, not been satisfactory. Reporting and investigations indicated that hundreds of emergency calls failed, and the incident was linked to deaths. It was an awful reminder that emergency access can fail and that the consequences can be fatal. So this is really important.”
“This bill seeks to modernise universal service settings by creating a universal outdoor mobile obligation, a baseline expectation that Australians can access outdoor mobile voice and SMS on an equitable basis. On that basis, I support this bill because it does close a very real safety gap, especially in regional and remote Australia. It must be implemented with clear benchmarks, affordability safeguards and service provider accountability so that universality is actually practically meaningful and not just a pretty word to have on a piece of legislation. It has to be universal in application in real time out in the real world. Too many Australians still move through places with no mobile coverage at all on highways, farms, remote worksites, national parks and community roads.”
“I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, because so many in our communities and all around Australia were shocked when we saw the communications failure and the outages that impacted the triple zero services. The very real consequence of a system failure like that is loss of life. We have basic standards and things that all Australians must be able to rely upon. Being able to call triple zero and knowing it is there and available is an essential aspect. Mobile coverage is now essential infrastructure. There is no doubt about it. For safety, for participation in the economy and for fairness, we should all be able to access that mobile coverage no matter where we live, in urban or regional Australia. It is essential.”
“My question is to the Minister for Housing—or the Treasurer in her stead. Warringah contains some of the most expensive land in the country, contributing to a shortage of crisis accommodation and social and affordable housing. The government has announced plans to divest part of HMAS Penguin land at Balmoral in Warringah and intends to seek full market value, prompting concerns the land will be sold to wealthy developers for luxury apartments and not address issues of public, social and affordable houses or crisis accommodation. Will the minister take steps to ensure this public asset is used for social benefit?”
“They have emphasised that ongoing independent review ensures the overall bill remains necessary and proportionate. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends allowing the questioning powers for adults and children to sunset. I would argue this is an important amendment to ensure proportionality and that the rights of children are respected in these very dramatic and drastic rights. This is not to say we are not wanting absolutely to keep Australians safe, but we have to make sure proportionality applies.”
“My amendment supports that duty by ensuring that a child is never left alone in questioning and is not exposed to prolonged interrogation. I find it quite extraordinary that this is not an amendment supported by the government, I've got to say. The bill relies heavily on the idea that these powers are used proportionately and as a last resort, with oversight and guidelines emphasising proportionality. Time limits and continuous support for minors are exactly the kind of least-rights-restrictive design that explicitly builds proportionality in the legislation. The hard stop in relation to the legislation for minors requires ASIO and the government of the day to rejustify the need for those powers. I think that is important oversight in this day and age. This is supported by the Law Council of Australia.”
“The permanence of these powers has been controversial for years, because these powers were originally sold as a last resort and have been repeatedly renewed in terms of the sunsets. The human rights statement for the bill states that the Attorney-General must treat a child's best interests as a primary consideration when issuing a warrant for a 14- to 17-year-old. I'll just pause here and note we don't even consider children up to the age of 16 as being mature enough to cope with accessing social media, but we are saying ASIO can compulsorily question a 14- to 17-year-old. There is so much inconsistency in what we consider are the protections we should provide children and where we strip away their rights.”
“The amendment also sunsets the powers in relation to the compulsory questioning of minors so that it can come back before this House for review if it is considered to continue to be necessary. To put this in context, I accept that we have also received information and briefings around the concerns of greater radicalisation of young people and that these are sometimes minors, so these powers may well be needed. I note, though, that ASIO has not, to date, needed to utilise these powers. That does beg the question: why are we putting a 'set and forget' on these very broad and, I would say, extraordinary powers? These were introduced following the 9/11 terror attacks and were considered extraordinary at the time.”
“The amendment I have proposed is very simple. Top of my overall concerns with these wide-ranging powers is how they apply to children, to minors. The amendment I propose demands extra safeguards in relation to children, where these powers involve children. These powers include the right for compulsory questioning. Compulsory questioning of someone under 18 can involve apprehension, and they are significant constraints on liberty and movement. Even the bill's own human rights analysis recognises these rights are engaged. The amendment that I have proposed applies additional safeguards for minors. A minor's representative must always be present during questioning and is a person who can act in the best interests of that child, and the duration of questions should not exceed eight hours.”
