Kate Chaney
Curtin · Independent · Australia
“Digital platforms will have a legal responsibility to prevent harm, but the design of this commitment matters enormously, and I want to flag three things that the government must get right. First, there must be a single overarching duty.”
“The government gave stakeholders representing millions of Australians affected by gambling harm a single 45-minute consultation session on the exposure draft, with written submissions due the next day. Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, who took part in that session, described it afterwards as a charade.”
“A doctor who uses the phone, internet, fax, email or video conferencing to provide lawful VAD care risks prosecution and fines greater than $300,000. This means seriously ill patients must attend every consultation in person, travelling long distances while gravely unwell, often more than once, to make and confirm their request.”
“I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,000 Australians. The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code Act so that it no longer applies to voluntary assisted dying, VAD.”
“She lived in one half of a single house divided into two separate dwellings. She got on well with the quiet single working man next door. This particular morning she was devastated and in shock. The man had hung himself in the shed where she found him, and left a note listing all the people he owed money to including the amounts.”
“No avenue to call up customer service at these companies and request this person be denied an account. Our nightmare never ends. There's nowhere to help us. The only option presented seems to dissolve the marriage and the family.”
The complete record
Every one of 846 lines we hold for Kate Chaney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“by leave—To continue my remarks on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 from the last sitting day, I also want to address the issue of international student caps. This bill provides ATEC with the function to allocate international student caps for different universities and providers at the request of the minister. As I understand it from discussions with the minister's office, further legislation is required to provide the minister with the power to set enforceable caps for international students at individual universities and providers before ATEC can use this function. So this bill paves the way for future legislation that will allow for enforceable international student caps. The government tried to introduce this power in 2024. I strongly opposed it at the time, and the bill failed to pass.”
“I also want to address the issue of international student caps. This bill provides the ATEC with the function to allocate international student caps for different universities and providers at the request of the minister. As I understand it from discussions with the minister's office, further legislation is required to provide the minister with the power to set enforceable caps for international students before ATEC can use this function, so this bill paves the way for future legislation that will allow those student caps. The government tried to introduce this power in—”
“So I'll move amendments to allow the ATEC to prepare reports and advice in relation to research and research training to ensure the commissioners collectively possess experience in research and research training. The fourth area of amendments would allow the ATEC to consider student contributions. As it stands, the ATEC can provide advice on the efficiency and cost of higher education programs but it can only consider the cost of courses and programs borne by the Commonwealth not borne by students. You can't meaningfully talk about course costs and funding sustainability if you only look at the Commonwealth side of the ledger. Students pay a significant share and they need to be considered as well, so I'll move an amendment to allow the ATEC to consider student contribution amounts as well as Commonwealth contribution amounts.”
“Research is central to Australia's economic strength, innovative capacity and international competitiveness. The accord identifies that our research system is under strain. We have low national R&D investment, weak innovation outputs, inadequate research training stipends and a need for a pathway to fund more of the full economic costs of research. The accord also explicitly calls for the ATEC to be a steward of the research sector yet the bill doesn't make the ATEC's research stewardship role explicit in the functions and advice framework. This is a serious omission. And, again, it's a problem raised by a large number of stakeholders.”
“As drafted, there's significant concern that three commissioners will not have the expertise across a diverse range of fields and areas such as higher education, VET, tertiary education, governance and administration, stakeholder consultation, engagement, regional Australia and other important areas as well, including research, equity and access, and learning and teaching. As such, I will move amendments to introduce two additional part-time commissioners to bring the total number of commissioners to five. Again, this change is backed by a number of stakeholders: the Group of Eight, Regional Universities Network, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne. Thirdly, I'm going to introduce an explicit focus on research and research training.”
