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 14 of 17.
“I rise today to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The objective of this bill, to improve the efficiency of the tribunal, is one I broadly support, but I also harbour serious concerns about aspects of the government's approach. On balance, I intend to support the bill given the efficiency gains it promises, but I will be proposing an amendment to ensure those gains are not bought at the cost of fairness to international students and other migrants. Since 14 October 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal has operated in place of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The ART was established under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 with the explicit aim of modernising and strengthening the system of merits review across the Commonwealth.”
“I'm supportive of any measure that can better support survivors-victims of coercive control and of family and domestic violence from having the additional burden of debt being enforced by government agencies. I urge the government to listen to the advocates operating at the front lines of community services and constructively consider any amendments proposed.”
“I thank Dr van Reyk and the lawyers who spoke to me about this issue and commend them on the really important work that they do in our community. I'll continue to advocate for appropriate funding for community organisations like Deserving Better, which provide support for women experiencing family and domestic violence and coercive control. I note that this bill is being considered by a Senate committee, with the first public hearing held recently. A common issue with process in this place means that we in the lower house are being asked to analyse and debate legislation before we've seen the outcomes of the review. I note that there are already a few suggested amendments to this bill from experts and advocates, including Anglicare, Economic Justice Australia and ACOSS, which I hope will be proposed and debated in the Senate.”
“It also depends on victims being able to clearly articulate their circumstances, which is often something that's extremely difficult if they are living in fear, trying to navigate the system and simultaneously trying to detach from an abusive relationship. One of the lawyers I spoke to said that, in Western Australia, victims of family and domestic violence can already terminate a residential tenancy by citing domestic violence as the reason. She said these reforms are a natural extension of those existing protections and remedies for genuine victims. Many of her clients raised financial abuse as part of their experience. Most often, it involves control of bank accounts and restrictions on what can and cannot be spent. At times, it extends to taking out credit, such as loans or credit cards, in the client's name without consent.”
“This includes cases where perpetrators have accrued debt in the victim's name, where debts are shared, where tax records show income under the victim's name despite their never having access to these funds, and even a couple of situations where debt continues to be accrued in the victim's name after separation. Dr van Reyk did express concern, however, about the practical application of the reform, because the decision ultimately rests with individual Services Australia staff, and it relies heavily on their understanding of coercion and financial abuse, as well as their empathy in applying the waiver.”
“In practical terms, expansion of the special-waiver provision will now include debts incurred through family and domestic violence, coercive control and comparable circumstances. If a victim-survivor of abuse was not aware of their partner's actions in creating debt, the waiver can be applied to their debt. In the process of reviewing this legislation I reached out to a number of lawyers and advocates in my electorate to see how the bill would impact my constituents. Dr Lisha van Reyk from Deserving Better WA, an organisation that supports and advocates for people suffering domestic and family violence, said, 'It's significant and much-needed reform.' She said that Deserving Better has seen many examples of financial abuse intersecting with social security debt.”
“In technical terms, the special-circumstances waiver provisions in each act, once amended, will extend the waiver in three situations where it wasn't previously available: firstly, where the debtor caused the overpayment by knowingly making false statements or knowingly failing to comply with the relevant legislation but the debtor's actions were justified in the circumstances; secondly, where a person other than the debtor caused the debt by knowingly making false statements or knowingly failing to comply with the relevant legislation but the debtor was not aware of the other person's actions; and, thirdly, where a person other than the debtor caused the debt by knowingly making false statements or knowingly failing to comply with the relevant legislation and the debtor was aware of the person's actions but their failure to correct the issue was justified in the circumstances.”
“I'd also like to make clear my support for the expansion of the special-circumstances waiver and the intention to make the waiver more easily available to those dealing with the difficult circumstances of family and domestic violence. This is a waiver that allows the government to choose not to pursue individuals for debts.”
“I rise to support the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. In particular, I wish to commend Minister Plibersek on introducing the debt reform measures and expanding access to the special-circumstances waiver for social security debts. The proposal to raise the threshold for small debt waivers and to index this threshold in future is supported by a number of advocates and experts, because it eases hardship for people who are on the lowest incomes while also reducing the administrative burden on Services Australia. It's a win-win reform, and I support that measure.”
