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 4 of 17.
“The first is that sustainability must be pursued through efficiency, not exclusion. The people I heard from do not accept that a sustainable NDIS requires removing people who genuinely need support. Savings should come from eliminating fraud, reducing bureaucratic overheads, improving the quality of initial planning decisions and addressing provider overcharging. The second is that reform must not cost shift to other systems that are not prepared to bear additional responsibility. Clinicians with direct experience in the justice, health and education systems stressed that reducing NDIS supports does not eliminate need. It transfers costs to hospitals, schools, mental health services, aged care and the justice system, often at far greater public expense.”
“I followed that with an online survey, which received more than 90 responses, and an invitation for written submissions. Many of those who wrote did so at length, providing carefully argued accounts of how these proposed changes might affect their lives. Across all channels. I've considered almost 200 responses from my community. What I heard was not a rejection of reform. Almost everyone accepted that the NDIS must be financially sustainable. What they're asking for with urgency and consistency is that reform be carefully co-designed with people who have lived experience and directed at the real drivers of cost growth—fraud, poor initial planning and provider overcharging—rather than at participants themselves. Three themes were consistent across virtually every piece of feedback I received.”
“Following the government's announcement, I heard immediately from Curtin constituents who were worried—parents of children with disability, adults managing complex permanent conditions, carers who've built their lives around a support system that for the first time recognised their family member as a full citizen with the right to genuine support. I wanted to listen properly, so I convened a community workshop on 4 May attended by 70 people—NDIS participants and their families, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists, plan managers, support coordinators, providers and independent advocates. Many had been navigating this scheme for years. They came prepared with detailed knowledge and specific practical concerns.”
“But they're frightened of what this bill might do to the scheme on which they rely. I support the need for reform. The NDIS has grown faster than projected. Some of that growth reflects genuine unmet need that was always going to emerge as the scheme matured, but some growth reflects poor initial planning decisions, provider overcharging and inadequate fraud prevention. Reform directed at those drivers is necessary and overdue. The question this bill must answer is not whether to reform; it's whether this reform, as designed, will make the scheme more sustainable without removing genuine support from people who need it to live full lives. I do not believe the bill as currently drafted passes that test. I'll explain why, drawing on the extensive community engagement I've conducted since these changes were announced on 22 April.”
“I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The NDIS is one of Australia's most important social reforms. At its best it changes lives. It enables people with disability to live with dignity and independence and to be genuinely included in their communities. It allows carers to participate in work and public life. The economic and social cases for a well-functioning NDIS are not in dispute, and I want to say that clearly at the outset because this is a contested bill and I do not want the contention to be mistaken for opposition to the scheme itself. The people who engaged with me most intensely in preparing for this debate—participants, carers, clinicians, advocates—are not opponents of a sustainable NDIS; they are its most passionate defenders.”
“If the Prime Minister doesn't personally support a full ban, he should put this to a conscience vote so every member in the House has permission to articulate where their community and their conscience stands. The member for Ryan is right that corporate influence shapes policy. The answer is not cynicism but accountability, and that is exactly what we are here to provide, on a gas tax and on gambling reform. I proposed a ban on political donations from social harm industries in my Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024, but neither major party supported that. We on the crossbench are here to continue to call this out, and that is what we will do.”
“This is a $32 billion industry that feeds on addiction and the targeting of vulnerable people. Six hundred thousand children are gambling. Coroners are naming gambling advertising in suicide findings. More than three in four Australians want gambling ads banned. The same proportion of AFL supporters want them banned. This is what the Murphy report recommended. Prime Minister, if you're going to do this, do it properly. There is already growing anger in your party, because everyone knows that your reforms are a cop-out. Australians deserve a full ad ban, a national regulator and a ban on inducements. The political will exists across this chamber if the government is willing to use it.”
“After more than a thousand days of silence since the Murphy report, the government has finally moved on gambling reforms. It announced partial restrictions in line with what the gambling industry wants under cover of the budget lock-up so no media would write about it. I can't find a single person other than the Prime Minister who really thinks that this is enough. The evidence is crystal clear: partial ad bans don't work. The government has developed a model where people are required to opt out of gambling ads. Look at the opt-out model on SBS. Less than 0.1 per cent of SBS users have chosen to opt out of gambling advertising. That is not a sign that Australians are comfortable with gambling ads; it's a sign that opt-out systems do not work. Australia has the highest per capita gambling losses on earth.”
