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 6 of 17.
“I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill introduced today. This bill reflects the seriousness of the moment that we're in. Escalating conflict in the Middle East is once again placing strain on supply chains and driving sharp price spikes in materials vital to Australia's economy—most immediately, fuel. As I understand it, this bill was originally conceived to establish a strategic reserve for critical minerals. But, in response to the unfolding international crisis, the government has hastily redrafted it, expanding the scope of Export Finance Australia's powers so that it can enter into and support transactions to shore up fuel and other strategic supplies. When supply chains are under stress and prices are spiking, Australians expect the government to act.”
“Banning ads for online gambling is not a full solution to the harm caused by the gambling industry, but it is a start. This bill phases in a comprehensive ad ban for online gambling, over a period of three years. It is designed to ban the most high-impact ads and ad times first, while giving broadcasting companies time to manage the losses to their ad revenue. By the end of the three years, all ads for online gambling will be banned from television, streaming services, social media, stadiums, buildings and beyond. The Prime Minister wants people to take personal responsibility. But it is not a fair fight for people to go up against billion-dollar companies. This bill makes the fight slightly fairer. It does not ban gambling and that's not what I'm advocating for. In fact, I'm willing to take a punt right now: Why?”
“I see here in Alice Springs, exactly who is hardest hit by the gambling culture and it isn't whitefellas and it isn't anyone who can afford to lose money. There are hundreds of these stories and I wish I could share them all with the parliament. Reading them one by one—what really hits you is how broad the impact of gambling harm is. Gamblers speak of what it has done to their families—to their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, to their friends—and to their sons and daughters. Gambling addiction tears families apart. The Prime Minister doesn't want to act on gambling because he thinks people should take responsibility for their own actions—but he doesn't consider how your life can be ruined if someone in your family cannot escape their gambling addiction. Gambling ads are a big part of this.”
“Something needs to be done NOW to stop these ads before more stories like mine happen. A man shared his story of how gambling has affected three generations of his family. He says: I lost my Dad to suicide in 2014 directly related to horse-racing gambling. I myself lost everything that meant anything to me, due to a pathological addiction to poker machines. [And now] I see my nephew, who's 15, bombarded with ipad ads, designed to get kids hooked. We MUST ban this disgusting blight on society that preys on the most vulnerable. For our children. For a better world. A First Nations Australian provided a perspective from the centre of our country: My town is suffering, the people here are suffering. Gambling addiction means there's no food on the table and no money to pay bills.”
“The only option [seems to be] to dissolve the marriage and the family. ... I implore the Australian Government to do better. A parent shared their story of their son's gambling addiction: Just over two years ago my son lost everything, including his wife and kids all due to easy online gambling. He also tried to take his own life.... He tells us he's not gambling anymore but we're not sure if this is true. Hopefully for his sake it is.... it has taken a toll on all of us. I almost had a nervous breakdown and I am constantly in tears when I [think] back on the events that took place. When I see these gambling ads constantly on TV, I literally have to change the channel or close my eyes and block my ears. My son loves his football, so he constantly sees this thrown in his face as well.”
“Gambling doesn't make it more fun to watch sports, it doesn't help you bond with mates, it drives you to drink & other illicit coping mechanisms. A wife shared how her husband's gambling addiction has ruined her dreams for a good life: Gambling harm has already completely eroded and killed my relationship with my husband. I started out empathetic and compassionate to help my husband overcome this mental health condition that is gambling addiction, but my help and compassion [were] preyed upon and made harder by the relentless onslaught of gambling available in Australia. We would get on top of going to pokies in venues, and then online pokies became available, sportsbetting became easier through apps. There really is no escape from this nightmare now. ... There's nowhere to help us.”
“Here are some of their stories: [I used to think] that gambling was socially acceptable, not realising that it was costing me more than my hard- earned money. Over a period of 25-odd years I gambled away my family, a multitude of friends ... and my home, before 1 realised what I'd really done & what I was still doing. Then, I nearly gambled away a second family before a close friend (with different addictions) helped me to realise that .I was addicted to this 'pastime'. Now, I see the gambling ads shoved in my 12 year old daughter's face every time we want to enjoy time watching our favourite teams playing, I nearly cry thinking how close I came to losing her. But I don't; instead we have discussions about how I (and many of my friends) fell for the marketing.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, I present a bill to stop the gambling ads. This bill enacts the cornerstone recommendation of a committee inquiry that I was honoured to participate in, chaired by the late Peta Murphy, who handed down our unanimous recommendations more than 1,000 days ago. This House has heard me speak about the need for gambling reform many times. So today, as I present this bill, I want to give a voice to others, who don't have powerful lobby groups operating in this building, who do not make big political donations, who cannot control the media narrative, but deserve to be heard. The Alliance for Gambling Reform has been collecting stories from people around Australia who want to see this action.”