“This issue has been raised by a huge number of stakeholders, including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the Regional Universities Network, Science and Technology Australia, Professor Andrew Norton and Professor Julia Horne. As a result, I'll move amendments to: firstly, omit the requirement that the ATEC may only prepare reports and provide advice at the request of the minister, and ensure the ATEC can initiate and publish reports and advice itself; secondly, require the ATEC and the department to enter into an enforceable agreement that will specify minimum staffing levels and standards. The second area of reform is around the number of commissioners.”
“The ATEC should have the ability to initiate and publish advice and recommendations on its own initiative, rather than solely at the request of the minister. Without this independence, there seems little point in creating a new organisation that largely duplicates the department's work. If it can only speak when asked and can only publish when approved then it's not an independent steward; it's an adviser on a leash, and this matters because the hardest issues in higher education reform are often politically inconvenient. Job-ready Graduates is a clear example. Operational autonomy matters too. Currently, the department controls the ATEC's staffing and contractor engagement, which could undermine the ATEC's capacity to build expertise and undertake independent analysis. That's not the design of an independent steward.”
“There are some good parts of this. The most positive outcome of this bill is that it recognises that the ATEC is needed in principle. It accepts the accord's logic. But the accord did not call for another advisory unit inside the machinery of the department; it called for a steward that could provide robust advice, support evidence based decision making and planning, and work across political cycles with a long time horizon. If the bill doesn't deliver that then it fails its own justification. Now I want to talk about the amendments that were moved. I oppose the bill as drafted because it doesn't create the ATEC that Australia needs. Firstly, we need to provide the ATEC with autonomy and independence.”
“ATEC's functions include: negotiating mission based compacts with universities and tertiary education providers; consulting widely across the tertiary system; and providing advice and recommendations to Commonwealth and state and territory ministers about the tertiary education system on request of the minister. These mission based compacts between the ATEC and higher education providers are the main mechanism for sustained engagement with the sector. They allow each provider to show how its unique mission aligns with national, state and local priorities, and they set a limited but meaningful set of performance objectives agreed collaboratively. The ATEC will take a good-faith, proportionate approach, supporting improvements, varying terms where needed and only escalating if performance remains below expectations.”
“But if ATEC is to solve these problems, it must be built as the accord envisaged—independent, expert and able to work across electoral cycles, not constrained to speak only when invited and not prevented from publishing uncomfortable truths. Let's look at what the bill actually does. It establishes ATEC as the steward of the higher education system. It will be led by three commissioners—a chief commissioner, a First Nations commissioner and a part-time commissioner—appointed by the minister and collectively expected to bring balanced experience across higher education, VET, governance, engagement and regional Australia.”
“This is what short-term, politically driven policy looks like: a major reform implemented with insufficient evidence and follow-through, producing outcomes that undermine national objectives. A second example is a funding model that no longer delivers for Australians. The accord identifies that the current funding arrangements are limiting enrolments of students from underrepresented backgrounds, and are not able to support growth in the tertiary sector in order to meet our nation's skill needs. These examples point to the need for long-term, evidence based stewardship of the tertiary education system focused on outcomes for students and for Australia. This is why ATEC matters.”
“Let me give some specific examples of fragmented and short-term policy that the accord identifies that a future ATEC would help deal with if designed properly. First is the failed Job-Ready Graduates scheme. The accord says plainly that this needs to be replaced. The central premise—using price signals to shift student course choices—has failed. It left some students facing extremely high contributions and debts that don't reflect their future earning potential, and it shifted the funding burden further onto students and away from government. At the same time, it reduced funding available to universities to deliver disciplines critical to future jobs and innovation, including science, engineering and mathematics.”
“I'll be moving amendments to attempt to fix these defects, and if the government will not accept these essential changes then I'm unlikely to support this bill in its current form. Firstly, why do we need an ATEC at all? The universities accord's final report is blunt about the nature of the challenge. It says: Our tertiary education system lacks the coordinated, future-focused and evidence-based, decision-making capacity necessary for Australia's future success. This must change. This is not a theoretical complaint. The accord documents a pattern of policy drift, fragmentation and failure, not because universities are incapable but because the system has lacked an enduring steward with the remit and capability to plan across electoral cycles.”