“We will need foreign investment in the industries we need to decarbonise our economy, and we have to be careful about sovereign risk. There is room for discussion about the structure and the rate, but one thing is certain—the current PRRT framework is not delivering for Australians. While the government points to the obligations we have to our Asian trading partners during a period of global fuel insecurity, once the international situation settles, fixing our broken gas taxes must be the first cab off the rank. This issue will not go away like the Prime Minister hopes it will. Australians are onto this and they want a fairer deal. Every time a gas company reports record profits while Australian households struggle with energy bills, it's a reminder that we must do better. Now let me turn to gambling.”
“First, Australians deserve a base return for the right to access and sell our resources. That's what royalties are for, and most gas-producing nations collect them. We don't for our offshore gas exports. Second, when war or crisis drives international gas prices through the roof, the windfall profits that flow to gas companies are not the reward for innovation or risk; they're a gift of circumstance. More of that benefit should flow to Australians. I support a royalty on offshore gas and a genuine superprofits mechanism. Is 25 per cent the right rate? It could be, but my view is that for projects that are already operational, where big investment decisions were made based on an agreed tax regime, the rate should be set at a level that would not have changed the original investment decision.”
“I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this motion forward for debate. These are two really important issues facing our country and they deserve the chamber's full attention. Let me start with gas. Australia is one of the world's largest gas exporters. Gas is a resource that belongs to all Australians, and yet for years we've watched multinational corporations extract our gas, sell it at record prices and then send the profits offshore while ordinary Australians pay more for their own energy and receive little in return. The problem is structural. The petroleum resource rent tax was designed for oil projects and it fails to capture value from gas projects. Companies can accumulate decades of deductions, report near-zero taxable profit and pay nothing even while making billions. We need to fix this. There are two distinct problems.”
“I urge the government to not rush these changes through but use the parliamentary processes to listen, address the unintended consequences and pass the best version of these laws so we can create a level playing field for property but also incentivise investment where the country needs it.”
“Since then, I've heard more from constituents about how this will affect them. Aaron, who's 39, told me he's been investing in high-growth assets and working for tech startups to gain equity at the risk of low job security so that he, his wife and two children may one day afford the Australian dream of their own home. Katrina pointed out that offering equity is one way to attract good people in the tech space. Reducing the benefit of longer term equity will be a problem for recruiting and maintaining talent in small, innovative businesses. I heard from WaveX, an innovative energy startup based in Curtin, about the fear that the good parts of the budget may be dwarfed by the potential implications of a CGT increase, which will reduce the number of investors and the capital available to fund startups like WaveX.”
“For property investment, these are good reforms, but I hold real concerns about the extension of the CGT reforms beyond the housing sector. In particular, these CGT changes risk real harm to Australia's startup sector and to startup founders, employees and investors. These are not the people this reform was aimed at and they should not be its collateral damage. Extending CGT reforms beyond property to other asset classes will disincentivise risk-taking and investment in productive assets. I acted on this immediately. The day after the budget, I wrote directly to the Treasurer. I raised it in question time and I raised it with the Assistant Treasurer in person. The government has committed publicly to getting the right arrangements in place for early-stage businesses, and I'll be holding them to that.”
“There's been a lot of noise around this budget, and I'm worried we're going to lose sight of something important. This budget contains a genuine step forward to level the playing field on housing. I've been pushing for changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing for housing since I was first elected in 2022 because its current structure overwhelmingly favours wealthy investors at the expense of younger, less well-off potential owner-occupiers. More than 80 per cent of the benefit of the CGT discount flows to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and last year more than 80 per cent of new investor loans were for existing properties, not new houses. Our tax system has supercharged demand for existing homes and tilted the playing field heavily against younger Australians trying to buy their first home. That needed to change.”
“The annual pipeline needs to be measured in tens of thousands, not thousands, through a long-term legislated commitment. The path forward is not complicated. It requires sustained long-term federal investment in social and affordable housing, not as a safety net for when the market fails but as a permanent structural component of our housing system, as it was for decades after the war. Fourteen in 100 new builds were social housing after the war. That's where we were. It's less than two in 100 now. That's where we are. We know what we need to do, and I intend to keep pushing until we get there. Debate interrupted.”
