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 8 of 17.
“Fifthly, drive decarbonisation of buildings through the National Construction Code. The annual statement is a useful stocktake, but it shows how much more work is to be done. Our community is doing its part, and the Commonwealth must match that.”
“The 2026-27 review presents an opportunity to lower the threshold, expand coverage, improve the mitigation hierarchy, encourage best practice, disincentivise new polluting projects and safeguard our industries from international competition. Fourthly, go beyond the new vehicle efficiency standard. The government must ensure that NVES is aligned with our national net zero by 2050 target. Importantly, this may require targets to decarbonise our light vehicle fleet even faster, giving time for heavy vehicles to decarbonise. The government should also introduce policy to start decarbonising our heavy vehicles. This is one of the largest emitting sectors that has no policy around it to drive emissions reduction. The government must also accelerate the rollout of EV chargers and continue to fund and support active transport.”
“We can't recycle or reuse our way out of this pollution problem; we need less plastic coming into Australia. Secondly, accelerate the rollout of renewable energy and storage. The government should seek to expand the Capacity Investment Scheme past 2027 in line with Climate Change Authority advice. It should also ensure that funding promised to WA for renewable generation, storage and transmission is delivered, and it should allocate funding to support the SWIS transition. Other policies to drive the rollout beyond 2030 should be considered, like an expanded renewable energy target across WA and the east coast. Thirdly, improve the safeguard mechanism through the upcoming review. The safeguard mechanism is one of the central policies for driving our net zero transition.”
“In light of the annual statement and my community's recent report card on what our governments are doing, here is my wish list for the federal government for this year. Firstly, legislate packaging reform. We need a mandatory extended producer responsibility scheme, with certainty and consistency across the country, which places obligations on producers and importers to fund the recycling, reuse and disposal of packaging. We need mandatory targets for industry to accelerate reuse, recycling and composting of packaging. There have been voluntary targets in place, but these have not worked. There is clear appetite across industry and community for these targets to become mandatory. My community is also calling for a new target to reduce plastic and packaging.”
“On a national level, the safeguard mechanism has started to drive down emissions, but more will need to be done. The safeguard mechanism review commencing in the second half of this year represents a real opportunity here. Looking at Australia as a whole, the department reports that emissions are down 29 per cent on 2005 and 2.2 per cent lower during 2025, with record renewable uptake. This is welcome, but the Bureau of Meteorology's A nnual climate statement tells the other side of the ledger. It was Australia's fourth-warmest year on record, with record-hot seas and hydrology under stress. This is the test of the annual statement—whether the documents and policy announcements actually translate into reduced emissions at the pace the authority says we need.”
“FOGO is rolling out across most councils, yet the single biggest system lever, federal packaging reform, remains stuck between consultation and decision. Ministers agreed in 2022 that reform was needed. In 2024, the Commonwealth consulted on options, including mandatory design requirements and a national extended producer responsibility scheme. The consultation is done. The evidence is clear. It's now time for action. I'll explain my community's specific ask shortly. Finally, while our community report did not look at industrial emissions in great detail, these form a significant chunk of our national emissions. In Curtin, industrial gas use is up, which reflects WA's broader challenge—growth in the gas sector wiping out gains elsewhere.”
“Every underperforming home built in this pause period is a future retrofit job for a household already under cost pressure. On transport, the transport and infrastructure net zero road map sketches the right pillars—electrify, shift to active and public transport, tackle embodied emissions and reserve low-carbon fuels for the hard-to-electrify niches. But without firmer funding and binding milestones, especially for mode shift, it risks becoming a plan on a shelf. In WA, the situation is worse. The state's sectoral plan offered only a token summary for transport and ended the EV rebate without a replacement. On waste and packaging, we are still waiting. Curtin households are doing their part.”