“A national plan for AI that puts people first. We need ethical frameworks and strong regulation. We need policies that protect job mobility, alongside real investment in education and training so young people can work with AI, not against it. And we need smart safety nets for when jobs inevitably change. The government's choices today will decide whether Australians are empowered or sidelined tomorrow. Dignity, purpose and human relevance must remain at the centre of our future workforce and the economy we will inherit. In ten years, we don't want "clanker" to be a slur. We want it to be a joke we laugh at—remembering how we turned fear into progress. Thank you, Thomas and Minh.”
“After asking hundreds of people their views on artificial intelligence while doorknocking in Wembley Downs on the weekend, I am proud to share the following contribution from young Curtin constituents Thomas Lenette and Minh Hoang, written for the Raise Our Voice program: "Clankers." That's the new slur for AI and robots going viral online. It's a joke, but it's also a warning: young people are anxious, facing unprecedented uncertainty about job security and human relevance in an AI-driven future. But young entrepreneurs and changemakers are also already using AI to solve thorny problems—improving healthcare, advancing sustainability, even sparking creativity. These stories prove AI's tremendous potential. But without clear direction, the risks are real: insecure work, unfair systems, and people left behind. So what do we need?”
“I urge the coalition and the House to reject this bill, reaffirm its commitment to net zero and help build a flourishing economic future on a livable planet.”
“When the Nationals are taking a different view to the farmers, who are they now representing? There are really only coal and gas companies left. This does not bode well for the future prospects of the coalition or for the economic future of the country. Returning to the climate wars is economic sabotage and a political dead end. Businesses and investors are ready and willing to invest in the industries of the future, but they need policy certainty, not mixed messages, from our politicians. The coalition as a whole must decide if it's in favour of Australia having a flourishing economic future on a livable planet or against it. Net zero is not a burden; it's a blueprint for a better future. It's a framework for innovation, job creation, regional development and environmental stewardship.”
“The moderate Liberals were unable to drag their coalition colleagues to the centre under the Morrison government and paid the price. Still, it seems the lesson has not been learned. On ABC's Insiders yesterday, we heard more about the coalition's so-called review of the net zero target. Senator Canavan could not answer a question about the cost of abandoning net zero, doesn't intend to do any modelling as part of the review and claimed, without any modelling or evidence, that Treasury and so many other stakeholders lack credibility when they say that abandoning net zero will result in lower economic growth, reduced investment and higher energy prices. These stakeholders include the National Farmers' Federation, which supports the targets because farmers are on the front line of climate change.”
“It could effectively hold the government to account on driving the clean energy transition in a way that's practical, cost-effective and focused on jobs and competitiveness. The climate wars must end. The future is calling, and Australia has everything it needs to thrive in a net zero world, if only we choose to lead. Yet, across Australia, the Liberal and National parties show their desire to cling to the past. The WA Liberal Party's state council supported a motion to abandon our net zero target for 2050. In Queensland, the LNP has also voted to reject net zero. Although this bill has been put forward by the member for New England, who may or may not be part of the Nationals, it unfortunately signposts where the coalition is heading.”
“Australians, including rural and regional Australians, support climate action. The last two elections have made that abundantly clear. There is no path back to government for the coalition that does not involve regaining ground in suburban and metropolitan seats—seats like mine, seats like those of my fellow crossbenchers and many marginal Labor seats as well. That path requires climate credibility. Reopening the net zero argument within the coalition paints Labor's timidity and lack of ambition as courageous innovation. This bill is a political own goal for the coalition. The coalition could be playing an important role in opposition by reaffirming its commitment to net zero, endorsing an ambitious 2035 target and accepting the economics.”
“The risks are escalating, and our response must match them. Our action on climate change must be ambitious, not only to meet our international obligations but to unlock the investment needed to build the industries of the future—renewables, critical minerals, green iron and clean manufacturing. We have the best renewable resources in the world. We have the minerals the world needs. We have the engineering know-how and the workforce. What we lack, and what this bill threatens, is policy certainty. Investors are watching and businesses are ready, but they need a clear signal that Australia is serious about net zero. Even raising the idea of repealing our target does damage by sending the opposite message—that we are unreliable, unserious and unprepared. That's not just bad policy; it's bad politics as well.”