“Only two per cent of social housing tenants are under 25, despite young people making up almost 15 per cent of those experiencing homelessness. This reform, which I and many others in this place advocated for, will unlock community housing for more than 4,000 young people, and that matters enormously. I also welcome the continued delivery of the $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness and the additional $100 million released from the Housing Australia Future Fund to improve housing for First Nations Australians in remote communities. But I will not pretend that this is enough. Even with all three rounds, the Housing Australia Future Fund is projected to deliver a total of 40,000 homes nationally, a fraction of the estimated shortfall of 640,000 social and affordable dwellings.”
“They understand that key workers, young people and older Australians on the pension cannot afford to live near the people and services that they support, and they want governments to act. The data on youth homelessness particularly troubles me. On one night in March this year, 73 young people were sleeping rough across Perth, with only three crisis beds available. In 2025, Youth Futures, alone, received 2,575 accommodation requests from young people it simply could not assist. I want to acknowledge what the 2026 budget got right. The $60 million national youth housing supplement, which fixes what advocates rightly call the youth housing penalty, is a genuine breakthrough. Because young people receive lower income support payments, it means housing providers have faced a financial disincentive to accommodate them.”
“In my home state of Western Australia, Shelter WA estimates a shortfall of nearly 54,000 social and affordable homes. The social housing waitlist now exceeds 151 weeks, which is nearly three years. Think about that. You find yourself in a situation where you need to apply for social housing, and you're told that, yes, you do qualify, but you have to wait nearly three years. How can that be the best we can do? In my Curtin housing policy, boosting government investment in social and affordable housing was identified by my community as the single, most important, policy priority, supported by 85 per cent of community survey respondents. People in my electorate, one of Australia's most advantaged, understand that the social cost of exclusion falls on all of us.”
“In Western Australia, where median rents have risen 74 per cent since 2021 and now sit at $747 a week, there was not a single affordable property for a person on JobSeeker, not even a room in a share house. These numbers are not a market anomaly. They reflect a declining policy trajectory spanning decades. In the decades after the war, the government built around 14 of every 100 new homes in Australia. Today, that figure is a seventh of that. It's closer to two in every 100. Governments have spent the last 40 years systematically stepping back from building homes that people on low incomes can actually afford to live in. The private market cannot fix this on its own. Private developers respond to market prices and returns. They do not build homes to lease for rents that working-age payment recipients can afford.”
“I support the spirit of this motion. The government's housing investments are meaningful and represent a genuine shift. But, as welcome as these commitments are, they are not yet at the scale the crisis demands. A defining liveability challenge of our time is the collapse of social and affordable housing in Australia and what that means for Australians on the lowest incomes. Last month, Anglicare Australia released its 20th R ental affordability snapshot . Across nearly 49,000 rental listings surveyed nationwide, a single person on JobSeeker could afford just one property in the entire country. That's not 'one in a hundred'—one. There were zero affordable listings for someone on Youth Allowance and zero for most people with a disability.”
“My private member's bill protecting doctors from criminal prosecution for using telehealth for voluntary assisted dying would contribute to this to ensure that everyone has the same access to health services, no matter where they live. The Pilbara, the Kimberley, the Mid West and the goldfields have fuelled this country. We need to get this opportunity right.”
“In Karratha, the median weekly house rent has reached more than double the Perth median after rising 27 per cent in a single year. More than 70 per cent of businesses in the Kimberley and Pilbara say housing availability is their biggest barrier to attracting and keeping staff. BHP has committed $50 million towards worker accommodation in Port Hedland, and that contribution is welcome, but it's hardly enough. Without housing, the transition workforce cannot be housed and the opportunity collapses. The third is digital equity. Regional WA already has mobile blackspots and unreliable internet. Virtual services cannot substitute for in-person services without that foundation. Once the internet is available, it has to be used to open up opportunities for people in the regions to access the same services as people in the cities.”
“Whether that potential is fully realised remains to be seen, but it's worth planning for rather than assuming. This is exciting, but excitement is not a plan. If we look at where transition projects have come unstuck, the same lessons keep appearing. The first is community consultation. The East Kimberley model works because traditional owners are shareholders making decisions, not bystanders being consulted. That has to become a design principle, not a risk to be managed. Genuine co-ownership and genuine benefit sharing from the beginning—that's what social licence actually looks like. Across regional Australia, community consultation must be core to all developments, not an afterthought and a box-ticking exercise. The second is housing.”