“In its current form, it risks becoming a lightly rebranded branch of the department—additional bureaucracy for no reason—constrained, dependent and unable to do the hard, long-term work the accord envisaged. I support ATEC in theory, but I oppose this legislation as drafted. I'm not alone. My position has been shaped by consultation with higher education experts and university groups, and by close reading of the submissions made to the Senate committee inquiry. There's a consistent message across many of them: yes to an ATEC in concept, but no to an ATEC that cannot act independently, cannot publish freely and cannot build its own capability. In other words, if ATEC is not meaningfully different from the department then why bother?”
“I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I support an Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, in principle. The universities accord's final report makes a compelling case that our tertiary education system has lacked long-term stewardship, coordinated planning and a strong evidence base. It's a system that's too important to run on chaotic political and short-term policy. But here's the problem: this bill does not establish the ATEC the accord recommended. It establishes a body called ATEC, but it doesn't give it the independence, the authority or the capability that would justify setting it up at all.”
“It's clear this tragedy has reopened conversations about how our society sees disabled people, how we support families and how we can prevent anyone from feeling alone or without options. The coronial inquest investigation is currently underway to determine the facts. This is likely to be followed by a coronial inquest so we can examine the broader circumstances that led to this crime. As we mourn the loss of this family, we must stand together, acknowledge the pain caused to so many in our community by this devastating event and recommit to protecting every precious life.”
“The suspected murders of Leon and Otis Clune and the suicide of their parents in Mosman Park in my electorate have sent shockwaves throughout our community. It brings profound sadness but also anger, frustration and unfortunately some division. At the centre of this tragedy were two children whose lives were precious. They deserved safety, opportunity and the chance to grow into their futures. For young people living with disability who are, like all young people, forming a view of themselves, this is a terrifying story. To them, I say: this is an extremely rare event and there is no justification for it. Your life is precious. Your worth is inherent, unquestionable and equal. For families of people living with disability, this event may stir up anger, memories of your hardest moments or fears for the future.”
“Another constituent explained that qualifying for the DSP was an already exhausting and degrading process that results in a woefully inadequate payment once a partner's income is assessed. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates the cost of removing the partner income test would be approximately $250 million per year. This reform would benefit about 34,000 partnered DSP recipients who currently receive only a partial payment or none at all. In the context of the federal budget, this would be a reasonable and just investment. It would restore autonomy, reduce financial stress and recognise people with disability as individuals, not dependants.”
“As a result, her DSP was reduced to a nominal amount while Taylor's partner completed his PhD and undertook part-time work. Taylor no longer receives any DSP now that her partner has started working full time. Taylor and her partner would like to save for a home and start a family, but they say these goals are unachievable in their current financial circumstances. Another woman in my electorate told me her husband is an early career researcher whose income reduces her DSP to just $160 a fortnight. She has no financial autonomy. Her husband pays for everything, and she described feeling 'expensive to maintain'. She told me the experience is humiliating and deeply disempowering.”
“The same doesn't apply to parents' income when an adult with disability receives the DSP while living in their parents' home. Under current eligibility rules, a couple living together can earn just $380 in combined income per fortnight before the DSP begins to be reduced. Every additional dollar reduces the DSP further. This policy assumes that couples can simply pool their resources and that a partner can and should financially support a person with disability who cannot access the workforce. My constituents have told me about the impact of this policy on their ability to live with dignity and autonomy. I recently met Taylor and her partner, who were flatmates before beginning a de facto relationship. When they began their relationship, Taylor reported the change to Centrelink.”
“Australians living with disability deserve dignity, independence and fairness. The current partner income test for the disability support pension undermines these fundamental human rights. The DSP exists to recognise that disability can limit a person's capacity to work and earn an income. Yet, for tens of thousands of Australians, that support is reduced or removed altogether simply because they're in a relationship. This policy punishes people for having a supportive relationship and actively discourages autonomy. According to Department of Social Services data from August 2025, about 155,000 Australians receiving the DSP are partnered. Of these, 18 per cent report that their partner has an income. In many cases, these earnings are modest yet still significantly reduce or entirely cancel a person's pension.”