“Both the WEM and the NEM need policy signals to drive renewable energy and storage through a renewable energy target and expanded Capacity Investment Scheme and streamlined approvals. But there's an elephant in the room—new and expanded fossil fuels. Our community's Curtin net zero update gave fail grades to both state and federal governments on phasing out fossil fuels, noting that continued approvals and extensions, especially for export, undermine the credibility of all other action. In relation to decarbonising our buildings, the decision by governments to pause residential NCC updates until mid-2029, except for safety and quality, may simplify short-term approvals but lock in higher bills and higher emissions for the next wave of homes. The statement cannot be considered complete without acknowledging this trade-off.”
“This requires a huge uplift in the rollout and connection of renewable energy and storage in WA and on the east coast, and this uplift needs action at both the state and federal level. Western Australia's main grid, the SWIS, still lacks a legislated 2035 emissions target and a binding renewables target, and WA has comparatively less generation in the pipeline. The state did record a 55.8 per cent renewables month in November 2025, proving that high penetration is feasible even on an isolated grid, but isolated peaks aren't a substitute for year-round progress. The WA state government needs to step up. We need a clear transition plan for the SWIS. Across Australia, there's no clear policy to support renewable rollout beyond 2030.”
“I was proud to contribute to these reforms with an amendment in the House and multiple amendments that were accepted in the Senate. These reforms also provide a stronger tool for cumulative urban biodiversity planning. But there are areas where the federal and WA governments' actions are falling short. First is the electricity transition. Nationally, the statement points to more than 40 per cent renewables across the two largest grids and a Capacity Investment Scheme pipeline of 40 gigawatts this decade. This is a material step, but we're not moving fast enough. To unlock Australia's and WA's potential as a green industry superpower, not only do we need to decarbonise our current grid, but we also need to massively expand our generation capacity.”
“In Curtin, we're seeing the benefits. More than 1,500 batteries have been installed under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. City Beach has now surpassed 50 per cent rooftop solar uptake. Second is that we have now implemented policies for cleaner cars. After decades as a global laggard, Australia now has a new vehicle efficiency standard. This is already expanding the range of efficient and zero emissions vehicles on offer, with more than 150 models available as of mid-2025. Curtin is pulling its weight. We have more than 3,500 EVs on the road, placing my electorate in Western Australia's top position and among the top 10 nationally. Third is nature protection. The Commonwealth finally legislated its EPBC reforms, which is an important start to improved environmental protection and accelerated construction for renewable energy projects.”
“Last week, we released a report card showing how federal, state and local governments have performed in relation to our policy asks across electricity, buildings, transport, greening and waste. Looking at the annual climate change statement and our progress report on Curtin's pathway to net zero, there are some policies to celebrate from this year. First is household storage and rooftop solar. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has sparked a record surge in installations, with over 250,000 household batteries now installed. The government has now tripled the program, with the ambitious aim to take us to around two million batteries by 2030, about 40 gigawatt hours of distributed storage. This will make a real difference, slashing household electricity bills by an average of 90 per cent and reducing emissions.”
“I rise to respond to the government's Annual climate change statement 2025 . The government's statement calls 2025 a 'landmark year', and there has been progress. But, if we are to meet the new 2035 target of a 62 to 70 per cent cut on 2005 emissions, the pace of delivery must accelerate markedly over the next 10 years. My speaking on this annual statement coincides with the launch last week of Curtain's pathway to ne t zero: progress report 2024-2026 . Two years ago, 50 volunteers in Curtin collaborated on a significant piece of work, led by Claire Gardner from my team, setting out what it would take for our community to get to net zero and what was needed from federal, state and local governments and individuals.”
“As we mark the apology's 18th anniversary, we must hold ourselves to account for progress that communities can feel. The Closing the Gap data will keep telling us the truth, whether we like it or not. Our job is to respond with action that changes the numbers and the lived realities behind them.”
“Nearly 40 per cent of Aboriginal community controlled aged-care providers are at risk of financial instability. Ensuring elders, particularly those who survived the brutality of removal, can age with dignity, cultural safety and connection to country must be core to our efforts to close the gap. I must also speak about the recent attempted bombing of the Invasion Day rally targeting First Nations people and their supporters in my hometown of Perth. This incident exposed the distressing systemic racism Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to face through not only the declared terrorist act itself but also the slow and muted responses from some quarters. If Closing the Gap is about transforming systems, then that transformation must include how institutions respond when Aboriginal people are the target of violence.”