“In the Kimberley, the East Kimberley Clean Energy Project near Kununurra is a $3 billion First Nations led solar and green hydrogen venture. In the Mid West, the Murchison Green Hydrogen project north of Kalbarri has secured $814 million in federal production support. Near Kalgoorlie, the Western Green Energy Hub is progressing through approvals on Mirning traditional lands. Near Geraldton, the Oakajee Energy project is developing up to five gigawatts of renewable hydrogen capacity for Asian markets. Technology will also play a role in this transformation. AI is already being used by mining companies to improve exploration and resource extraction and may, in time, open up broader opportunities for technology enabled industries in the region.”
“Second, green iron—rather than exporting raw Pilbara ore for steel made overseas using coking coal, we have the chance to process that iron domestically using renewable energy, decarbonising one of the most emissions-intensive supply chains on the planet and capturing the value added step that has historically gone elsewhere. Third, critical minerals—the batteries, motors and turbines that underpin the global energy transition require lithium, rare earths and other minerals that regional WA holds in extraordinary abundance and that the world urgently needs. The scale of what's already planned is remarkable. In the Pilbara, the Australian Renewable Energy Hub is a 26-gigawatt wind and solar project near Port Hedland, targeting green hydrogen and green iron production.”
“The wealth extracted from those communities has built cities that Australians in the regions often cannot afford to live in. But something's shifting. The global economy needs what regional WA has. This time, if we get the policy right, the regions can capture more of the value themselves. There are three key policy opportunities. First, green energy exports—Australia has among the best solar and wind resources in the world, and countries across Asia are looking for reliable partners to supply clean hydrogen and ammonia to replace coal and gas in their industrial supply chains.”
“Almost a third of Australians live in regional, rural and remote areas. On average, they die younger, have fewer GPs, earn less and watch their children leave for the city to study and rarely return. People in the most disadvantaged areas of Australia have a life expectancy seven years shorter than those in the most advantaged, and that gap is widening not closing. Regional Australians face higher rates of hospitalisation, higher rates of domestic violence, lower year-12 completion rates and food that costs more simply because of where they live. These are the results of decades of underinvestment. In my state of WA, our regions have powered this country for generations—the Pilbara, the Kimberley, the Mid West, the goldfields, iron ore, gas and gold.”
“I urge the government to consider my amendments: making the new test harm based and directed to essential public interests, and including a five-year review to make sure that the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions is actually working as it should. These are reasonable changes, and I commend these amendments to the House.”
“Well-balanced secrecy laws would negate any need for the Attorney-General to act as the final safeguard at all. Amendment (3), therefore, requires a mandatory independent review every five years to assess whether this mechanism is working as intended and whether it remains necessary, with findings reported to parliament and a required government response to any recommendations. Open government is a condition of democratic accountability. Secrecy is sometimes necessary, but it must remain the exception and it must be justified by reference to real harm to real public interests.”
“Critically, the amendments also make clear that a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it exposes wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability, protecting the space for whistleblowing and public interest journalism without creating an unlimited defence. Amendment (3) addresses the Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions. I support this mechanism, but not without reservation. Politicians should not, as a matter of principle, be final arbiters in the functions of our criminal justice system. But in the absence of stronger protections, including a general public interest defence or effective whistleblower laws, this mechanism is desirable in practice and may safeguard against prosecutions that would otherwise proceed contrary to the public interest.”
“The government agreed in principle with the INSLM's harm based approach, and this provision doesn't reflect that agreement. My amendments (1) and (2) will address this. They replace the 'improper' test with a harm based threshold. The offence would only be committed where the communication harms, or the person intends to harm or is reckless as to harming, an essential public interest. The amendments define essential public interests as national security and defence, criminal justice integrity, public health and safety, financial system stability and the privacy of personal information held by the Commonwealth, while making clear that courts may recognise others as well.”