“My question is for the Prime Minister. Since you came to office in 2022, parliamentary committees have prepared 78 reports and hundreds of recommendations on policy areas ranging from domestic violence to plastic pollution to gambling harm. Your government has only responded to four of these within the required six-month window. Fifty-seven reports haven't received any response at all. Why is the government consistently failing to respond to important committee recommendations? Why set up these inquiries if they're not going to go anywhere?”
“Australians deserve a health system that's accessible, safe and equitable. This bill can contribute to that goal if we get the implementation of it right, and I'll continue to engage constructively with the government to ensure that that happens.”
“Nurse practitioners play an invaluable role, but it should be absolutely clear that they will continue to practise within a collaborative, medically supported model of primary care. This is how high-quality care already functions and the regulations should reflect this reality. Ambiguity helps no-one, not practitioners, not regulators and not patients. These are not objections to the reform; they are a request for safeguards to ensure it delivers what it promises—better access without compromising safety or fragmenting care. This bill has the potential to move us meaningfully towards a more equitable health system but only if the detail is done well. I urge the government to engage openly with the findings of the Senate committee, once available, and to ensure the regulations are transparent, evidence based and clear.”
“There are two areas in particular that I want to highlight. First, the scope of medicines available for prescribing must be sensible and safe. This reform should focus on routine, low-risk and clinically appropriate medicines, not those that carry higher risks of dependency or misuse. Schedule 8 medicines, in particular, should fall outside this expanded authority. Our goal here is to improve access, not to create unintended consequences for patients or the health system. Doctors are best placed to make decisions about these schedule 8 medicines, which are used for severe pain or conditions like ADHD and include opioids such as morphine, stimulants such as dexamphetamine, cannabis and certain benzodiazepines. Our goal here is to appropriately improve access. Second, the definition of 'authorised health practitioner' must be precise.”
“When a nurse practitioner is already providing frontline care, it's both logical and safe to allow them to prescribe medicines within a clearly defined scope. While I support the intention of this bill, the success of these reforms will depend entirely on how the detail is implemented. Several stakeholders have highlighted that key elements, including approval conditions and scope of prescribing, are being left for future ministerial determinations. This means we're being asked to legislate a framework without yet seeing the guardrails that will govern it, and we're doing so before the Senate committee has delivered its report. This is not an ideal position for the parliament to be in and risks leaving questions unanswered for practitioners, patients and the broader health system.”
“I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. At its heart, this bill aims to improve access to health care and reduce costs by extending prescribing rights under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to authorised nurse practitioners. These changes recognise the essential role nurse practitioners already play across our health system, and I support the objective of improving accessible, affordable care. In a country as vast and decentralised as Australia, geography too often dictates health outcomes. In rural, regional and remote areas, the closest GP may be hours away. For older Australians, people living with disability, First Nations communities and vulnerable people, the barriers to safe, timely and affordable care can be even higher.”
“Violence aimed at supressing participation has no place in our democracy, and neither does indifference. We have a responsibility to acknowledge harm and to stand with all communities who feel targeted or unsafe. We also have a responsibility to commit ourselves to a more cohesive future, one where differences are aired respectfully and where all Australians feel they can participate freely in our shared civic life. For these reasons, I commend to the House the motion to condemn the attempted bombing, to acknowledge the serious harm that this has caused, to stand in solidarity with the First Nations people affected by this attack and to condemn all acts of violence and racism against First Nations people and all people.”
