Allegra Spender
Wentworth · Independent · Australia
“Estimates are between 0.5 per cent and two per cent of all abortions over 20 weeks. They are generally because of late diagnosed anomalies, genetic syndromes or severe fetal growth problems.”
“The bill is useful, it is technical, it's incremental, it has useful schedules, it has 'tell us once', it has streamlining and it has technical fixes. These are all good things, and I do not underestimate the effort that goes into getting useful changes like this.”
“Across Australia, we're seeing rising threats to women's access to abortion care. We see it in bills in state parliaments. We see it in the way some politicians talk about this issue, using misinformation and scare tactics to drive divisions, tools straight out of the Trump playbook.”
“They're saying they're waiting up to 18 months for the ATO to make a decision on how an investment would be treated, so the foreign capital just goes away. We need to change the culture here, and this is why—while I support this government's actions in this space—I urge the government to go further. This isn't about bad people.”
“I've seen firsthand how drone technology is at the forefront of some of these problems because government is slow to make decisions. There's no accountability from many government departments in terms of the speed of their decision-making.”
“I support the government's work on the fund, but I think it's currently around one tenth the size of the original 1990s National Competition Fund. If we expect that to move the dial, as it did back in the 1990s, we are going to have to put more firepower behind it.”
The complete record
Every one of 907 lines we hold for Allegra Spender, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 19.
“Finally, returning to the issue of excise, I'd like to use this opportunity to draw the parliament's attention to another issue we have in Australia's excise regime: illegal tobacco. This is a social problem that is hiding in plain sight. After successfully slashing the proportion of Australians smoking daily from 25 per cent in 1991 to eight per cent in 2023, we are seeing tobacconists now popping up like mushrooms across our community, selling illegal tobacco and vapes and capitalising on cheap illegal tobacco. There are now around 20,000 tobacconists in Australia—about 60 tobacconists for every McDonald's. The term, 'Do you have the cheap ones?' is becoming a thinly veiled codename for illicit cigarettes costing about one-third of the price of legal cigarettes.”
“I'm concerned that imposing further restrictive definitions on beer based on convention serves to protect existing products and will limit the ability for new local brewers to compete with established brands on the basis of the innovation in the product market, which they have done to date. I understand that draft determination ED 2024/D2 is due to be finalised by the end of 2025—but no longer consulting with stakeholders. I urge the Assistant Treasurer to consider advising the ATO to revise ED 2024/D2 in favour of rules that are clear, well designed and easy to follow. This is important for business to continue to innovate and invest, confident that they know how their product will ultimately be classified.”
“I do wonder if this is the role of the ATO, to determine what is a beer and what isn't a beer. It does seem to be some sort of overreach of the Taxation Office. While I have been reassured and received assurances that this will not be targeting craft brewers exploring different types of sour beers, for example, I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the determination in a market that is reliant on innovation to challenge the status quo. As I've already mentioned, Australia's beer market is already dominated by an offshore duopoly that holds more than 80 per cent of the Australian beer market.”
“This has potentially significant consequences for beverage producers whose product is no longer considered to fit within the conventional understanding of beer now or in the future. These products would be subject to a new excise rate of $105.98 per litre of alcohol compared to beer, which attracts an excise rate of $62.56, putting them at a significant cost disadvantage compared to beer. With the nature of beer evolving per different preferences and tastes to include a broader palette including sour beer and even seltzers, I ask the questions: Is it really the role of the ATO to determine what is and isn't a beer now based on how beer is conventionally understood? Aren't other people concerned about this in this chamber? I make light of it, but I'm sincere.”
“While I acknowledge the announcement by the government to lift the remission cap from $350,000 to $400,000 from 1 July next year, I will also be supporting the member for Bradfield's amendment to increase the scope of the excise to include local, independent craft beer sold in bottles and cans. Local independent brewers face another potential challenge in the coming months because of a recently announced draft guidance known as ED 2024/D2. Based on the draft determination, the ATO appears to be moving away from an objective determination of what constitutes beer to favour a more subjective one. Instead of determining beer based on its fermentation process, the ATO, it appears, will look at the final product to see if it fits within a conventional understanding of beer.”