“I rise today to speak against the member for New England's bill to repeal Australia's net zero target. This bill, the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025, is not just a backwards step; it's a reckless rejection of economic opportunities, of environmental responsibility and of political reality. Australia's commitment to net zero is both an obligation and an opportunity. It's our duty to future generations and our ticket to prosperity in a rapidly changing global economy. Walking away from net zero would be a betrayal of all Australians who want a stable environment and a future of abundance for our kids and grandkids. The national climate risk assessment lays bare the risks that we face. Climate change is affecting our communities through extreme weather, our economy through disrupted supply chains and our environment through degraded ecosystems.”
“We know the gambling industry peak body is taking every opportunity to rub shoulders with politicians, including at games organised at Parliament House by the Australian Parliamentary Sports Club, a registered lobby group, which kicked out sportsman and senator David Pocock for drawing attention to the 'ick' factor. The hidden lobbying is gross, and Australians hate it. Transparency about the lobbying that goes on in this building is the very least the government should do in an effort to rebuild declining trust. If the government has nothing to hide, there should be no problem with greater transparency. I commend this bill to the House as another effort of the crossbench to pursue greater transparency.”
“Take the issue of online gambling reform. The government asked a parliamentary committee to look at what needs to be done. A multipartisan committee led by the late member for Dunkley came up with 31 unanimous recommendations, which were handed to the government. Then it appears the lobbying began—from gambling companies, from sporting codes and from media companies. Thanks to our also-threatened FOI process, we know that in the first six months the minister had no fewer than 66 meetings on the issue, almost universally with lobbyists against significant reform.”
“Currently, in Australia's federal parliament, we only have an administrative system governed by the Lobbying Code of Conduct and overseen by the Attorney-General's Department. There are no meaningful consequences for breaching the federal code of conduct. The code of conduct applies only to professional lobbyists acting on behalf of third-party clients. This means lobbying activity that's undertaken in-house by businesses and industry bodies isn't included. In-house lobbyists are able to conduct invisible activity without regulation or oversight. The Grattan Institute has shown that highly regulated businesses have the most meetings with senior politicians, make the most use of commercial lobbyists and are disproportionately large political donors. I wonder why! Australians see the impact of this everywhere.”
“I second the motion, and I'm pleased to again support the essential measures introduced in the member for Kooyong's Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill. I'm proud to stand with a group of crossbench parliamentarians who continue to fight so hard to reflect the wishes of their communities to strive for better transparency, greater integrity and more accountability in politics. Part of integrity and accountability is understanding who is influencing our top decision-makers. We should know which lobbyists have access to ministers and cabinet. Currently, Australia lags behind our counterparts in Canada, in the UK and in the US in the transparency and accountability of lobbying activity. In each of those countries there is a legislated lobbying regime with clear reporting obligations arising from lobbying activities.”
“We must ratify the treaty, protect 30 per cent of our oceans, save Scott Reef from gas expansion and reduce plastics at the source. The oceans cannot speak for themselves; it's up to us.”
“If we allow Scott Reef to be sacrificed to gas expansion, our government's rhetoric on ocean conservation will ring hollow. This is a test of genuine commitment. The fourth area is plastics and packaging reform. We know how much plastics damage our oceans and waterways. They break down into microplastics, pollute habitats and devastate marine life. If we're serious about protecting our oceans, we cannot ignore the waste streams flowing into them. Packaging reform and plastics reduction must be a key priority for Minister Watt in the new year. This means strong regulation to drive down single-use plastics and a transition to sustainable alternatives. I commend the government for the words it has spoken about protecting our oceans, but words need to become actions.”
“We now have marine parks covering 52 per cent of our waters, but many of these so-called parks allow mining or commercial fishing. In reality, only 24 per cent of Australia's oceans are highly protected, and two-thirds of those are far from mainland Australia, around remote territories and islands. We need genuine protection for 30 per cent of our oceans, with sanctuaries and no-take zones that actually safeguard biodiversity, including around our mainland coasts. The third area is protecting Scott Reef from Woodside's Browse gas project. Last term I tabled a petition with nearly 500,000 signatures on it, calling for the protection of Scott Reef. This reef is a jewel of biodiversity, home to pygmy blue whales, endangered turtles and countless other species.”