“I welcome the joint investigation by WA police, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and I urge those involved in the investigation to act with urgency. Their coordinated effort is vital to ensure the full circumstances of this shocking incident are understood and that appropriate charges are pursued using the full range of federal and state offences that apply. But as important as law enforcement is, our response cannot stop there. We must consider what this incident means for social cohesion in Australia. Cohesion is not something we can take for granted. It requires leadership that brings people together, that encourages understanding and shared purpose and that resists attempts to inflame or divide.”
“They did not understand why they were being asked to move, and the traumatic history of relations between Aboriginal people and police made them fearful and suspicious. Many in my community have also expressed concern about the limited mainstream visibility of the incident and the dismissal of racism as a factor. When a serious act of violence that appears to have targeted a racial group receives minimal national attention, it raises legitimate questions about consistency in how we perceive threats, how we categorise them and how we respond. Australians want to trust that violence is condemned wherever it occurs and whoever the victims are. That consistency is essential to building and maintaining social cohesion.”
“After an attack like this, it is so important that the parliament sends a clear message that attacks on First Nations people, as with attacks on any Australians, will not be tolerated and will be pursued with the full force of the law. For many Australians, particularly First Nations people, 26 January is not a day of celebration but a day of reflection, grief and remembrance. It's a reminder of dispossession and the enduring impacts of colonisation. That a violent act occurred during a peaceful gathering on that difficult day only heightened the sense of distress. Last week I spoke with a constituent who attended the rally. He shared with me the confusion and fear that swept through the crowd. He explained how profoundly vulnerable they felt. They were doing something entirely lawful and peaceful, yet suddenly they felt like targets.”
“Jim Morrison, Noongar elder and head of Yokai, reminded me today that not long ago Aboriginal people were not allowed to gather in the city of Perth. They were not permitted past Newcastle Street. That context makes it even more important that we fiercely protect the right of First Nations people to gather and protest in our streets. At a time when the strength of our social fabric is being tested in so many ways, maintaining social cohesion has never been more important. Acts like this don't just harm individuals; they undermine people's sense of belonging and safety. When a marginalised group is targeted, the ripple effect extends far beyond those who are physically present. People begin to question whether they feel safe participating in public life, in gathering, in advocating or even just in being visible.”
“Our system depends on people being able to express views, including uncomfortable ones, without fear of violence or intimidation. This is not a privilege; it's a cornerstone of our democracy. Any act intended to frighten people away from participating in public debate is an act that threatens the health of our civic culture. We must also recognise the particular context of this event. This rally was attended predominantly by First Nations people and those who stand in solidarity with them. First Nations communities continue to face systemic racism and marginalisation which shapes how this incident is understood and felt. Violence does not occur in a vacuum. It lands differently on communities already carrying the weight of intergenerational trauma and ongoing inequity.”
“I thank the House for allocating this time in the parliamentary schedule to discuss this motion, and I thank Senator Thorpe for preparing the words of this motion. This is the first sitting day since the incident at Forrest Place occurred, and it is so important that we acknowledge it, reflect on it and offer support to those affected. On 26 January, a peaceful Invasion Day rally in the heart of Perth was violently targeted in what police are now treating as a potential terrorist act. A homemade explosive device, a bomb, was thrown into a crowd of people—families, young people, elders, community leaders—who were simply exercising their democratic right to gather, listen and be heard. We now know that only luck prevented a mass casualty tragedy. An attack on a peaceful protest strikes at the core of our democracy.”