“These are very significant, extraordinary powers, and oversight in this place is essential to ensure the proper operation of those laws, to make sure that they continue to be applied properly but also that they are required and necessary. I note the minister's comment earlier that, unfortunately, these powers are still needed. I don't dispute that; we are not here saying that these powers are not from time to time needed in a period where geopolitical tensions, terrorism, threats and harm are there and prevalent. But, from our community's perspective, we've also seen in recent times protests in Sydney, and many are concerned about overreach by law enforcement and the importance of having good accountability when extraordinary powers are granted to agencies, especially when they then override human rights.”
“I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 7 — Minor questioning warrants Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 12 After section 34JE Insert: 34JEA Minor questioning warrants (1) The Attorney-General must not issue a minor questioning warrant after 6 March 2027. (2) Before 7 March 2027, despite any other provision of this Division: (a) a minor's representative must be present at all times during the questioning of a minor; and (b) questioning of a minor must not take longer than 8 hours. Following the division we've just had on the member for Curtin's amendments, this amendment seeks to raise a further concern—and I should say, for the record, I strongly support the sunsetting clause remaining in this legislation.”
“While we have a piecemeal approach of state based inquiries but no ultimate accountability at the federal level, our institutions are not adequately protecting women and children. Billions of dollars have been spent on programs and reviews, yet domestic violence rates remain unacceptably high, financial abuse of single parents remains normalised and accountability remains fragmented. We can't keep funding responses without interrogating the system. We need structural reform and accountability, and I really urge the government to get on with the job of implementing those meaningful structural reforms that will genuinely help single parents.”
“To the government: an effective child support system must be safe, certain and accountable. 'Safe' must mean that victims-survivors are not forced to engage with abusers to secure payments of child support; it must be certain, meaning children receive financial support regardless of administrative delay; and it should be accountable, meaning debt recovery targets those who owe, not those already carrying caring responsibilities. This bill doesn't move us meaningfully towards that road map, and it maintains a system that is structurally flawed. I will continue to call for a national royal commission into domestic and family violence and femicide because the intersection between violence, poverty and policy failure is undeniable.”
“That is why there is that deep frustration and disbelief that, despite all the good, well-meaning assurances, we are still failing to see this government enact the more significant changes that will make a real difference to single parents. I want to acknowledge Single Mother Families Australia and their CEO, Terese Edwards. She has been working passionately. Many in this place have met with her. The work of the organisation consistently demonstrates the scale of the problem. Nearly 300,000 families lose approximately $810 million annually in family payments due to child support income that may never be received. The maintenance income test is harsher than income tests applied to wages or investments. How wrong is that for a system! It contradicts commitments to women's economic security.”
“Yet here we are, in 2026, many months since that report was provided to the government in its last term, with a bill with technical amendments. We still do not have that systemic reform that is needed—that so many single mothers are crying out for. In 2024, two years ago, I attended the parliamentary launch of the black box report alongside advocates, front-line workers and women sharing lived experience. It was sobering, and it was clear that reform was urgent. I wrote to the then minister for social services calling for action. The response acknowledged the seriousness of unpaid child support and the risk of financial abuse, it committed to ensuring systems do not exacerbate harm and two years on—nothing, crickets, no changes to the system. More women and children have been left subject to this foul and controlling system.”
“Rather than asking single mothers to pursue former partners when there's been domestic violence for owed child support, it would be for to the ATO to pursue those debts, and those debts could then be balanced against any debt owing in relation to overpayment of child support payments. Other recommendations included paying primary carers first and pursuing non-compliant payers second, and, importantly, if you're not going to change who is recovering these amounts, abolishing the maintenance income test and delinking the family tax benefit from child support. These are not radical proposals. They're evidence based, and they're supported by organisations like Single Mother Families Australia and women's legal services.”
“Yet what we see from the government is no royal commission to properly investigate everything and create accountability and still no action on key recommendations that we know will make a very big difference. One of those incredible reports that had a lot of important recommendations was O pening the black box of child support : shining a light on how financial abuse is perpetrated . That report drew on the lived experience of 675 single mothers. It made clear that violence is not incidental to the child support system. It had key recommendations, including moving all child support collection back into the ATO, because the ATO is best placed to pursue the $3.7 billion in outstanding child support debt, and making all child support debts owed to and enforced by the Commonwealth.”
“In fact, in question time, I asked the minister for a national royal commission into domestic violence and femicide so that we can actually analyse all these questions and look to the question of why, when so many levers are known and when we know change needs to happen, it is not actioned by government. I would say I got a fairly inadequate answer by the minister, who basically said to me: 'We've got this. We know what needs to be done. We've done plenty of state based inquiries, and we're getting on with the job. We're doing this.' Meanwhile, multiple independent reviews have laid out clear reform pathways. There are many clear levers we know that need to be done to assist.”