“It's time to show Australians that we've learnt from robodebt and that we're prepared to do what's needed to prevent it from happening again.”
“Independent oversight ensures compliance, accountability and continuous improvement. Rules only matter if they're followed; the robodebt scheme was unlawful at the time, but, without a well-resourced oversight body, it was left unchallenged. A new framework governing the use of ADM in government is essential and will only work if it includes strong oversight. Robodebt was a profound failure, and it's time we did something so that it doesn't happen again. We need a legislated framework for automated decision-making, and this must include requirements for transparency, strong decision-level controls and provisions for oversight and review. This framework would support the government in unlocking increased efficiency for automation and present minimal risk-based compliance requirements to departments and agencies. It would also build trust.”
“For high-impact decisions, there must be meaningful human involvement, including the ability to override or correct an automated outcome. Automation should support decision-making, not replace responsibility. The third pillar is review and oversight. One of the most damaging aspects of robodebt was how difficult it was to challenge. When people did challenge it, the system pushed back repeatedly. A good framework ensures people can quickly raise concerns and seek review, particularly where delay could cause serious harm. It also requires ongoing monitoring and testing of automated systems so that errors are identified early, not after years of damage. Critically, there must be independent oversight. Without an independent body empowered to enforce the rules, a framework risks becoming aspirational rather than real.”
“If a system cannot explain how it reached an outcome, it has no place in decisions that affect people's rights or livelihoods. Transparency is simply essential to build trust in ADM. The second pillar is strong decision-level controls. Not all decisions are the same, and a framework must be risk based. Before any automated system is deployed, its risks should be assessed. Some decisions, particularly those involving discretion, complexity or significant potential harm, may simply be inappropriate for automation. Where automation is used in high-risk contexts, clear safeguards are essential. There must be a human who's accountable for the decision and its outcomes. Responsibility cannot be delegated to an algorithm.”
“So what does a good automated decision-making framework actually involve? Well, at a high level it needs three pillars. The first is transparency. People have a fundamental right to understand decisions that affect them, particularly when those decisions are made by machines. A strong framework requires transparency at three levels. At the system level, there should be public visibility over where automated decision-making is used. A public register of ADM systems would allow security, accountability and informed debate. At the decision level, people must be informed when an automated decision has been used in a decision about them, and this should never be hidden. And, at the explanation level, people must be given meaningful reasons for decisions in plain language.”
“I saw this clearly in my own community consultation that I undertook last week. More than 750 constituents responded to my survey about automated decision-making. More than three-quarters of respondents said they were uncomfortable with the government using automated systems to help make decisions about them. An overwhelming majority supported mandatory, legislated rules. The message was clear: people don't trust ADM. Trust is not built through slogans or assurances. It's built through transparency, accountability and meaningful rights of review. Without a framework, every new automated system will be met with scepticism and fear, no matter how well intentioned. With a framework, we can rebuild confidence and allow government to genuinely harness the benefits of responsible automation.”
“In a system under pressure from growing demands, constrained resources and rising expectations, these efficiencies do matter. But those benefits will only be realised if the government has the confidence to deploy automation responsibly and if the public has the confidence that it will be used fairly. Without a clear framework, departments are left to navigate these risks on their own. Some become overly cautious. Others push ahead without sufficient safeguards. A clear, legislated framework would give certainty, would allow innovation within boundaries and would support better decision-making. None of this is possible without trust. Robodebt did enormous damage to public trust in government decision-making, particularly in automated systems, and that damage has not healed on its own.”
“A robust framework ensures automated systems are tested before use, appropriate to the task and governed by clear lines of accountability. It would help prevent decisions that are unlawful by design, it would ensure humans remain accountable where human judgement is required and it would create clear pathways to correct mistakes quickly before harm escalates. This is the minimum standard that Australians should expect after robodebt. It's not just about preventing harm. Automated decision-making also presents genuine opportunities. When it's designed well, it can make governments faster, more consistent and more responsive. It can reduce backlogs, it can streamline routine rules-based decisions and it can free up public servants to focus on complex cases where empathy, judgement and discretion are needed most.”