“But too many indicators still paint a bleak picture. First Nations people remain 2.5 times more likely to die by suicide than non-Indigenous Australians. Imprisonment rates continue to rise. The number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care is worsening, and the developmental readiness of children entering school remains off track with concerning signs of further deterioration. I also want to highlight the widening gap in aged-care services for First Nations elders. Many stolen generations survivors, now reaching aged-care eligibility, face a system that's often culturally unsafe, inflexible and ill-equipped to meet their needs. Elders are often disconnected from country due to limited services in their regions.”
“Against this backdrop, I welcome the government's announcement of $144 million to upgrade health infrastructure for First Nations communities and the government's national plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children, backed by a commitment of $218 million. This is a vital step towards addressing a crisis that has persisted for far too long. The expansion of the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, doubling its capacity to 6,000 jobs, is also a welcome investment in economic empowerment, which is the foundation for dignity, security and community wellbeing. I also welcome the government's $13.9 million investment to expand 13YARN, enabling extended hours and a new text based service so that more First Nations people can access immediate, culturally safe crisis support.”
“I sincerely hope that this is just a start and that the scheme will continue to be improved to ensure it tangibly addresses the lasting harm suffered by Aboriginal families and communities. As we reflect on these steps towards truth and redress, we must also confront the data. Each year, the Closing the Gap data challenges us to measure our progress, not against rhetoric but against outcomes in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This year's results are sobering: four targets are on track; seven show improvements but remain off track; and four are going backwards, including suicide, adult incarceration, out-of-home care and early childhood development.”
“Under this scheme, survivors who were removed from their families in WA before 1 July 1972 are eligible for a one-off $85,000 payment, along with the option of a personal acknowledgement from the state. It marks an important recognition of the harm caused by the insidious policies of forced removal in WA, where, shamefully, some of our country's highest rates of Indigenous child removal occurred. While the WA scheme is a concrete step on the path to healing, it's too soon to assess its impact. WA was the second-last state to have a redress scheme like this. Only Queensland is left. I'm aware of concerns that the scheme in its current form excludes First Nations people who were removed after 1972, fails to account for intergenerational trauma and is not sufficient to meet the needs of survivors dealing with the complex effects of trauma.”
“It also modelled leadership: an officeholder using the authority of the state to name harm and to express remorse, walking softly on country, invited by traditional owners, and committing to reconciliation in deeds as well as words. We should recognise the courage of community leaders who carried this truth for so long and the Governor's willingness to meet them there publicly and unequivocally. Truth-telling alone cannot undo the deep and lasting harm caused by the policy and laws of successive governments. It must be met with practical steps towards justice. That's why I welcome the commencement in November 2025 of the Western Australian government Stolen Generations Redress Scheme.”
“On 28 October 2025, the Governor of Western Australia, His Excellency Chris Dawson, travelled to Bindjareb Noongar country to deliver a formal apology for the Pinjarra massacre of 1834—a planned and deadly raid led by then Governor James Stirling that killed scores of Aboriginal men, women and children. He said that the time had come for a governor to acknowledge the truth of a predecessor's actions, emphasising the need to confront the truth in all the complexities of the past in order to heal in the present and committing himself to do all he could to rebuild trust and reconciliation. That ceremony was deeply significant for the Bindjareb community and for all Western Australians willing to reckon with our history.”
“I rise to acknowledge the 18th anniversary of the national apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples and to respond to the Closing the g ap annual report and implementation plan. Eighteen years ago, this parliament stood together to say sorry. It was a moment of truth-telling and national self-reflection, an acknowledgement that the harm inflicted through government policies was not abstract or distant, but deeply personal, ongoing and intergenerational. The National Apology to the Stolen Generations was never an end in itself. It was an invitation to do the ongoing, sometimes uncomfortable work of justice and repair. In Western Australia in this past year, we saw a powerful local act of truth-telling that spoke directly to the truth of the apology.”