“Despite signing—committing to ratify—and co-chairing the preparatory commission and even advocating that others ratify, we are not yet on the list of countries that have followed through. If Australia wants to be seen as a leader in ocean conservation, we must do our part. If we don't, we risk undermining both our international credibility and our regional leadership in the Indo-Pacific. I, along with other crossbench colleagues, have written to the minister, calling for urgent ratification, and I repeat that call today. Ratifying the global ocean treaty must be a priority. The second area is ensuring that at least 30 per cent of Australia's oceans are highly protected from extraction by 2030. Australia signed up to this global target in 2022.”
“There are four areas where the government must shift to action, and time is running out. These are not new policies. They're about living up to promises that have already been made. The first area is the global oceans treaty. This treaty establishes a legal mechanism to protect areas in international waters, which make up half the Earth's surface. Without it, there's no clear way of preventing overexploitation that destroys marine life and habitats. The great news is that, just last week, the treaty reached the milestone of 60 ratifications. This means it will officially enter into force in January. That's a huge step forward for the world's oceans. But here's the disappointment: Australia has still not ratified it.”
“Over the past three years, I've received more than 500 emails and letters from constituents worried about our lack of action on ocean conservation. So many Australians were shocked by David Attenborough's Blue Planet documentary, which exposed the reality of overfishing, bottom trawling and exploitation in the world's oceans. In international waters, beyond national jurisdictions, only one per cent of our oceans are currently protected—just one per cent—and nearly one in 10 global marine species are at risk of extinction. That's astounding. And now, as a handful of companies and countries push to mine the deep sea, these issues are only becoming more urgent. The government has made some important commitments, but commitments are only worthwhile if they're followed by action.”
“Last week, I went to the launch of a beautiful new book called Ningaloo . The book was written by Tim Winton and illustrated by Cindy Lane, both Perth locals. The book celebrates this unique part of the world, which holds a special place in the hearts of so many Western Australians. The event reminded me just how deeply engaged our community is when it comes to our oceans. In Curtin, people feel a profound connection to the Indian Ocean. For many of us, it shapes our lives, our environment and our identity. Our oceans are fundamental to life in Australia. They form a crucial part of our national story and underpin much of our economy, supporting shipping, fishing, tourism, renewable energy production and more. But, despite their importance, we're not doing enough to protect their biodiversity and beauty.”
“I've met with a range of experts, including the former Commonwealth ombudsman, Allan Asher, and the former head of the Consumers Federation of Australia, Robin Brown, who, along with academics, judges, advocates and former integrity practitioners, have developed a five-point reform plan. They have published an open letter—which I hope the Attorney-General has seen—which outlines a clear path forward. Some of the actions these experts have identified include making integrity agency offices of the parliament protected from government interference and guaranteeing sustained resourcing so they can hold government to account and are protected from retaliation. This is not about attacking anyone government; it's about futureproofing our democracy. I urge the Attorney-General to read, consider and respond to these asks.”
“Funding for the Human Rights Commission is set to fall, from $32 million last year to $28 million this year, with funding not expected to recover over the forward estimates. The DPP will see funding fall from $128 million this year to just $101 million next year, and even less in subsequent years. This decline in funding is absolutely unacceptable and should ring alarm bells. The third element is oversight. We also need to acknowledge that parliamentary committees and oversight groups are often dominated by the government of the day, and that limits their effectiveness. But, if integrity agencies are truly independent and well resourced, they can then do what committees cannot—investigate fearlessly, speak truth to power and protect the public interest. These institutions should report to the parliament, not to the executive.”
“They're part of the Public Service that reports to the executive, and this creates a conflict. These agencies should be staffed under legislation that reflects their independence and their role as offices of the parliament. If they reported to the parliament rather than the executive, there would be greater trust that they could hold the executive to account. Second is resourcing. This is the part that's most directly relevant to the budget before the House. Integrity agencies cannot undertake their work if they're not funded to do so, and we're seeing too many examples of integrity agencies with declining resources. For example, the Ombudsman's funding will fall from $48 million this year to $37 million in 2028-29. Funding for the OAIC is also set to fall, from a high of $40 million to $26 million by the end of the forward estimates.”
“Despite being in a better position than the US, we are facing what some experts have called an integrity deficit, a decade-long decline in funding for the agencies responsible for securing good governance. This budget was an opportunity to reverse that trend, but that opportunity has not been taken. I want to talk about three aspects that need to be protected—independence, resourcing and oversight—and why we can't afford to put this off. Firstly, on independence, for us to trust that integrity agencies are doing their job, we must know that they're independent and unable to be influenced by government. How do you ensure that independence? Part of it involves looking at who these agencies report to. In Australia, many integrity agencies sit under a minister.”
