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 16 of 17.
“There's been limited communication from the department's gender based violence unit since its establishment, and frequent staff turnover has also hindered progress. Lastly, on sector support and engagement, the department has committed to develop guidance materials and a template for the whole-of-institution plan, but this needs to occur urgently and in consultation with accommodation providers. Student accommodation providers are deeply invested in getting this right and ensuring that their environments are safe, inclusive and compliant, but without tailored guidance and resource support, smaller accommodation providers may struggle to comply, risking reputational harm and service withdrawal, particularly in regional areas. Where does that leave us? Well, this bill is, in principle, a good step.”
“Increases in costs could result in significant fee increases that will impact equity and access. On the requirement for whole-of-institution plans, all student accommodation providers must be included in their university's whole-of-institution prevention and response plan or develop their own. For affiliated but independent student accommodation providers, this presents a practical challenge. How can a university include a student accommodation provider that it does not control in its institutional plan, and what obligations arise if no legal agreement exists between the parties? On implementation timeframes and resources, with the national code due to take effect on 1 January next year, most student accommodation providers have no access to funding, templates or endorsed training programs.”
“Requirements for staff, including professional psychologists, to disclose information received in therapeutic settings may contravene client confidentiality and professional codes of conduct. The requirement to share information with universities within 48 hours of disclosure raises complex privacy and liability issues for accommodation providers that are not part of the university's legal structure. On workforce expectations, the code requires that only those with prescribed knowledge and expertise undertake risk assessments and investigations. Student accommodation providers do not currently have access to professionals with these qualifications. Recruitment, training and resourcing of appropriately qualified staff will be a major cost and capability burden for small providers.”
“On definitions and terminology, inconsistent definitions across jurisdictions and within the national code are creating confusion. For example, the expectation for student accommodation staff to declare all past and present intimate relationships is not clearly defined and may raise legal, contractual and ethical issues, and the term 'disclosure' versus 'formal report' requires clarification in relation to obligations and expected response timeframes. On privacy and legal obligations, student accommodation providers operate under diverse legal frameworks across states and territories and may also be subject to religious, institutional and privacy related constraints.”
“This creates some challenges, as they all have different relationships with universities and different levels of resourcing. Some of the accommodation providers in my electorate have suggested that, at this stage, the lack of practical resources or advice from the Department of Education about the application of the code is creating real challenges, particularly for smaller providers. There's a risk that, without appropriately tailored supports from the department, this additional regulation could undermine the very outcomes that the code seeks to achieve. Some of the key issues on which the accommodation providers need clarification include definitions, privacy and legal obligations, workforce expectations, whole-of-institution plans, implementation timeframes, and sector support and engagement—and I'll run through these in turn.”
“UWA, along with other universities, is calling for clarity—clarity on how the 45-day disciplinary timeline will work and clarity on the relationship between the department's gender based violence unit, TEQSA and the National Student Ombudsman. These governance questions may sound technical, but they matter. Confusion at the regulatory level leave students in limbo. I've had the pleasure of visiting student accommodation providers in my electorate a number of times and I know that the leaders there are passionate about creating a safe and welcoming environment for all students. Many of these student accommodation providers are not-for-profit organisations. The code is designed to apply equally to universities, university owned and operated accommodation providers, independent not-for-profit accommodation providers and commercial providers.”
“All stakeholders I've spoken to are in favour of the goals of the code. They're already implementing some systems—we're not starting from zero—and there is recognition that this is an important issue. But stakeholders who will need to bring the code to life have legitimate concerns that should be considered in the code's implementation. The UWA student guild is generally supportive of the code. The main concern expressed by the guild president, Nikhita Talluri, is about data sharing under the code. Survivors often turn to independent services, such as those operated by the guild, rather than university officers precisely because they do not trust the university to act fairly, so any requirement for student services to share data must be de-identified and must respect survivors' choices.”
“The Senate's owns scrutiny of bills committee has already queried whether it's appropriate to address this in delegated legislation. There are reasons to shift the detail to delegated legislation. It's easier to amend so it can be more responsive to new issues or parts of the legislation that don't work as planned, but it also means there's less scrutiny on the new rules. Rather than focusing on whether delegating the development of the code to the minister is the right approach, today I'll pragmatically focus my comments on the practicalities, issues that will need to be addressed either in the code or in it's implementation for it to be effective. My electorate of Curtin includes the University of Western Australia, and I've spoken to various stakeholders at UWA about their concerns in relation to the code.”