“It's good to see the government responding constructively to feedback. I commend the Treasurer. This is not a backdown but genuine engagement with community concern. I want to thank all the constituents who engaged with me on this issue, both in the last parliament and in this one. Superannuation is a vital part of Australia's financial system. It's important that when we make changes we get them right, and I believe we've done that here after some ups and downs. While it would have been better to deal with these issues in an exposure draft, we got there in the end. The government put forward reform, the community and parliament provided thoughtful and reasonable feedback, and the government eventually acted on that feedback to improve the legislation. I commend the bills to the House.”
“LISTO ensures low-income workers are not paying more tax on their super contributions than they do on their take-home income. At present, a cleaner earning $42,000 a year receives only a one per cent tax concession on their super, while a senior manager earning $220,000 enjoys a 30 per cent concession. This is clearly inequitable. Previously, workers earning below $37,000 could receive a LISTO payment of up to $500. This bill increases the eligibility threshold to $45,000 and lifts the payment to up to $810. This is meaningful support for 1.3 million of Australia's lowest paid workers, most of whom are women, so it will also help narrow the gender super gap. The bill also pegs LISTO to the second tax bracket and the super guarantee rate, ensuring it adjusts automatically over time.”
“We must be extremely cautious about making changes without giving people enough time to rearrange their affairs accordingly. The new bill delays commencement by a year to the 2027 financial year beginning on 1 July 2026. This is an improvement. It still gives only a few months to people to restructure their super if they believe the new settings no longer suit their circumstances and that another structure would be more efficient and appropriate for them. The bill also includes other changes that I support. The introduction of the new $10 million threshold with a 40 per cent tax rate above that level is reasonable and well targeted, particularly considering that it still remains concessional. The bill unfreezes the low-income super tax offset, or the LISTO, for the first time in 13 years.”
“One analysis suggested that, without indexation, today's $3 million threshold would effectively become $1 million in real terms for a 30-year-old worker by the time they reach retirement. Indexing this threshold, as well as the new $10 million threshold, is good tax policy and ensures the reform remains squarely focused on the very wealthy. It's worth pointing out here that income tax thresholds should also be indexed. The refusal by both major parties to do so is a farcical example of political game playing, where periodic tax cuts are used to earn popularity, instead of simply indexing tax brackets to prevent bracket creep once and for all. The third concern I raised was the transition period. People make long-term financial decisions based on the rules that exist at the time, and superannuation, by design, locks up people's own money.”
“The most pressing was the proposal to tax unrealised gains. This was poor tax policy, and a number of my constituents were strongly opposed to it. Taxing people on hypothetical profits before an asset is sold could result in large tax bills in years where asset values spike, even if those values fall later and the actual realised profit is far lower. I'm glad the government listened to the widespread concerns expressed across the community, industry and parliament, including my own concerns, which I expressed in letters, in person and in public. Under the revised bill, only realised gains will be taxed, resolving this issue. I also advocated for indexing the $3 million threshold. Without indexation, inflation would slowly push more and more Australians above this threshold, even though their real wealth had not increased.”
“Above $3 million, contributions will be taxed at 30 per cent—still well below the top income tax rate of 45 per cent but less of a concession than before. The bill also introduces a $10 million threshold. Contributions above $10 million will attract a 40 per cent tax rate. Again, this remains concessional. Only 0.5 per cent of Australians have more than $3 million in super. Just 8,000 Australians hold more than $10 million. These are extremely high balances. In the wealthiest suburbs of my own relatively wealthy electorate, Cottesloe and Peppermint Grove, the average super balance is just over $500,000, which is still only a sixth of the new $3 million threshold. It's entirely reasonable to expect individuals with very large super balances to receive lower concessions. When these bills were first introduced, I had significant concerns.”