“I move: That the House: (1) condemns the attempted bombing on January 26 in Boorloo (Perth) that targeted First Peoples and their supporters; (2) notes that the Western Australia Joint Counter Terrorism Team, consisting of the Western Australia Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, is investigating the incident as a potential terrorist act; (3) acknowledges the serious harm this has caused and expresses its solidarity with all those impacted by this event; (4) further notes that an attack against First Nations people is an attack against all Australians; (5) notes that for many First Nations people, January 26 is a day of mourning and that an attack on this day, at an Invasion Day rally, represents a serious escalation of racial violence against First Peoples; (6) further condemns all acts of violence and racism against First Peoples, and stands in solidarity with First Peoples against rising racism and hate directed at them; (7) affirms that this Parliament's recent condemnation of racially motivated hatred unambiguously includes racism directed at First Peoples; (8) further notes that the Federal Government has a duty to equally protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence; (9) further acknowledges that First Peoples in Australia continue to face entrenched racism, racially-motivated hate and threats of violence, and that any instance of this is unacceptable and must be addressed; and (10) calls for governments to continue to take urgent action to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against First Peoples.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Member for Curtin immediately moving a motion relating to the Boorloo (Perth) bombing attack; (2) debate on the motion continuing immediately; (3) no amendment to the motion being permitted; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“Banning organisations is a typical strategy of authoritarian figures, and frequently associated with democratic backsliding, so we need to ensure that a power like this has sufficient safeguards. Some safeguards do exist—the agreement of the Attorney-General and judicial review of the AFP minister's decision about whether the proper process was followed—but it explicitly exempts the application of procedural fairness, so there is no right to be heard. If someone believes that their group has been wrongly designated a hate group, this amendment would give them the ability to seek an ART review of that decision on its merits.”
“I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 15 (after line 14), at the end of section 114A.4, add: Decision reviewable by ART (6) A decision by the AFP Minister under this section is reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This amendment introduces a provision to ensure that the AFP minister's decision regarding hate groups is reviewable on its merits by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This bill introduces a significant power for the AFP minister which needs safeguards against misuse or mistake. We have to make laws for bad governments, not assuming that we will have good governments, and, when we look overseas, we can see authoritarian figures are rising.”
“But, despite it not extending protections to other groups and lacking some important safeguards, I will be supporting it because it sends a message to arrest the normalisation of antisemitism, and it may reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attacks by criminalising the structures that could support these attacks. Building social cohesion will require more than a change of law, but this is a start. Importantly, I'm glad to hear that an amendment will be agreed to in the Senate for a two-year review of this rushed legislation. I will drop my proposed amendment to this effect, to ensure this review, because it will happen in the Senate. It's essential that we review the impact and adequacy of this bill after the conclusion of the royal commission. Thank you.”
“For example, I can see that there could be circumstances in which the minister wants to act quickly, but criminalising organisations with the right to be heard specifically exempted and no merits review is a significant power that could be misused in the future. With the democratic backsliding we're seeing in the US at the moment, it's not too hard to imagine. That's why I'll be proposing an amendment to ensure that a decision made to list a group as a hate group is subject to a merits review. In conclusion, the process of passing this bill is very poor.”
“This is why I strongly support the amendment that will be put forward by the member for Wentworth to expand protections to other protected groups defined by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, disability and religion. If we're going to deal with the fraying of social cohesion, we should be protecting all groups from those who seek to spread hatred. It makes no sense to have different levels of protection for different groups. Fourthly, does it strike an appropriate balance against important freedoms? The speed with which we've had to review these laws and the lack of time for serious public consultation means there is some risk here of unintended consequences.”
“The bill also aims to deal with the groups that organise and facilitate hate and violence by allowing the minister to list organisations as hate groups if they prepare, plan or advocate for hate crimes related to race or national or ethnic origin. It will be a criminal offence to be associated with such a group. But these are limited steps forward, and they come at a cost. Criminalising organisations is a big step. Thirdly is protection for other groups. This bill does little to ensure that we make Australia safe for other at-risk groups. Many of the new provisions relate to race, national or ethnic origin, which won't address Islamophobia or threats to the LGBTQIA community.”
“Bigger penalties will not stamp out antisemitism. In fact, no change to the law can, although the vilification laws that have been removed from this bill would have been a good addition and went no further than the current WA law does. But, even without them, this bill does send the message. Secondly, will the bill reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks? Possibly to a small extent. We will never be completely safe from terrorism, but we can address the means and the motivation. The gun reform laws passed this morning are an improvement, limiting the means. Dealing with antisemitism is also an improvement to address motivation.”