“(3) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person or body that: (a) is independent of the Commonwealth; and (b) has appropriate expertise in matters of press freedom, criminal law, and national security. The new secrecy offence in this bill turns on whether it would be reasonable to conclude that a use or communication of information was improper, a concept that's undefined and dangerously vague. 'Improper' is not a harm but a broad, uncertain standard of conduct that no independent reviewer recommended. The government's own independent reviewer, the INSLM, has been clear: any new general offence should be harm based and directed to essential public interests, with criminal sanctions reserved for disclosures that cannot be adequately addressed through administrative or contractual means.”
“(2) The review must consider: (a) the effectiveness of section 123.6 in protecting press freedom and safeguarding the prosecution of journalists for secrecy offences; and (b) the number of applications for consent received under section 123.6 during the review period, and the outcome of each such application; and (c) whether the consent requirement adequately balances the public interest in protecting national security and other sensitive information with the public interest in press freedom and the free flow of information; and (d) any developments in Australian or international law relevant to the protection of journalists in the context of secrecy and national security legislation; and (e) whether any amendments to section 123.6 or the broader secrecy framework are necessary or desirable.”
“(4) For the avoidance of doubt, a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it: (a) reveals wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability by a Commonwealth entity or official; or (b) is made in the course of, or for the purposes of, journalism in the public interest. (3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 21 (after line 26), after section 123.6, insert: 123.6A Review of section 123.6 (Attorney-General consent to prosecution of journalists) (1) The Attorney-General must cause an independent review of the operation of section 123.6 to be conducted: (a) within 5 years after the commencement of section 123.6; and (b) within 5 years after the completion of each preceding review under this section.”
“(3) For the purposes of paragraph 122.4(d): (a) a person intends to harm an essential public interest if the person means to bring about harm to that interest, or knows that harm to that interest will occur in the ordinary course of events; and (b) a person is reckless as to whether the communication harms an essential public interest if the person is aware of a substantial risk that the communication will harm such an interest, and it is unjustifiable in the circumstances to take that risk. Note: The fault elements in subsection (3) are consistent with the definitions of intention and recklessness in sections 5.2 and 5.4 of the Criminal Code . Those provisions apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with this section.”
“A court may find that a communication harms an essential public interest in other circumstances having regard to the nature and importance of the interest affected and the gravity of the harm caused or intended. (2) For the purposes of this section, harms an essential public interest includes: (a) actual damage to that interest; and (b) damage that is reasonably likely to result from the communication.”
“(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 1, insert: 1A After section 122.4 of the Criminal Code Insert: 122.4AA Meaning of essential public interest (1) For the purposes of section 122.4, each of the following is an essential public interest : (a) the security or defence of Australia; (b) the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of a criminal offence against a law of the Commonwealth; (c) the health or safety of the Australian public or a significant section of the Australian public; (d) the effective functioning of the Australian financial system or a significant part of it; (e) the protection of individual privacy or personal information held by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity. Note: This list is not exhaustive.”
“by leave—I move amendments 1 to 3 as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph 122.4(1)(d), substitute: (d) the communication of the information harms, or the person intends or is reckless as to whether the communication harms, an essential public interest.”
“It's not consistent with the harm based approach or the focus on essential public interests, advocated by the INSLM and the Law Council, which the government agreed with in principle. I urge the government to consider my amendments in good faith—making the new test harm based and directed to essential public interests and including a five-yearly review to make sure that the Attorney-General's consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions is actually working as it should. These are reasonable changes, and, if the government agrees to them, I will happily support the bill.”
“Secrecy is sometimes necessary, but it must be the exception, and it must be justified by reference to real harm to real public interests. While the bill makes important progress, the amendments that I'll be proposing in consideration in detail would ensure it goes further, anchoring the new general offence in the harm based framework that independent reviewers recommended, protecting journalists and civil society, and building in the accountability mechanism this reform deserves. I really want to support this bill. Repealing more than 300 secrecy provisions and simplifying this would be a step in the right direction, towards more open and accountable government. But replacing them with an offence that turns on whether the use of information was improper is dangerously vague.”
“Politicians should not, as a matter of principle, be final arbiters in the functions of our criminal justice system. But, in the absence of stronger protections, including a general public interest defence or effective whistleblower laws, this mechanism is desirable in practice and may safeguard against prosecutions that would otherwise proceed contrary to the public interest. Well-balanced secrecy laws would negate any need for the Attorney-General to act as a final safeguard at all. My second amendment will therefore require a mandatory independent review every five years to assess whether this mechanism is working as intended and whether it remains necessary, with findings reported to the parliament and a government response to any recommendations required. Open government is a condition of democratic accountability.”