“Too often, universities have made well-meaning commitments on paper but have failed to follow through. This bill says that if you don't comply, there will be consequences. Finally, the bill places prevention at the centre. It's not enough to react after the harm has occurred. The national code is expected to require evidence based prevention programs, consent education, bystander intervention training and awareness campaigns. It will require trauma informed support services and transparency, including annual reporting of incidences and responses. These are all good steps, but the devil is in the detail. The bill delegates much of the substance to the national code, which is made by the minister through delegated legislation. That gives considerable latitude.”
“This is part of a broader suite of reforms alongside the new National Student Ombudsman, the government's Action Plan Addressing Gender-Based Violence in Higher Education and the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. In short, the bill sets the legal scaffolding for a system of accountability on an issue that deserves attention and consistency. There's much in this bill that deserves support. First, it sends a clear message. Universities must do more, and they'll be held accountable if they do not. Second, it recognises that gender based violence is not just an individual failing; it's a systemic issue requiring systemic solutions. By mandating national standards it ends the patchwork of inconsistent approaches across institutions. Third, it promises enforcement.”
“The bill enables the Minister for Education to establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. This code sets national standards that every university and higher education provider must meet. Compliance with the code will become a condition of being an accredited higher education provider under the Higher Education Support Act. The bill also establishes a regulatory framework to monitor and enforce compliance. A dedicated branch within the Department of Education will oversee the code, with powers to issue civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions when universities fall short.”
“Behind those statistics are human stories, of students who sought help but were met with disbelief or blame, of students who reported violence only to find themselves ostracised or even evicted from their accommodation while the perpetrator remained, of students who decided it was safer to stay silent than risk retraumatisation through challenging complaints processes. For too long, the default response for some universities has been to step away, to take the path of least resistance, to manage these issues quietly and internally rather than confront the problem openly and decisively. That's why this problem has persisted for so long. This bill recognises that failure. It aims to set clear, consistent and enforceable standards for preventing and responding to gender based violence in universities.”
“The Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 is an important piece of legislation—one that deals not just with governance and compliance but also with the lives and safety of young people across our higher education sector. As well as being places of learning, universities provide an opportunity to transition to independence and a time of joy, growth and discovery. Yet for too many students that promise is overshadowed by an unacceptable reality: sexual assault and harassment are present in our universities. The statistics are alarming. One in 20 students are sexually assaulted during their studies, and one in six experience sexual harassment. Half of those who report these incidents feel they're not listened to, not believed or not treated fairly.”
“We have the best renewable resources in the world, and we can build a future powered by the sun and the wind. We have an abundance of critical minerals that the world wants and experience building big projects. Not many countries have as bright a future as we do in a net zero world, but that is only if we reach out and grab these opportunities. This is a future that the people of Curtin and most Australians are fighting for. The coalition as a whole must decide if it's in favour of Australia having a flourishing economic future on a liveable planet or against it.”
“This week, the Western Australian Liberal Party state council supported a motion to abandon our net zero target for 2050, and this motion came out of the division of Canning. This brings them in line with the member for New England. Nationals policy seems to be taking over what's left of the coalition. This is an extraordinary step backwards. Once again, it's showing that members of the coalition are refusing to listen to the message of the last two elections. Returning to the climate wars is economic sabotage and a political own goal. They're turning their backs on the prosperity, health and wellbeing of our children. Businesses and investors are ready and willing to invest in industries of the future, but they need policy certainty, not mixed messages coming from our politicians.”
“In the context of an already far-too-complicated industrial relations framework, this is just more complexity. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill. I urge the government to respect the independence of the Fair Work Commission and allow it to do the job it was created to do.”
“On the substance of the changes, requiring that additional remuneration cannot be reduced for any employee is an unreasonably high bar. One example of an employee who may be disadvantaged could bring down a commonsense simplification to rates. This echoes the attempts to make the better off overall test a bit more practical, which ultimately couldn't do much because of these hypothetical situations. It's also not clear how these new provisions would interact with any variation to other modern award provisions that affect when the rate is triggered. In short, there are complexities here, and they deserve to be investigated rather than having the bill rushed through the day after it's introduced to override a potential Fair Work Commission decision.”