“We're fortunate to have a range of integrity agencies within the Attorney-General's portfolio that provide checks and balances to protect our democracy. These agencies are an essential part of our democratic architecture and make up the fourth arm of government—bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the Information Commissioner and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. These agencies are safeguards against secrecy, overreach and corruption, but they cannot do their jobs if they're underfunded, politically stacked or denied access to the information they need, and unfortunately we're starting to see some signs of this. This budget, while addressing many pressing needs, has failed to adequately fund and empower the agencies that were established with the mandate to keep government honest.”
“As part of these budget discussions, I'm going to focus on a part of the Attorney-General's portfolio that may seem dry but that strikes at the very heart of our democracy—that is, protecting and resourcing our accountability institutions. In the US at the moment we're seeing democratic institutions being undermined at an alarming rate. This includes executive overreach, independent agencies being white-anted and defunded, attacks on judicial independence, intentional weakening of civil society and the media, and the politicisation of law enforcement. I'm sure I'm not alone in watching on with horror and wondering how a proudly democratic country can change so fast. Most Australians I speak to feel very grateful for our democracy, but in a time of global upheaval we must safeguard our own democratic institutions.”
“Parents want to be met with empathy and clarity, not bureaucracy and confusion. Educators and clinicians are calling for better collaboration between health, education and disability sectors. They know that, when we intervene early and work together, we can change the trajectory of a child's life. There's significant concern about the prospect of losing or reducing support when the Thriving Kids change is made, but our Curtin submission is grounded in the hope that we can build a system that listens to families, supports professionals and puts children at its centre.”
“They want to see more trained specialists, reduced waiting times and more affordable assessments and services. They'd like to see early intervention integrated into schools, with better early screening and more support to equip schools to support neurodiverse children. A consistent theme was the importance of involving people with lived experience in service design and delivery. My submission makes 11 recommendations, which call for a streamlined, inclusive system that enables early identification and support for children with developmental delays through trained mainstream professionals, clear eligibility criteria and integrated therapy services. Delivery should leverage existing WA infrastructure, involve families in service design, address workforce shortages and be backed by increased funding and professional development.”
“Almost all respondents had experienced delays in accessing assessments or interventions, with 73 per cent reporting frequent delays. Respondents had mixed views about how well services have met the needs of children with mild to moderate support needs in our community. When asked what would help families and service providers better navigate the system of supports for children with additional needs, my community had some really useful suggestions about simplification, clarity and accessibility. Families want clear, centralised information so they can navigate their journey through diagnosis and support. They want streamlined processes to ensure consistent NDIS or support rules and improved transparency about waiting lists and service availability.”
“Families of kids with developmental delay or autism in Curtin are understandably concerned about the shift to the Thriving Kids program. They mostly know that the system doesn't work well now, but they want to ensure that they don't lose the support that they've worked so hard to get for their kids. I've engaged with families, educators and health professionals in Curtin to understand their experience of seeking diagnosis and support for kids and have made a submission to the Thriving Kids committee inquiry based on the experience of my community. There's no doubt that there are problems with the current system. Results of our Curtin survey show that more than 70 per cent of respondents found it difficult to access identification and support services for children with mild to moderate developmental delay or autism.”
“That's why I've seconded the member for Mackellar's amendment to extend this measure beyond one year and make it a more permanent feature of our tax system so that small businesses can make investments in productivity-enhancing improvements with certainty. So I commend that amendment and this bill to the House.”
“I commend the government for extending and legislating the write-off to 30 June 2026, this time in a timely fashion. It does gives small businesses the confidence to continue to invest and plan ahead. But we also must consider the long-term stability of the measure. The threshold has changed multiple times over the years, and that inconsistency undermines its effectiveness. Small businesses in Curtin need this certainty so they can keep investing in growing our local economy. If we're serious about supporting small businesses, we should make the write-off permanent and index the threshold to inflation to ensure that it remains relevant and reliable.”