“In the year to September 2024, antisemitic incidents increased by more than 300 per cent. This is not who we are, and it's important that the law shows that antisemitism is unacceptable in Australia. No matter what you think about the actions of a foreign government on the other side of the world, demonising someone for their race or culture in Australia is not okay. This bill tries to send this message by making racial hatred an aggravating factor in sentencing in a number of Commonwealth crimes, by increasing penalties for existing offences about promoting violence, by creating more serious offences for preachers and spiritual leaders and for people trying to radicalise children under 18, and by making it easier for the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel or refuse visas for people intent on spreading racial hatred.”
“Like everyone else, I'm disappointed by the short timeframes provided to engage and consult on complex and important legislation. This bill, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026, was introduced an hour ago. The committee inquiry was way too short, with the report only tabled today, and this bill will be passed tonight with debate curtailed. This makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. In the time available, I've looked at whether the bill would do four things: address the unacceptable normalisation of antisemitism, reduce the likelihood of hate motivated terrorist attacks, deal fairly with the rise of hatred and violence against all groups, and strike an appropriate balance with important freedoms. Firstly, on the normalisation of antisemitism, this bill is a step forward.”
“This act of light in the face of violence is a demonstration that, like Edith Brutman, we can and will choose humanity every day and that we can overcome antisemitism and all hatred and division. May their memories be a blessing.”
“Edith Brutman was described by her family as a woman of integrity who chose humanity every day. She met prejudice with principle and division with service. As we remember these 15 people, we cannot let those who seek to divide us and sow fear win. Instead, we honour the courage and care of so many that day, first responders and bystanders alike, and recognise the Australia we choose to be in these acts. As Rabbi Eli Schlanger's cousin said: The world is a good place, and it's filled with billions of good people. We have to believe that the billions of good acts can dispel the darkness. Faith leaders have asked that we do a mitzvah—an act of kindness—to honour those who we have lost.”
“He was killed while trying to shield a family friend. Alexander Kleytman had endured the horrors of the Holocaust as a child. Alex was killed while courageously shielding his wife during the attack. Frenchman Dan Elkayam was beginning to build a future and a family in Australia. His family have said: 'His smile could light up any room. He was pure joy—a beautiful and humble soul.' Adam Smyth was a kind and generous father of four children, caught in the attack with his wife, Katrina. Tania Tretiak was a grandmother attending Hanukkah with her family. She spent her final moments shielding a child from gunfire, displaying unimaginable courage. Ten-year-old Matilda was given the most Australian name her parents could think of after migrating from Ukraine. There is no greater tragedy than a life cut so drastically short.”
“Reuven Morrison's daughter said of him: 'Everyone who knew him knew the incredible man that was just too big for this world—the light that he added, his absolute immense and endless generosity, his sense of humour.' Marika Pogany was a dedicated volunteer and delivered more than 12,000 kosher meals on wheels. Rabbi Yaakov Levitan was a deeply respected member of Sydney's Jewish community and served as secretary of Sydney Beth Din, the rabbinical court. Peter Meagher—'Marzo'—was a retired police detective and deeply valued member of the Randwick rugby club. His family have said: 'He was a cherished brother, husband and uncle whose kindness, generosity and love touched everyone who knew him.' Tibor Weitzen was a beloved grandfather and husband and a cherished member of the Bondi Chabad and Russian Jewish communities.”
“They were parents, grandparents, children, brothers, sisters, neighbours and friends who gave to their communities, who built lives here, who loved and who were loved. Today we speak their names and remember them. Boris and Sofia Gurman, married for 34 years, showed incredible bravery on the night, confronting, tackling and disarming one of the attackers, saving countless lives. Rabbi Eli Schlanger, who dedicated his life to community and family, served as a rabbi for 18 years and was head of the Chabad mission in Bondi. Boris Tetleroyd, described by family as a warm, generous and deeply sociable man, was someone who loved conversation, connection and helping others whenever he could.”