“Instead, we see the government pre-empting the commission's decision with legislation that undermines its independence. This is not the first time we've seen this pattern. When governments legislate to override or anticipate decisions from independent institutions, it erodes trust in those bodies and politicises what should be impartial processes. Unions have raised concerns that this case may be the thin end of the wedge—the beginning of a broader campaign to dismantle penalty rates. But the solution is not to bypass the commission with politically motivated legislation. We must protect workers, but we also must protect the integrity of our institutions. If we continue to legislate around the commission every time we disagree with a potential outcome, industrial relations becomes even more of a political football.”
“No doubt there are egregious breaches of award conditions, but there are also lots of examples of awards being so complicated that employers, especially small businesses, who inadvertently underpay staff need to engage specialists to determine whether they are paying correctly or both. Even large companies with significant human resources teams frequently find they've breached some unknown or complicated term of an award. Quite aside from the complexity issue, it appears this legislation represents a troubling overreach. The Fair Work Commission, the independent expert body established precisely to adjudicate these types of matters, is currently considering a case brought by retailers seeking to vary penalty rates for managerial positions in exchange for increased pay. That process should be allowed to run its course.”
“For businesses of all sizes, but especially small businesses, which are the powerhouse of our economy, navigating our workplace relations system is a huge headache and a drag on business growth. It's not conducive to dynamic businesses. There's been no political impetus to reform the industrial relations framework so it becomes more functional. We've seen, over the years, that ideological overhaul wins out over pragmatic iteration. In such a complex regulatory environment, the main winners are the specialists—lawyers, unions and IR professionals, who'll have a steady stream of work ahead of them. Neither businesses nor workers benefit from complexity. Efforts have been made to rationalise the number of awards in recent years, but each award is still ridiculously complicated.”
“But I would like to see greater scrutiny on these changes. Let me be clear. I support fair pay and decent working conditions. Penalty and overtime rates are a vital part of our industrial relations framework, especially for those working unsociable hours. But, based on the limited time I've had to review this bill, I have formed the view that this bill is not the right way to protect them. This bill introduces provisions to prevent a reduction in specified penalty or overtime rates in modern awards, preventing provisions in modern awards that allow employers to roll up penalty and overtime rates into a single pay rate if it will result in a reduction in remuneration for any employee. We have one of the most complicated workplace relations systems in the world.”
“I rise today to speak against the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, which was introduced yesterday and is being debated today. You may ask how I've managed to get to an informed position on this legislation in 24 hours. It would be a reasonable question. Turning legislation around in 24 hours does not give members of the House an opportunity to hear from all stakeholder groups, consider the impacts and really understand the outcomes of new laws. I've done my best, but this is not the path to passing the best legislation. I'm surprised that this is not being referred to a committee. I abstained from the member for Goldstein's motion to refer this to a committee, because the committee he referred it to doesn't exist, so it was not a practical suggestion.”
“I urge the government to consider a range of reform options for capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing as part of the work that will come out of the economic reform roundtable.”
“Modelling by Deloitte Australia and the Grattan Institute show that it could reduce house prices by two to five per cent in the long run and increase rents by 0.5 per cent in the short run. It could shift between 2.5 per cent and 4.7 per cent of Australians from renting to owning. That may not sound like a huge shift, but it's a life-changing shift if you live in one of Curtin's 20,000 rental households, many of whom would love to buy, but can't get into the market. For those renters, it's deeply disheartening to go to another auction and watch what you had hoped would be your home being bought by an investor looking for a return. We owe it to future generations of aspiring homeowners to take a level-headed, open-minded approach to reform in this area.”
“In each of these options, there's a sliding scale in timing, percentage and application. Any reform in this area will boost budget revenue and this money could go to assist other parts of the housing puzzle, especially housing supply issues. Instead of being spent on tax concessions that are not addressing the housing problem, these funds could be spent on attracting more workers to the housing and construction sector or boosting investment in social and affordable housing. As well as public appetite, reform in this area has a huge amount of expert support, including at the tax reform forum convened by my colleague the member for Wentworth last week. To be clear, this is not a silver bullet.”
“As part of the government's commitment to making housing more affordable, we need to explore how we might reform CGT and negative gearing for housing. We need to create a more level playing field. There are many options for reform that are not necessarily political suicide. On capital gains tax, we could reduce the rate of the capital gains tax concession. We could apply the concessions only to new builds, or just apartments. We could limit the CGT concession to one property. On negative gearing: we could remove negative gearing from second, or third, or fourth investment properties. We could make it so that rental property losses can only be offset against rental income, not against wages, salaries or other non-investment income. For both, we could grandfather these concessions or reduce them gradually over time.”