“But we still do not have a comprehensive, mandatory framework that applies across government, including to the kinds of rules based systems that caused robodebt in the first place. While the warning was heard, the action has not followed, and it's increasingly ridiculous to hear the government talk about the coalition's robodebt failures when it has done nothing to actually make the system better—nothing to ensure it won't happen again. That's why I'm putting forward a new idea to push the government to action on this. I'm calling for a new framework to govern the use of automated decision-making in government. This must be legislated and it must be mandatory. At its most basic level, we need a framework to ensure government decisions are safe, lawful and fair.”
“These are decisions that profoundly affect people's lives, health and dignity. Without transparency on how these systems work, there's growing concern and fear in our communities. If we fail to act, we're at risk of repeating the same pattern we saw with robodebt—different systems but the same underlying failure. The royal commission saw this clearly. Among its recommendations was the need for a clear, legislated framework governing automated decision-making in government to ensure transparency, accountability and legality. That recommendation was made nearly three years ago. Since then, there have been consultations. There are guidelines. There are policies covering some uses of artificial intelligence.”
“Robodebt exposed the very real risks of automated decision-making in government. Automated decision-making, or ADM, is the use of automated technology to make decisions or assist humans to make decisions. It can be low risk. For example, the government uses ADM to automatically calculate, process and transfer your Medicare rebate after you visit the doctor. But it can also be high risk, and the use of high-risk ADM is only increasing, particularly with the growth of AI technologies. Today, automated tools are being used or proposed in complex, high-impact areas like aged care and the NDIS. In these systems, human assessments feed into automated tools that determine support packages, and in some cases human decision-makers cannot override the result, even on review.”
“The simple truth is that robodebt was an unlawful system introduced to improve a government's bottom line by punching down on some of the most vulnerable Australians. Robodebt was cruel, it was illegal and the government knew it. It was a shocking low point of unethical behaviour in the Australian Public Service. The Albanese government must learn from the mistakes of past governments, particularly when alarm bells are ringing on NDIS and aged-care assessments right now. So what can we do differently to prevent this happening again? There are a number of things, but part of what we can do is about automated decision-making. To restore trust in the Public Service, Australians deserve full transparency on how government decisions are made when their lives are affected, especially when those decisions are automated.”
“I want to start by sending my condolences to the thousands of Australians who were wrongly pursued under robodebt, which will remain a very dark stain on our history. Robodebt didn't happen because of a couple of bad actors. It happened because a culture of compliance replaced a culture of integrity, and ministers and departments prioritised budget outcomes over human lives. The NACC's findings lay bare the limits to its ability to deliver justice to those impacted by robodebt, especially in the absence of public hearings, and the lack of criminal referrals provides cold comfort to the hundreds of thousands of Australians who were wrongly pursued by robodebt, particularly the families who lost loved ones. This has left the families who have fought tirelessly for the truth for the last nine years pretty devastated.”
“But, because these are being rushed through the parliament in an exercise of point scoring and outsmarting using parliamentary procedure, none of these questions can actually be answered before I'm required to vote on behalf of the people of Curtin on these two pieces of legislation, and I think that's ridiculous.”
“I would ask: is the intent of the amendment strictly limited to fuel price shocks, or could it be applied to other cost pressures such as insurance or tolls or other compliance costs? I would have asked: how has consideration been given to how contractual change orders may affect competition, freight pricing and downstream consumers? I would have asked: what evidence from existing contractual chain orders show that cost-sharing mechanisms actually improve safety, sustainability and viability for drivers? And I would have asked: how does this emergency measure align with longer term reforms aimed at improving resilience, sustainability and fairness in the road transport supply chain? I don't have time to ask any of these questions. There may well be reasonable answers to these questions, and I would have been open to hearing those answers.”
“I would have been asking: what transparency or accountability mechanisms apply to the minister's authorisation decision, and will reasons be published? I would be asking: how does the government ensure this emergency mechanism doesn't become a de facto shortcut used in non-exceptional circumstances? I would be asking: how will the commission ensure expedited orders don't unintentionally disadvantage small transport businesses or sole operators higher up the chain? I would have asked: with reduced timeframes, how will genuine engagement with industry stakeholders be assessed and enforced in practice? I would have been asking: how will orders made under expedited timeframes be time limited or subject to automatic review once market conditions stabilise?”