“It's worth noting that this was almost a failed Labor promise earlier this year, when the announced extension to June 2025 was still not legislated in the last sitting week before the end of the financial year. We were contacted by small businesses who were stuck in limbo and uncertainty as they were waiting and hoping for the extension to be enacted. This had been announced but not legislated, and many small businesses had incurred the expense on the expectation that the $20,000 write-off would apply in the 2024-25 financial year and were shaping up for a nasty surprise. It was only after crossbench pressure, advocacy from me and other Independents, that the legislation was passed in time in May this year. It's a good example of how the crossbench is listening to the community and holding the government to account.”
“As I've said in the House before, the $20,000 write-off is a practical and effective way to support the small businesses that form the backbone of our economy. It allows eligible businesses to immediately deduct the cost of assets up to $20,000, rather than depreciating them over time. This improves cash flow, simplifies accounting and encourages investment in productivity-enhancing equipment. The measure applies to up to four million small businesses with turnover of under $10 million. It's a practical change that will make measurable differences for small businesses, including about 20,000 small businesses in my electorate of Curtin, many of whom I've spoken to.”
“I'd like to speak today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Schedules 1 to 6 of the bill contain reforms that address consumer protection, financial transparency and responsible lending. These are measures that I believe are in the public interest and would be supported by the constituents and businesses in Curtin. I think they're sensible measures, and I won't be specifically addressing them in any more detail today. But I would like to take the opportunity to make very brief remarks on schedule 7, which amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses until 30 June 2026.”
“This is a question for the Attorney-General. Frontline police are being overwhelmed by the increasing scale and depravity of child sexual abuse material driven by AI tools. Next week is National Child Protection Week, and the theme is 'Shifting Conversation to Action'. The government has announced a crackdown on 'nudify' apps, which is a start. We need action now. Will the government implement that announcement quickly and go further to support my bill to criminalise downloading AI tools specifically designed to create this horrific material?”
“Shifting the balance from income tax to some of these taxes will ensure younger Australians are given a fair go, drive productivity and innovation, and secure Australia as a prosperous and thriving country for decades to come.”
“It's time for a serious review of resource rent taxes, particularly for fossil fuels that not only deplete our finite resources but also impose global climate costs. Too many multinational corporations shift profits offshore and escape paying their fair share. The structure of global markets is changing. This undermines fairness, erodes our tax base and disadvantages local businesses that do play by the rules. Australia must work with other countries and strengthen its laws to ensure that we're appropriately taxing the digital economy and multinationals that benefit from access to the Australian market. Finally, carbon and pollution taxes remain the most economically efficient way to drive a cleaner and more sustainable economy. If we're serious about finding the cheapest and fastest path to net zero, then we cannot rule out these tools.”
“Stamp duty is one of the most inefficient taxes we have. It discourages mobility, locks people into housing that no longer suits them and makes it harder to use our houses well. Transitioning to a broad based land tax in partnership with the states would enable better housing outcomes. Again, Curtin residents are ahead of the politicians. In my community survey, 65 per cent supported this idea. Australians are not being fairly compensated for the use of our natural resources. Last year, no tax was paid on two-thirds of the gas exported from Western Australia. PRRT revenue this year will amount to just 0.08 per cent of GDP, which is a staggeringly low return for resources that belong to all of us.”
“This stealth tax disproportionately burdens younger working Australians while discouraging productivity. Most OECD countries index their tax brackets to inflation, and Australia should do this too. It would ensure governments can no longer rely on hidden tax hikes and must instead make a case for every new spending decision. The GST is often dismissed as regressive, but a package can be designed that is progressive. I worked with Professor Richard Holden and the Parliamentary Budget Office to develop an example of a progressive GST combining an increased rate with a basic supplement paid to every adult. This can be structured so that the majority of people—those with zero, low or middle incomes—would be better off. The key message here is that tax reform needs to include reviewing GST rates and exemptions.”
“Today, I'm putting forward some options that should be on the table when we look at how to shift the tax burden. They're informed by evidence, by international best practice and by the voices of the people of Curtin. Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions are increasingly supported by a majority of Australians. In a survey of Curtin residents, 76 per cent supported reform in this area. People recognise how seriously our housing system is broken and how current tax settings encourage Australians to treat housing primarily as an investment, not as a home. Reviewing these concessions must be part of any serious tax conversation. In Australia, successive governments have relied on bracket creep as their only plan for budget repair.”