“Negative gearing has been described by the Grattan Institute as a 'tax shelter on wages', as investors can deduct losses from wages—and do so immediately—rather than just deducting from other investment incomes. The result is that reducing taxes on wages by investing in property is a primary goal for many investors. This tax treatment is more generous than most comparable countries that impose limits on deductibility against wages and salaries. It's the combination of these tax concessions for capital gains and negative gearing write-offs that provides many investors with a sizable tax advantage. These concessions come at a significant cost to the budget and distort the housing market by reducing homeownership and creating advantages for investors over homebuyers.”
“Hundreds more contributed to our electorate-wide housing survey, and the resulting solutions are articulated in our Curtin housing report. What I found from this process is that my community is willing to work through difficult discussions and is open to change. We know there is no single solution, no silver bullet. We need all the options on the table, and we need to be willing to pull every lever. One topic that's been avoided because it's seen as being politically unpalatable is reviewing capital gains tax and negative gearing—the generous tax concessions that are given to investors that potentially distort and fuel the housing market and put young people on the back foot. But, in our Curtin housing survey, three-quarters of respondents said these concessions need to be reformed.”
“It has taken 25 years of short-sighted policy from both major parties to create our current housing crisis. When compared to wages, housing is now half as affordable as it was. Young people despair at ever being able to afford a house. Renters can't save enough to break into the market, and the gap between those who own a home and those who can't get a foot in the door keeps widening. In my electorate, like the rest of Australia, access to housing is one of the top concerns I hear. People I speak to in Curtin want to see politicians working together across all levels of government so that all Australians have somewhere appropriate to live and can aspire to homeownership like generations before them. During my first term my community did some work on housing. There were 180 Curtin constituents who attended our two housing forums.”
“This is a question for the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Industry and Science. In 2023 the government established the National Reconstruction Fund, with an announced $15 billion to crowd in investment in emerging industries and technologies. Two years later, despite the urgent need to unlock private investment in the transition to net zero, it appears that less than five per cent of this has actually been invested. Why isn't it moving faster?”
“It recognises the challenge of education debt for young people and increases the threshold for payment, but it's mostly a one-off change. In personal terms, this is great for my first son, who's in his second year of uni, but will do nothing for the uni debt of my second son, who will be starting next year. We have to do more for future university graduates as well. It's a good response to the cost-of-living crisis, but in the education sector there's a lot of work to be done to make sure that we're an educated population and that we're not burdening young people with crippling debts.”
“It also hasn't achieved its aims of diverting humanity students to other courses. One study using Universities Admissions Centre data concluded that only 1.5 per cent of university applicants changed their preferences from humanities to STEM and teaching because of the cost changes under the scheme. As it turns out, if you're a humanities student, you're unlikely to change your future path based on relative uni fees. The Universities Accord review recommended the scheme be scrapped, saying: … the continuation of these current arrangements risk causing long-term and entrenched damage to Australian higher education. I urge the government to act on this. In conclusion, I give bill a B. Twenty-two thousand Curtin constituents will benefit.”
“It could include introducing free TAFE and low-cost undergraduate education, particularly for under-represented or rural students, and it could include reversing the job-ready graduates reform, which increased fees for humanities and reduced funding per student—and that's one which I think is a really important reform. For this reason, I commend the member for Kooyong's second reading amendment which calls for the reversal of the Job-ready Graduates Package and to change the timing of debt indexation until after prepayments are made. It's clear that the Morrison government's Job-ready Graduates Package has failed. It's left some students, notably arts graduates, with extremely high debts, given that the cost of most of their courses more than doubled. These debts do not reflect these students' future-earning potential.”
“What needs to be done? While I agree this is a good first step to reduce financial stress from university loans, I urge the government to be brave and bold in this term and focus on the heavy costs on younger generations. Our young people are grappling with rising HECS or HELP debts, as well as low wage growth, unaffordable housing, climate burdens and insecure employment. Anything we can do to try and reduce the burden should be considered, and, in this higher education sector, that could include reducing HELP debt for priority sectors like nursing, teaching and the care economy; increasing direct public investment in universities to reduce reliance on international student revenue; and encouraging research and development on the big issues that we're facing.”