“The second bill is more complicated. It will effectively enable faster regulatory relief for truck drivers and transport operators during fuel price shocks without permanently changing the framework that's put there. Now, I don't know if this is a good thing or not, because this was introduced yesterday and I've not had adequate time to actually review it. I'll give you some of the questions that I would have been asking had we actually had time to look at this in a reasonable timeframe with the sober approach that Australian communities want us to have. I would be asking: How narrowly defined are the imminent and significant negative effects? What objective criteria must be met before the minister can reduce the consultation period?”
“I don't think there are many companies in the country who say, 'Well, if it's a $50 million penalty, we're going to go for broke. But if it's $100 million penalty, that gives us pause for thought.' In reality, this is a performative move to be seen to be actually doing something. It will not in any way change the ACCC's ability to actually prosecute price fixes; it just means the numbers are different at the end of that prosecution. We do need to do more to make sure that the ACCC can appropriately prosecute price fixes. I also think that everyone's looking for a dog to kick when prices go up, and it's easy to say this is price gouging. We have a legal framework to determine if it is or not and that should be followed through as per the legal process, and doubling the penalties is not really going to change anything.”
“The government has responded by outsmarting the coalition using procedure and taking a double-or-nothing approach on moving fast: 'Fine, if you want us to move fast, we'll move fast on this other thing too.' This is making an absolute mockery of the idea that this House is meant to be providing scrutiny to bills. These bills were introduced yesterday or this morning. We have not had time to really consider these and their implications, and it does not do the Australian people any good to push these bills through without proper scrutiny. Both sides are to blame for this. On the substance of the bills themselves, the first one is about doubling penalties—giving the ACCC the ability to double penalties for price gouging. Now, I don't think that this will change anything actually.”
“We are debating these two bills, the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026, together right now because of some ridiculous point-scoring shenanigans. This is at a time when Australians would like to see their politicians acting like adults and focusing on where we can actually make a difference. The coalition wants to say that the government is not moving fast enough and so has brought on the government's own idea and said we need to do this faster—in the absence of any better ideas, I might say.”
“And this is in the private system. In the public system there was a two-year wait for services, which is a long time in a child's life, when early intervention is critical. Sadly, stories like these are too common. A truly fair health system ensures that people can afford to make informed decisions to act on the medical information they're given and get access to the specialists they need when they need them. This bill should be the first chapter of a reform story that restores confidence in specialist care so patients can get the treatments they need and aren't choosing between their health and their household budget. I commend this bill to the House.”
“We should progress work on Medicare rebate adequacy and indexation and consider gap-fee settings that protect patients from extreme outliers. Price transparency must be a beginning, not an endpoint. Australians accept that health care is complex, but they, rightly, expect it to be fair. Publishing fees and out-of-pocket costs are a necessary start, and one I support, but we cannot mistake transparency for structural reform. Access to specialists is an issue which is raised a lot with me by Curtin constituents. For example, I heard from a parent of a four-year-old child who waited 12 months for an autism diagnosis from a child psychologist, which then needed to be verified by a paediatrician in order to access an NDIS plan. This parent contacted more than 20 paediatricians, only to be told that their books were closed for 12 months.”
“The department should publish periodic analyses showing whether median fees are rising post-publication, whether fee dispersion is narrowing around higher price points and whether patients are shifting toward higher priced providers without corresponding quality gains. If we see these patterns emerging, governments should be ready with corrective measures such as enhanced quality disclosure or targeted interventions. The second safeguard is transparency about the methodology for calculating published fees. This should be public, comprehensible and independently reviewed. There should be a time-bound process to correct errors, with clear thresholds for when changes are made and how practitioners can seek review. The third action that needs to be taken is a parallel affordability reform agenda.”
“I've spoken at length in recent weeks about the government's ongoing failure to respond within timeframes to more than 50 parliamentary committee reports. Like the member for Wentworth, I have concerns, given this record, that decisions under this framework may not be made in a timely manner unless timing requirements are embedded in legislation. It's only fair that if insurers are expected to meet new and expanded obligations, they're also provided certainty about how long they'll wait for a decision. I urge the government to ensure that three safeguards are baked in as this bill is enacted and implemented. First, active fee monitoring to guard against unintended consequences.”
“I agree with the honourable member that Medicare rebates must reflect the real costs of delivering care and must be indexed so they don't erode each year. We need to explore broader rebate coverage across specialities and consider gap-fee settings that rein in excessive out-of-pocket costs. These are structural levers, levers that deal directly with affordability rather than simply shining a light on unaffordable prices. I've also seconded the second reading amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth, and that amendment relates to Schedule 2 of the bill and calls on the government to establish and enforce clear timeframes for decisions on new product applications by insurers, including automatic approval where those timeframes are not met.”