“The amendment defines essential public interests as national security and defence, criminal justice, integrity, public health and safety, financial system stability and the privacy of personal information held by the Commonwealth, while making clear that the courts may recognise others as well. Critically, it also makes clear that a communication does not harm an essential public interest merely because it exposes wrongdoing, maladministration or a failure of public accountability, protecting the space for whistleblowing and public interest journalism without creating an unlimited defence. The second amendment that I will propose addresses the Attorney-General's consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions. I support this mechanism, but not without reservation.”
“Arguably, yes, if sharing the draft confers a benefit and the confidentiality terms were explicit. Now, the government might say that none of these people would actually be prosecuted, and that may be true, but 'trust us' is not a principle of criminal law. People are entitled to know in advance whether their conduct is lawful. 'Improper' does not tell them, and it risks having a chilling effect on consultations, civil society and public interest journalism. The first amendment that I'm going to move in consideration in detail will address this. It replaces the 'improper' test with a harm based threshold. The offence would only be committed where the communication harms, or the person intends or is reckless as to harming, an essential public interest.”
“'Improper' is not a harm but a broad, uncertain standard of conduct that no independent reviewer recommended. The government agreed in principle with the INSLM's harm based approach, but this provision does not reflect that agreement. The uncertainty this offence creates is a problem. Consider a public servant who mentions to a former colleague that their agency is tendering for a particular contract, where that information hasn't yet been published. Is that improper? It may well be. Consider a peak legal body that receives a confidential exposure draft of legislation precisely so it can consult its specialist committees and provide informed feedback. A lawyer who circulates that draft internally is doing exactly what the consultation process requires, but are they exposed?”
“Repealing more than 300 of these provisions is a meaningful reform. It will make our laws clearer and more worthy of trust from the people they govern. But I'm concerned about the new general secrecy offence it introduces, the replacement for section 122.4. It gets the balance wrong in ways that matter. The government's own independent reviewer, the INSLM, has been clear: any new general offence should be harm based and directed to essential public interests, with criminal sanctions reserved for disclosures that cannot be adequately addressed through administrative or contractual means. The bill does not do this. Instead, the new offence turns on whether it would be reasonable to conclude that a use or communication of information was improper—a concept that's undefined and dangerously vague.”
“I rise to support the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026. Repealing more than 300 unnecessary secrecy offences is long overdue, and I commend the government for acting on years of careful review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Attorney-General's Department and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, INSLM. For too long, Commonwealth law has imposed criminal liability across a vast sprawl of nondisclosure obligations—provisions that have accumulated without coherent review and that sit far beyond what any principled framework of criminal law would endorse. That accumulation was not the product of deliberate policy, but rather legislative drift, and it has entrenched a culture of secrecy that weakens rather than strengthens accountable government.”
“But the missed opportunities are significant, and I will keep fighting for the longer-term reforms that we need, to have a tax system and an economy that are fit for the decades to come.”
“The NDIS changes are causing real anxiety for people who depend on the scheme, and I'll be pushing hard for certainty, transparency and genuine alternative supports. The $250 annual tax offset will be welcome news for working Australians, but the government could have indexed tax brackets instead. That would have delivered structural relief for working Australians and ensured the government can't just keep relying on bracket creep to fund spending. In summary, this is the most ambitious budget this government has delivered. That might be a low bar, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise, but there are genuine steps forward, particularly for younger generations, and many of these have been driven by the crossbench.”
“There's also no meaningful action on diesel fuel tax credits. Some of the most profitable mining companies in Australia continue to receive billions in rebates that incentivise burning fossil fuels. On climate and energy, I'm deeply concerned. Transitioning to renewables is not just good for the environment; it's our best long-term strategy for energy security. The sun and the wind do not travel through the Strait of Hormuz, yet this budget takes its foot off the accelerator at precisely the moment we need to speed up. I also have concerns about the level of government spending, which is at its highest level in 40 years outside the pandemic, while our deficit remains high and growth slows. The budget's return to surplus relies on NDIS savings that I'll be scrutinising carefully.”