“According to the government, this bill will wipe $16 billion of student debt, which is about $5½ thousand off the average HELP debt of $28,000. Raising the compulsory repayment threshold could reduce repayments by about $1,300 a year for someone who is earning $70,000. That's more money available for people who are trying to make ends meet. But, let's be clear, this bill doesn't make the most of the opportunity to address the generational inequity of rapidly increasing higher education fees. It's a short-term relief measure that doesn't tackle underlying issues such as escalating university fees, particularly those from the 2021 job-ready graduates reforms. Importantly, only current debt holders receive a benefit from this bill. Future students who take out loans later won't get any relief in the amount of debt that they owe.”
“That is an ongoing change that will benefit future students as well. It means that people will make smaller compulsory repayments and only do that once their income reaches a level where they can afford to do so. Why was this needed? Cynically, this promise was made as part of an election cycle. But, non-cynically, this promise was made in response to a cost-of-living crisis where young to middle aged people were burdened by high education debts. It was an acknowledgement that older people who were afforded free higher education had an advantage over younger people who, since 1996, have been paying increasingly higher university and vocational training fees. As far as being a response to a cost-of-living crisis, it seems fine.”
“But I would like to make it clear that this bill is mostly short-term economic stimulus and financial reprieve, rather than a sustainable overhaul of higher education funding or university affordability. In this term, I would like to see government go further for future students and take on the challenge of structural reform within university funding and address the burden that our kids and grandkids are taking on when they decide to embark on higher education. What does this bill do? This bill is pretty simple. It allows the ATO to retrospectively apply a 20 per cent reduction to the balance of HELP debts as of 1 June. It will also increase the minimum repayment threshold to $67,000 in 2025-26. Compulsory repayments will only be calculated on the income above that $67,000 threshold, rather than the total annual income.”
“I hope that we won't see that happening again. On the bill itself, I commend this bill to the House. The bill implements a significant pre-election promise from the government and one that was likely a vote winner because it does directly affect millions of voters. In WA there are about 265,000 higher education debtors, owing a combined total of about $6.8 billion in student loans. In my electorate of Curtin, this bill will directly benefit 22,000 constituents. Given that about 70 per cent of HELP debt holders are aged 35 or younger, this is targeted at younger Australians, and I welcome that. This promise is a significant one-time debt relief measure for existing HELP and vocational loan holders, delivering immediate cost-of-living benefits to millions, and, for this reason, I will be supporting this bill.”
“Before I speak about the substance of the Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 Per Cent) Bill 2025, I would like to make a comment about the procedure that is happening here. I think it sets a very, very dangerous precedent to pass the bill and then have statements about it as opposed to actually debating the bill in parliament before it passes. The purpose of speaking on a bill in this House is to inform the debate and inform members' decisions on how they are going to vote before the bill passes. That's actually the whole point of this House and the proceedings that happen in this House. I think there is a real precedent danger there. I would caution the government against being too cocky about the large majority that they have and changing the procedures in this place in a way that undermines the purpose of debate.”
“These services are complex, specialised and largely delivered by women, who are highly valued by their clients. Heather, the mother of a five-year-old daughter with cerebral palsy, was in tears as she told me about the hours she'd spent building a team of therapists to provide the specialised support her daughter needs. She is in despair thinking of those therapists withdrawing their home and school visits because they can't make the numbers add up under the new prices. Similarly, families of people with complex mental health needs say their progress will be threatened without home based therapy support. While I recognise the need to limit costs within the scheme, I urge the minister to reconsider these changes, given their impact on participants who require significant support.”
“People with disability and their families need a consistent, sustainable and fair system of support. My constituents are concerned that the recently announced new pricing arrangements for allied health services under the NDIS will result in a loss of vital therapies to people with disability. While provider costs are going up, the fees for allied health services under the NDIS are going down. In WA the psychologists', physiotherapists', podiatrists' and dieticians' fees have been slashed and the permitted travel charges for all allied health therapists have been halved, and this was done with less than three weeks notice. Allied health professionals in my electorate tell me that their businesses may be unsustainable with these changes. The new pricing will force them to discontinue some services.”
“This bill is based on a framework that has existed in South Australia for 25 years, and that law is seen as being proportionate and not in any breach of any freedoms. We're showing that it can be done. This is not a radical idea. The rise of deepfakes and synthetic media is not a distant threat; it is very much here now, and if we don't act now we risk losing the public's trust, not just in politicians but in the democratic process itself. I commend the member for Warringah for her leadership and persistence on this issue, and I urge all members of this House to support this bill. Let's show Australians that we are serious about protecting democracy in the digital age.”