“But some very wealthy individuals already have far more in super than they need for even the most luxurious retirement and yet they continue to receive the same concessional 15 per cent tax rate. The purpose of super concessions is to support hardworking Australians saving for their future, not to subsidise wealth accumulation for those who are already extraordinarily well off. Every tax concession costs the budget, and therefore the Australian people, through reduced government services or higher taxes elsewhere. We have a responsibility to ensure that these concessions are appropriately targeted. This bill reduces tax concessions for those with significant super balances. For every dollar contributed to super, up to $3 million, the concessional 15 per cent tax rate will continue to apply.”
“The government has ensured that tax will only be applied to realised gains, has committed to indexing the new thresholds and has delayed the implementation date, although I note that this remains an area of some concern. With these changes, I'm satisfied that the bills now meet the intent in a targeted and fair way and, as such, I will be supporting them. Firstly, I will speak on the intent of the bills. Tax concessions exist in superannuation to compensate people for putting their hard-earned income away for their future. In recognition of this, super contributions are taxed at 15 per cent, significantly lower than income tax rates, which range from 16 per cent up to 45 per cent.”
“I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. When I spoke on these bills previously, I said that I supported their intent—to ensure our superannuation system is designed for people to prepare for a dignified retirement, not as a tax break for the super wealthy. I also raised three key concerns from my community that prevented me from supporting the bills at that time. The bills didn't pass through the Senate in the last parliament and have come back now with some amendments, and I'm pleased that the government has now acted on all three of the concerns that I raised last time.”
“With house prices unlikely to fall sharply in the short term, more Australians will be renting for longer. They need basic, nationally consistent protections so they can live with stability and dignity while they save, study or raise families. There are 11 more ideas in my Curtin housing policy on my website. As we head towards the government's next budget, the real test is whether those in power will show the political courage to act. We won't fix this problem by allowing first home buyers to borrow more money. Housing is the foundation of security, opportunity and community. People in Curtin and across the country are calling for bold action because every Australian deserves a safe, secure place to call home.”
“Reform to housing taxes is just one of 15 ideas in our Curtin housing policy developed through community workshops, surveys and expert input. Here are a couple of others. We need to build more social and affordable housing. In 1983, there were 14 social housing approvals for every 100 private builds. Today, that figure is just 1.7 per 100, a dramatic decline that's left the bottom rung of the housing ladder dangerously thin. The HAFF is a start, but more needs to be done. We need to allow more medium-density housing in appropriate areas. Planning and zoning processes take too long. Medium density needs to be done with local consultation so we build communities that people want to live in. When Auckland reformed its zoning laws, it saw a four per cent increase in housing stock. We must protect renters.”
“Well, there's no silver bullet, but there are plenty of ideas focused on increasing supply and levelling the playing field so new homeowners and renters get a fair go. Part of this has to be changing the tax settings. I've been engaging with my community to gauge the level of appetite for reforming capital gains tax and negative gearing. It's a complex issue, but I'm getting a strong message from my community that people can see that these settings are no longer fair for young Australians who simply cannot compete in a market where tax structures favour investors. Across doorknocks, community forums in person and online, and surveys, the message is clear: we need a fairer system that gives the next generation a genuine chance at homeownership, and that means being honest about what's working and what's not.”
“When I was a uni student, it didn't cross my mind that I wouldn't be able to find a house eventually. My then boyfriend lived in a comfortable share house with the support of Austudy and a part-time job. That's now pretty much impossible. Even my youth advisory group, made up of year 11s from all the schools in my electorate, are concerned about their future housing prospects. That shouldn't have to be your biggest concern when you're 16. I find it hard to tell these young people that the solution is to let them borrow more money, to let them become more leveraged, to take on more risks so that they can pay the ever-increasing prices for the houses that their parents and grandparents could easily afford. So what should be done?”