“There are also technical issues to resolve. The department's plan to publish a single fee figure for each practitioner must be transparent, accurate and fair. An internal review mechanism may not be sufficient when errors can damage a reputation or mislead consumers. We need a clear and timely correction process backed by a methodology that's publicly understood and independently reviewed. But the bigger point is this. Even the best transparency will not by itself make specialist care affordable and accessible. To achieve that, we must address the economic settings that sit underneath specialist pricing and availability. That's why I've seconded the second reading amendment moved by the member for Kooyong.”
“When price information is published without context, we know that some providers simply increase their fees to match the market rate, and there's a persistent perception among some patients that a higher fee must mean higher quality care. Unless people can access better information about clinical outcomes, complication rates, readmission and wait times, we risk reinforcing this false choice. That's the last thing households facing cost-of-living pressures need. We must monitor, in real time, what happens after this information goes live. Are median fees rising? Are prices clustering at the top of the range? Are patients gravitating to higher priced practitioners without any evidence of better care? If so, the government must be ready to act, whether through enhanced quality reporting or targeted intervention.”
“We've seen examples where premiums rose far faster than the average across products, aided by product phoenixing, where like-for-like products close and then reappear at higher prices. These are almost impossible for consumers to track. Transparent approval processes and scrutiny of new and changed products are essential to stop this shell game. These are sensible measures, and I'll support them, but they must be seen as the beginning, not the end, of the work that needs to be done. The government's argument for the bill is that informed consumers make better decisions. That's true, but information alone can cut both ways.”
“First, it enables government-held data to be used to populate the Medical Costs Finder with GP and specialist fees and out-of-pocket costs. This ends an ineffective voluntary approach that saw only one to two per cent uptake by specialists and insurers. For the patient who's been quoted three different prices for the same procedure, a clear picture of typical charges is empowering. For the more than 800,000 people who in 2024-25 did not proceed from GP referrals to specialist care due to cost, shedding light on fees may reduce some of the fear and confusion that keeps them from treatment. Second, the bill strengthens ministerial oversight of private health premiums to combat product churn that quietly ratchets up costs for consumers.”
“The cost of accessing specialist care is now a deciding factor in whether many Australians get the treatment they need when they need it—if they can get an appointment. Now, that's not a sign of a fair health system; it's a warning light. The Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill takes a necessary first step by making fees and out-of-pocket costs visible to patients. But transparency on its own is not a cure. If we're serious about a health system that's genuinely fair, we must pair transparency with reforms that tackle affordability, access, quality and accountability while closely monitoring unintended consequences. So what does this bill do well?”
“They are simple, practical and human. We must put people at the centre of the NDIS, so Australians with disability and the families who carry so much are finally seen, heard and supported.”
“After 50 years of selfless caring, there is no respite. The NDIS presents as another daily battle to be had, not a source of comfort. When crises hit—violent behaviour, acute escalation, severe sleep deprivation—families told me there is no reliable, rapid-response pathway. Parents leave jobs, run active night shifts and fear that asking for help will trigger cuts. Carer burnout is real, hidden and costly. In consultation on the new NDIS planning rules, Curtin constituents were clear about their needs. Humanity must be hardwired into the system through in-person assessments, face-to-face planning, flexible funding and real crisis pathways. Every participant must have an NDIS contact who knows them and their situation and has a phone number. The recommendations that we made in our Curtin submission are not radical.”
“Instead, many feel unseen, unheard and exhausted by a system that requires them to repeatedly reprove what will never change. And, when serious errors are made, families are often forced into legal action to defend basic supports. A parent spoke to me about the loneliness of caring on her own for a child excluded from the education system, living with extreme distress and self-harm. She told me she doesn't feel seen or heard by the NDIS or by the supports meant to sit alongside it. Another carer told me that supports were abruptly cut despite no change in her child's needs, leaving her scrambling to hold together work, care and stability during the decision review. Last week I met with an elderly mother caring for a profoundly disabled adult son. She's becoming physically weaker as she gets older and is deeply worried about the future.”
“The NDIS was meant to deliver choice and control, putting the person at the centre of the service. Unfortunately for many, it feels like a large, faceless system that's slow, inconsistent and sometimes deeply cruel. Since the tragic murder-suicide in Mosman Park this year, I've spoken to many carers about their experience of the NDIS and their despair. Too often, it seems we're taking the human out of human services. Supports are siloed and impersonal—wrong names, bureaucratic barriers and no continuity. Many have pointed out that the local area coordinator system under the previous WA NDIS worked far better. Families caring for children with profound, lifelong disabilities are not asking for more than they deserve. They're trying to give their children a life with dignity.”