“It clarifies employment income assessment rules. These are administrative clarifications that close technical gaps. They do not reform the child support system and certainly do not address the financial control and coercive control that is facilitated by the current system. It does not protect victims-survivors from financial abuse, and it doesn't fix structural flaws long identified by experts and frontline organisation. The government itself—members of the government—have described many of these amendments as 'clarifying' and 'upholding' existing arrangements. That tells us everything about what we are doing here, which is tinkering. We are preserving the status quo even though the government knows the status quo is failing women and children. What's so deeply frustrating is that we know what needs to be done.”
“Tax returns are delayed to trigger reassessments and disputes escalated to maintain control. Too often, the financial insecurity of a primary carer becomes leveraged by the former partner, and too often the system facilitates that leverage. Approximately one-third of parents paying child support have fallen behind. Billions of dollars in child support debt remains outstanding, and it is the children who bear the consequences. The Commonwealth does nothing to assist those single parents in getting those child support payments back. This bill makes a series of technical amendments. It aligns child support periods with existing administrative practices within Services Australia. It retrospectively validates previous decisions. It provides a legislative framework for urgent social security payments.”
“The government is on notice about it yet it has been going on for months and nothing has been done. In 2024, 83 per cent of one-parent families were headed by women. Around 60 per cent of those mothers reported violence prior to separation. Single-parent families experience the highest rates of poverty, housing stress and material deprivation in Australia. The child support system is decades old and was not designed with coercive control or financial abuse front of mind. Yet, today, financial abuse is one of the most common forms of domestic violence. As a former family barrister, I saw firsthand how child support becomes a weapon—withholding of child support, making it difficult—and the only ones who suffer in those situations are the children. Payments are withheld by former partners to exert pressure.”
“So on top of everything else they have to deal with, they are often then facing the prospect of an overpayment of the family tax benefit because former partners, when they eventually lodge their tax returns, change the basis on which the payment was made and the assessment. These parents are told at that point by the Commonwealth that they owe a debt to the Commonwealth, not because they did anything wrong but because the system allowed their former partner's non-compliance to be weaponised against them. And rather than the Commonwealth assisting and actually pursuing former partners for child support payments owing, the Commonwealth pursues the single parent—too often the woman—struggling to make ends meet. This is revolting and it is a deep flaw in the system.”
“In Warringah, my electorate office is regularly contacted by single mothers trying to navigate the child support system. Many have left violent relationships to protect themselves and their children. They are working full-time, part-time, whatever they can fit in, caring for their children and they are at financial and emotional breaking point. They are doing everything asked of them yet we hear the same story again and again: their former partner does not lodge tax returns. As a result, child support assessments are delayed or manipulated. Meanwhile, family support payments are made calculated on the basis of tax returns and incomes pursuant to those tax returns.”
“At a time when 83 per cent of one-parent families are led by single mothers, when family violence and financial abuse remain endemic, when billions of dollars of child support owed to children goes uncollected and unreceived, the government has introduced a technical bill that makes small, piecemeal administrative adjustments to the child support system while continuing to ignore clear, consistent and longstanding recommendations for real reform. This legislation does nothing harmful but it is deeply inadequate and it represents yet another missed opportunity to fix Australia's broken child support system. Once again, the government is tinkering around the edges rather than doing what is urgently needed to keep women and children safe and financially secure.”
“We can empower intelligence agency while preserving parliamentary oversight, and protect national security without breaching children's rights. Ultimately, Australia's laws must be fair and proportional. They must keep our nation secure but also protect our democracy and its most vulnerable people—children. For these reasons, I will oppose the bill.”
“I will move amendments to repeal minor questioning powers or, at the very least, retain the sunset clause for children and add new safeguards. Compulsory questioning is a powerful and intrusive tool. It compels attendance and answers. It criminalises refusal and it conflicts with core legal principles such as self-incrimination and the right to silence. Proposed safeguards in the bill are welcome but incremental, and they don't address the fundamental overreach. The fact that these powers are rarely used is no reassurance. Once permanent, the powers risks becoming normalised and expanded even further. National security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. Australia can be a safe country without enacting disproportionate and unnecessary laws.”
“Permanently enacting powers that compel children to be interrogated is not consistent with those obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Then there's a real issue about how children could be interrogated and treated under this legislation in the name of all Australians. In 2024, ASIO confirmed that it had never used a minor questioning warrant and no longer saw a strong case to retain the power—yet children remain captured under this bill. Why? If ASIO are saying they do not need these provisions, why is the government persisting and proceeding with this legislation as it stands? Parliament has a duty to oppose the overreach of power, especially when it comes to children, who are unable to protect themselves. A fair society does not normalise secret, coercive questioning of children.”