“Don't get me wrong, I want to see housing policy to address intergenerational inequity, but it will need to be bold, and this isn't it. This changes who gets into the lifeboat first and increases the cost of a seat in the lifeboat, but it doesn't create more lifeboats. Housing access and affordability are now the biggest issue I hear about. Two weeks ago, when I was out doorknocking in Scarborough, people stood at their front doors and told me how worried they are about their children and grandchildren being locked out of the market entirely, or they shared their own concerns about rising interest rates and their housing stress. Last week at UWA orientation day, I asked new first-year uni students what issues concerned them most. Housing was their No. 1 issue, both in our gumnut poll and in our more detailed online survey.”
“I rise today to speak on the motion presented by the member for Calwell, in which he congratulates the Labor Party for doing something in relation to housing—specifically, allowing first home owners to borrow more money than they would otherwise be able to by putting down only a five per cent deposit. Two hundred and twenty thousand Australians have taken up this offer, and I understand why they took up that offer—because they have no choice—and good for them, sort of. They now have a home, but they also have bigger debts. Let's not kid ourselves that this policy actually addresses the housing crisis. It just throws more fuel on the fire. It means more people can borrow more money, driving prices up. It's basic economics. If there's more money available, prices go up.”
“Adults will still be able to gamble, but people experiencing harm from gambling will not have ads shoved down their throats and will not be told it's their own problem. He will say, 'Free-to-air TV and community sport will collapse without gambling ads.' Well, TV and radio make about $250 million a year from gambling ads—roughly four per cent of their total ad revenue. The AFL and NRL make about $100 million combined, so this is a $340 million problem. Australians lose $87 million a day gambling. Four days of losses would replace a year of media and sport revenue. A levy of half a per cent on bets would replace that funding four times over. This is solvable. It's time to recognise gambling harm as a public health issue and legislate accordingly. I commend this bill to the House.”
“It's the same response he's used for nearly 1,000 days, as he stands alone within his party, alone within the parliament, fighting bravely and heroically for the interests of the big gambling companies. He will say, 'We have done more than any other government on gambling reform.' But the actions taken by this government came out of a previous coalition review. The Murphy review was undertaken assuming they would be implemented. They do not fix the problem. He will say, 'Illegal offshore platforms are the problem.' This is a talking point from the gambling industry: 'Look over there.' The evidence shows that the domestic issue is bigger and, despite what the gambling companies say, banning gambling ads didn't push people to offshore sites in Spain or Norway. He will say, 'You're trying to ban gambling.' No-one is trying to ban gambling.”
“Per-household gambling losses in Australia are now higher than per-household electricity bills, but we tell people experiencing gambling addiction that it's up to them to self-exclude via BetStop or to gamble responsibly. You would expect the Prime Minister to back the underdog—the Australian people—in this unfair fight. Instead, time and again, he chooses to fight for the gambling companies. Treating gambling harm as a public health issue was at the heart of the parliamentary inquiry recommendations I worked on alongside the late Peta Murphy. It's now been nearly 1,000 days since we tabled that report and there is still no response from this government. We know what the Prime Minister will say to the member for Kooyong's bill.”
“Gambling companies spend millions to make their products as addictive as possible. This is not a fair fight. The best analogy is tobacco. The tobacco industry pushed the personal responsibility narrative for decades. It suited them to say that it's your choice whether you smoke or not. This was compelling enough to buy them additional decades of profits, but, ultimately, we saw through it. Nicotine is addictive. Personal responsibility doesn't work when you're pushing an addictive substance. Gambling is the same. Gambling addiction is recognised in the DSM-5 as a health condition. Big gambling companies use sophisticated behavioural design, relentless advertising and data profiling to keep people betting and to bring kids into the funnel—and it shows.”
“I second the motion. I'm pleased to support the member for Kooyong's bill to recognise gambling harm as a public health issue. Let's be honest about what we're up against. In 2024, Australia had about 550,000 high-risk gamblers. Of these, 16 per cent experienced suicidal thoughts; two-thirds faced serious financial hardship, including going without meals; and 19 per cent of people whose partner gambled weekly or more often experienced intimate partner violence. If a pharmaceutical drug caused that level of harm, we would pull it from the shelves. If an industrial chemical produced that collateral damage in Australian homes, it would be banned. This is a public health problem because it affects whole communities, because the harm is predictable and preventable, and because it's driven by an environment designed to maximise addiction.”