“The government's hands-off approach to AI is just another example of its timidity. If not now, when? The government has a strong majority in the House, a crossbench calling for action, an opposition at its weakest in a generation, an energy shock creating windfall profits for gas companies while Australians do it tough and a housing crisis that's locking out young Australians in real time. There has never been a better moment for bold reform in my lifetime. Many of us on the crossbench are here because Australians are tired of political game playing, of incrementalism and short-term thinking, and that is what they have seen from the major parties. I call on the Prime Minister to prove us wrong. Prove that you can put Australians first. This budget is a test, not of accounting, not of messaging but of courage. Be bold.”
“It means prioritising construction workers and materials for housing, not crowding them out with lower priority infrastructure, and the property taxes I've already mentioned. None of this is easy, but leadership is not about easy decisions. Third, leadership would mean preparing Australians for the productivity challenge of the next decade. Low productivity is the quiet crisis eating away at real wages and living standards. Structural tax reform is required, and we must capture the opportunities of artificial intelligence. Leadership here means investing in an AI-ready workforce and backing AI supercharged research and innovation while managing real risks like scams and disinformation and ensuring the gains from AI are shared across the economy, not monopolised by a handful of global firms.”
“These concessions overwhelmingly benefit older and wealthier Australians and distort investment away from productive activity and towards property speculation. We should look carefully at other tax concessions that are overly generous to wealthy, older Australians at the cost of younger, working Australians such as family trusts and superannuation. Second, leadership would mean treating housing as a national priority, not a political landmine. We do not just need demand-side tinkering. We need more homes faster and in the right places. That means sustained investment in social and affordable housing. It means planning and zoning reform to allow well-designed infill that builds communities, not just towers.”
“Australians need income tax and direct relief, particularly for people doing it toughest, but leadership demands articulating how we pay for that relief. There are obvious places to start. We should tax gas companies properly so that Australians finally get a fair share of their own resources. When global tensions push up gas prices, countries like Norway and the UK collect more for their citizens. In Australia, companies collect the windfalls while Australians pay more at home. That is a policy choice, not an inevitability. We should reform our generous housing tax concessions. The capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, as currently designed, are worsening intergenerational inequity and doing nothing to solve the housing crisis.”
“Yet that is precisely what we have seen too often—a government that treats governing as an exercise in electoral risk management, focused on the last election and the next election, short-term politics and not long-term policy. Leadership is more than this. The Prime Minister often talks about making the Labor Party the natural party of government. If he's serious about this ambition, his government must tackle the hard problems head on, not avoid them. The great reforming governments of both persuasions did not wait for perfect political conditions; they made them. So what would leadership look like now? First, it would mean tax reform so we're not relying so heavily on taxing the share of the population that works as the population ages.”
“It is time to be bold. In six weeks, the government will hand down the 2025-26 federal budget. Many commentators are already calling it the most important budget of the Albanese government, and they're right because this is a moment that demands leadership and ambition. This is not a time for timidity. Long gone is the era where Australian governments could sit back and ride the wave of sustained economic growth. Our current environment is defined by compounding pressures, a housing system that's locking out a generation, stubborn cost-of-living pressures, an economy starved of productivity growth, deep and growing intergenerational inequity, and a world that is more volatile, more fragmented and more dangerous than it has been in decades. Incrementalism will not meet this moment.”
“Prime Minister, 1,000 days ago, after heartbreaking evidence about the predatory gambling industry, the late Peta Murphy presented our committee report to parliament with 31 unanimous recommendations to reduce gambling industry harm. The government has still not responded. You claim to have done more than any other government, but none of your actions were in response to the inquiry's recommendations, and Australians still lose more through gambling than any other country. Why won't you respond to Peter Murphy's report?”
“Sports codes benefit from gambling revenue; TV stations benefit from it as well, with all the ad revenue, and the betting companies themselves make political donations and make millions of dollars from Australians every single day. On the anniversary tomorrow, I would ask every member of the government to really think about Peta Murphy's legacy and what she did when she was here. I loved being on that committee. It was collaborative. It got agreement from across the political spectrum on 31 recommendations, and the time is overdue for action on gambling reform. This is what the Australian community wants.”