“Children as young as 14 can be compelled to answer questions under threat of criminal penalty. Removing the sunset clause prevents parliament from revisiting whether that is appropriate. Is that commensurate and proportional to threats, embedding a process where minors may be forced to participate in secret questioning? Think of that. We as a nation are saying that we are okay with 14 -year-olds being secretly questioned by ASIO. That is the standard the government is asking us to accept. Australia is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that children's best interests be a primary consideration and that they be protected from coercive measures. How is that being given effect in this legislation? I ask that of members of government supporting this legislation.”
“Under this legislation, the scope of adult questioning warrants essentially covers ASIO'S entire security remit, a drift far from the original purpose of the legislation post 9/11, when, I remind you, they were meant to be interim exceptional measures being introduced. The government is now taking a step to make these permanent. It's no longer looking at it from an exceptional point of view but as a permanent situation. It means these powers may be applied in situations that do not present immediate or grave risks to the communities. So the very premise on which these powers were first introduced is not at all the basis on which they are argued to continue. My biggest concern in relation to this legislation is that this bill fails to protect minors.”
“I have a fundamental issue with that, and every member in this place should also have an issue with that. Sunset clauses are crucial democratic safeguards. They force the parliament to look at the evidence and to consider if laws remain fair and necessary. Removing them strips parliament of oversight and undermines accountability. There should be much more scrutiny of why the government is taking this step at this time. Grounds for compulsory questioning are expanded in this bill. It now includes sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on our defence system and threats to border integrity. ASIO is on the record stating it does not need powers in relation to border integrity, but they have been included in this bill regardless.”
“It expands the scope of those powers and, most concerning, it allows the powers to apply to minors as young as 14, despite ASIO previously stating it does not need those powers in relation to children. Compulsory questioning powers were introduced in 2003 post 9/11 as extraordinary and temporary measures. Over the past 20 years, they have been extended repeatedly. This bill seeks to make these changes permanent and mean that we will not, on a regular basis in this place, make sure that there isn't an overreach of power and have the parliamentary oversight that is so important. Each time this law has been extended, civil liberties groups and the Law Council of Australia have raised concerns. Rather than addressing those concerns, this bill goes in the opposite direction. It expands the powers and makes them permanent.”
“Espionage, foreign interference, sabotage and politically motivated violence are real threats. We know this. ASIO plays a vital role in keeping Australians safe amidst complex multithreats to national security and to our security here. We know, following the Bondi terrorism attack, that the accountability of our agencies is incredibly important to ensure Australians are safe. That's why—in that very context—parliamentary oversight is so incredibly important when we are looking at and talking about such broad-reaching powers that this bill seeks to make permanent. This bill seeks to make three significant changes. It removes the sunset clause for ASIO'S compulsory questioning powers, making them permanent.”
“We must oppose overreach of power, especially when applied to children, who are the least able to protect themselves. A fair society does not normalise secret, coercive questioning of children. National security should never come at the cost of our fundamental values. Australia can be safe while also upholding human rights and the rule of law. Parliament has a duty to stay vigilant. Democratic accountability is important. In speaking on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, I want to say at the outset that I have a deep respect for the work of our intelligence agencies, but I also have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation, especially legislation that seeks to make permanent some of the most intrusive powers ever granted to a Commonwealth agency.”
“Australians deserve an energy system that is affordable, accountable and aligned with climate science, not one designed to boost foreign profits. Let's be clear. Gas is not green, and it is not in the best interests of Australians to keep prioritising Japanese exports.”
“Australians paid more than four times more in tax through HECS-HELP repayments than gas companies paid through the PRRT. Low-income households are hit hardest, spending around five times more of their income on energy than high-income earners. I say to all the members of government: look to what you are doing with the gas exports. If the government is serious, it must stop acting as a concierge for the gas industry and start acting in the national interest. Lock in genuine domestic gas reservation and transparent contracting. Enforce rigorous methane measurements and regulation—no more voluntary rules. Deliver a credible, managed phase-down of gas, consistent with keeping climate change in check and commitments to net zero.”
“Yet Australian gas continues to be shipped out under long-term deals that don't prioritise Australians, and this government keeps waving it through. InfluenceMap has found that Japanese companies hold more than $70 billion in equity across Australian LNG developments—projects linked to around 290 million tonnes of CO2 per year, roughly two-thirds of Australia's annual climate pollution. While we're told that this is all about Japan's energy security, the reality is quite the opposite. A significant share of Australian LNG bought by Japanese firms is on sold to third countries, reportedly generating more than US$1 billion in profit in 2024. Australians pay higher bills. Multinationals cash in, and the tax system barely touches them.”