“The government's inaction is undermining public confidence. Constituents ask me every week why nothing changes. Currently, Australia has no coherent system to ensure government tracks, responds to or implements inquiry recommendations. We don't have to accept this. Other jurisdictions already use public tracking dashboards and independent monitoring to ensure inquiry work leads to action. An Australian independent, publicly accessible recommendation tracker would allow the public to see whether government is listening and acting. Australians deserve a government that listens, learns and acts. We owe it to the people who participate in these processes in good faith. The government must do better. (Time expired)”
“This is not merely lax administration; it's a failure of integrity, accountability and respect. It wastes public resources and squanders the best work of the parliament. The topics at the centre of these inquiries are critical. They address some of Australia's most urgent and difficult policy challenges: terrorism, illicit drugs, online safety, plastic pollution, energy security, gambling harm and economic opportunities for First Nations people. Meanwhile, the harms these inquiries sought to address continue to grow. Since the Drowning in waste report was tabled, another 250,000 tonnes of plastic have entered our environment. While the financial abuse inquiry recommendations have languished, another 620,000 Australians have likely become victims of this insidious form of domestic violence.”
“Since 2022, 55 House committee inquiries commissioned by this government have received no response, despite being well beyond the six-month deadline. Half are more than a year overdue. For each inquiry, the government identified a problem worth investigating. More than 3,500 people and organisations, including experts, frontline workers, academics, community groups and everyday Australians contributed their time and effort to these particular inquiries because they believed the government was listening. Committee members held days of public hearings, reviewed evidence and tabled reports only for them to be ignored. And the Senate picture is even worse. More than 150 inquiry reports tabled since the last election have received no final government response.”
“I rise today to address a quiet but deeply damaging failure in our democracy—this government's refusal to respond to the parliamentary inquiries it commissioned. Australians often see the adversarial theatre of question time, but it's in the committee rooms, away from the cameras, where much of the careful, constructive and multipartisan work of this parliament actually happens. Members and senators from across the political spectrum sit together to examine complex issues and develop recommendations grounded in expert advice. It's one of the strongest parts of our democratic system. Right now, that system has become a black hole into which expert testimony, community experience and months of work simply disappear.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Many Australians increasingly feel angry, divided and isolated. Social media platforms play a large part in this, driven by algorithms that control our attention, amplify hate and create echo chambers. The minimum age for social media is a start, but there's more to do, such as the promised duty of care or giving people more control over the algorithms imposed on them. What more will your government do to build safe and positive online spaces to urgently protect and repair our social fabric?”
“We also want Australians to have confidence that when parliament grants exceptional powers, we renew them deliberately, with eyes open, and only when they remain necessary and proportionate. These amendments would do that. I commend these amendments. (Time expired)”
“Their concerns focus on proportionality, human rights impact and the risk of normalising exceptional powers. Making the PJCIS review mandatory speaks directly to these concerns. Parliamentary scrutiny committees have flagged issues that my amendments would help address. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also questioned, among a number of things, the necessity of repealing the sunset and the breadth of the expanded questioning matters, and suggested stronger safeguards, including clearer necessity and proportionality assessments. A regular mandated review is the practical way to ensure those questions are answered with evidence over time. We want ASIO to succeed in keeping Australians safe.”
“They do not add operational friction to ASIO, and they no not dilute protections for investigations. They simply ensure that, as powers grow, oversight keeps pace. There's a clear signal from stakeholders that ongoing scrutiny strengthens rather than weakens our security framework. In a 2024 submission to the PJCIS, ASIO's preference was not to abolish sunsetting but to extend it by five years to 2030. While ASIO's 2025 submission favoured making the powers permanent, the organisation specifically recognised that for ASIO to fulfil its mission it must maintain the confidence and trust of the Australian people, parliament and government. Legal and civil society stakeholders, including the Law Council of Australia and state civil liberties councils, opposed making the powers permanent, especially alongside broader adult questioning matters.”