“In his submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Professor George Williams argues: Truth is fundamental to democracy. When citizens cannot tell fact from fiction, and leaders spread falsehoods for political advantage, society as a whole is damaged. This bill would prohibit materially misleading electoral content, including where AI or other digital technologies are used to mislead. It would also establish an electoral communications panel to oversee compliance and provide a fair, independent mechanism for enforcement. This would only apply to purported statements of fact. Parties and other political players would still be free to express their opinions. That's really important. Freedom of speech would not be impeded.”
“The government did eventually introduce a bill to address this, but it lapsed with the dissolution of parliament, and the need for it has only grown more urgent. This is important unfinished business, so we're reintroducing the government's bill so we can get on with it. We need to do it now so it can be in place before the next election. We need this bill to be debated and passed because lies in political advertising are corrosive. They distort public debate, manipulate voters and undermine the democratic process. In other areas of public communication, the public is protected. Whether it's consumer advertising or financial advice, there are laws against misleading communications. Yet in politics, where the stakes are high, we allow lies to flourish unchecked.”
“I second the motion. This bill is not just about electoral reform; it's about restoring integrity, trust and truth in our democracy and protecting voters. We've seen a steady decline over twenty years in voter satisfaction with democracy and trust in government and political efficacy, and allowing lies in political ads doesn't help. The member for Warringah and I, along with other crossbench members, have long advocated for stronger safeguards against misinformation in political advertising. In the 47th Parliament, we pushed for legislation that would prohibit materially misleading electoral communications. The member for Warringah introduced two bills on this topic, and my Electoral Legislation Amendment (Restoring Trust) Bill and Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill both addressed the issue too.”
“Government action We need an urgent response to this from the government—while a holistic view is important, we need to plug the holes in the current legislation to deal with these emerging harms. The government has not yet responded to last year's statutory review of the Online Safety Act, and the government acknowledged in 2023 that 'existing laws likely do not adequately prevent AI facilitated harms before they occur'. This is not covered under the current five-year action plan under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, which expires next year. Conclusion There is plenty of work to be done to make AI take-up safe and consistent with our shared values. This bill addresses a very specific harm that could easily be addressed within the framework of our existing Criminal Code.”
“Broader changes needed This issue has come to my attention through the work for the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (or ICMEC) Australia, an organisation that strives to end online facilitated child exploitation and abuse. In the last couple of weeks, ICMEC Australia hosted a national roundtable on child safety in the age of AI, and, as well as identifying this legislative gap, the roundtable identified a range of reform priorities needed to 'keep children safe'. A whole-of-system response is required, with more work on prevention and education, and greater responsibility on technology companies for detection and prevention, backed by safety by design and the promised duty of care.”
“This bill simply creates a new offence under the criminal code to prevent people from downloading these tools. It also creates an offence of downloading data for the purpose of generating child sexual abuse material using AI tools. Rationale These tools need to be specifically addressed for a few reasons: There is no good reason for the existence of these AI tools and plenty of good reasons that they should not be downloaded by Australians. The only defences being proposed in the legislation relate to the use of these tools by law enforcement officers and research. Similar legislation is being introduced in the United Kingdom and the EU, as regulators struggle to keep up with technological developments.”
“In the meantime, when so many parents are concerned about what role government should be playing to protect their children, we must plug the most urgent holes in our existing legislative framework as they emerge. Purpose of the bill This bill plugs an urgent and alarming hole—AI technologies designed specifically to generate child abuse material. They're available on the dark web and on app stores, and, as ABC reported: Intelligence company Graphika reported late in 2023 that non-consensual explicit generative AI tools had moved from being available on niche internet forums into a "scaled" online and monetised business. It found there had been more than 24 million unique visits to the websites of 34 of these tools, and links to access them had risen sharply across platforms like Reddit, X and Telegram.”
“Beyond the risks we already understand, AI potentially opens up new categories of harm that we are only just beginning to get our heads around. Regulating AI Regulating artificial intelligence is very challenging, and we're still working through what should be policed, how and by whom. Technology is developing at such an accelerating rate that it's hard to find a workable current definition of AI for regulatory purposes. Assigning responsibility between developers, deployers and users is complex, and AI is a global issue—it crosses jurisdictional borders. In the coming years, we will need to legislate more broadly for transparency, safety and responsibility, to ensure we can reap the benefits of AI without blindly accepting the downsides, and this requires a holistic approach and must be an urgent priority for this parliament.”