“Australians do not have a gas shortage problem; we have a government that refuses to put Australians first. New reporting has revealed just how deeply corporate Japan is embedded in Australia's gas export machine. Ministers have met with Japanese LNG executives more than 20 times in a single term while households here are left paying the price. This is what selling out Australians looks like—Australian resources, higher emissions and Australian families carrying the costs while profits are booked offshore. Every week I hear from families choosing which costs to delay from small businesses trying to absorb yet more cost rises. They can't win in a market that has been deliberately distorted by exports. Australians are told to be patient and to accept rebates and bandaids.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. The grieving family of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom, killed in Gaza nearly two years ago by Israeli air strikes, still seeks answers. The conflict has been among the deadliest on record for journalists and aid workers, with over 200 journalists killed and 400 aid workers killed. Zomi's brother raised his concerns directly with the Prime Minister about no-one facing accountability. Will the government now push for an independent war crimes investigation into her death and the targeting of aid workers and journalists? What accountability will the Prime Minister request of President Herzog?”
“Our system is failing categorically. My community of Warringah overwhelmingly voted in favour of that recognition and continually urges me to support legislation and ways in which I can be an ally and the community of Warringah can be an ally. I welcome this legislation but urge the government to look beyond that. We have to look to the age of criminal responsibility. It must be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recommendation that it be set at age 14. I commend these bills. They are a necessary national institution building step, grounded in genuine consultation with Indigenous Australians, and represent a step forward in confronting the inequities faced by Indigenous children in Australia.”
“I welcome them because they are built on genuine consultation with Indigenous people and representative bodies such as the Human Rights Commission and SNAICC, the national peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families. A very high proportion of Indigenous young people have also had contact with child protection services. Almost two in three young people under youth justice supervision in 2022-23 had interacted with the child protection system in the previous 10-year period. If we are willing to fund a national commission, we must also be willing to reform the laws that keep failing Indigenous children nationwide. We had a very heated debate across the nation only a short time ago around what should have resulted in the proper recognition of First Australians in our Constitution.”
“When this is raised, it's often said that the Criminal Code and the age of criminality refer back to state and territory jurisdictions, but legal advice has been obtained that our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child brings a responsibility and the powers, at a federal level, to ratify a minimum age of 14. That's why I've been calling for a national rights-of-the-child framework for some time, and I will continue pushing the government to do that. There is a responsibility in this place to set that national age and to override state and territory laws that are prejudicial to the rights of young people, if one thinks of our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The bills are consistent with that direction.”
“However, most other states and territories are lagging far behind, with cruel and, I would argue, discriminatory policies in place that see a rise in youth being caught up in the justice system, rather than addressing the social and surrounding issues that lead to the problematic behaviour. We can't talk about children's rights seriously without acknowledging that Australia's protections are incredibly fragmented. We have treaty obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but we don't have a uniform, enforceable domestic rights framework at the federal level.”
“This is clearly a problem area, and I hope this commission will start to make a difference. This bill is a constructive reform because it gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people a national champion that is structurally positioned to co-ordinate across governments, drive attention to systemic issues and insist on evidence- and rights-based public policy, but this is not going to be a fix-all. It has to be paired with a clear national commitment to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14, consistent with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's guidance as well as contemporary developmental science. The ACT has shown that such reform is possible, moving its minimum age to 14.”
“We lose the potential of so many young people, and we end up with a disproportionate cost. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve anything. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap sets out 19 socioeconomic targets across key life outcomes: health, education, employment, housing, child protection and justice. They were developed in formal partnership with the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations. Last year's Closing the Gap annual data compilation report by the Productivity Commission showed that efforts to improve outcomes for First Nations Australians are having mixed results. Outcomes are improving for targets such as preschool enrolment and employment, but they continue to worsen for life expectancy and incarceration rates for adults and youth.”
“All experts indicate very clearly that, when children are caught up in the justice system from such a young age, it only leads to bad outcomes. It increases the likelihood of recidivism and ongoing engagement with the justice system, and it is failing young people, particularly young Indigenous people. It often arises out of the failure of other support systems—whether it is health, educational support or social services—around young people and their families. It's usually other systems having failed that leads us to this problem. It's been really concerning to see the rise in state and territory governments pushing for an age of criminality of 10, when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has made it clear that it should be raised to 14. No-one wins with a policy of engaging young offenders in the justice system.”