“Last year, as part of the Standing Committee on Economics, I investigated the beer market as part of the Better c ompetition, b etter p rices report. We heard that the beer market has become pay to play, where the large companies can undercut local competitors through promotional marketing, discounts and even tap contracts that mean independents might either have no taps in a pub or a club or jostle amongst each other for a single tap. This makes it hard for independent brewers to get their brands out into public consumption outside of their own premises. They often rely on the sale of bottled or canned beer, sold in traditional liquor stores or at their own storefronts. For brewers with this business model, this excise will provide very limited relief.”
“Wentworth also hosts some amazing craft breweries, including Bondi Brewing and Curly Lewis, as well as Australia's leading independent Seltzer company, FELLR. These independent brewers also add so much to my local community, creating new venues and products and the taste of the eastern suburbs, consumed all over Australia. These institutions face considerable challenges of their own. Not only is indexation pushing up the price of their products twice a year; they face an incredibly concentrated market dominated by two large multinational companies. The Independent Brewers Association reports that, after you take out foreign owned businesses and home-brand products, some 670-odd independent brewers are left to compete for around seven per cent of the remaining market share.”
“But these establishments and the rest in the eastern suburbs have navigated a challenging business environment over the past few years. COVID hit these sorts of organisations really hard, and the long tail of the cost-of-living crisis has dried up consumer demand in what should have been their recovery phase and has made it harder to keep their doors open. Across Australia, hospitality venues are falling at a faster rate than almost any other sector in the economy, beaten only by construction. In 2023-24, we lost 1,667 such businesses across Australia. This bill offers some welcome reprieve. This bill amends the Excise Tariff Act and the Customs Tariff Act to pause indexation of the excise and customs duty rates on draught beer—beer poured from taps—for two years.”
“I rise to speak briefly on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025. While I support the bill in its efforts to provide some temporary relief to parts of Australia's hospitality sector, who are really struggling—namely, pubs and clubs—I want to echo many of the concerns expressed by some of my crossbench colleagues, speak briefly on another area of our excise regime and comment on a proposed ATO determination currently under consideration. My electorate of Wentworth is home to some amazing local institutions, from the Bondi Bowlo and the Diggers to the Paddington RSL. These are just some of the community operated bars, clubs and restaurants that give so much to the culture, atmosphere and events of the eastern suburbs.”
“In relation to that NETI point, the point is the producer offset is not used under the NETI scheme. My understanding is that it has never been applied and there is no part of the NETI scheme where someone has used the producer offset as part of those calculations. It feels like we're, in this case, bringing something that is irrelevant in another scheme into this scheme and making it extremely relevant, and, unfortunately, weakening the strength of this piece of legislation. That's the argument. I appreciate all the constraints you have in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation, but I think these are going to be issues that will be significant factors for the screen industry. If there is any way to deal with the NETI scheme to make it consistent with this, that is where the government should be going. Question negatived.”
“I do not think it is consistently used by all streamers or expected by all streamers; therefore, it wouldn't be part of their calculations at the current stage. That is why I think this is the right moment to deal with the producer offsets. I still make the case, very strongly, that Australian taxpayers don't expect our taxpayer money to be used to support content quotas for overseas filmmakers. The actual percentage that the government has put into this legislation is significantly lower than a country like France. Again, the industry was seeking a much higher level but, by leaving it in, it reduces that further and that is the fundamental concern of the industry. You are right: it is about the NETI, not the free-to-air, so I apologise—my mistake.”
“Thank you very much to the minister for your engagement on these amendments and also throughout the time on this very important legislation, which I would like to see passed here today, as much as anyone in this House—today or in the next couple of days. I take your point that you will not support the producer offset but I do think there is a case to be made here, that currently this is not being applied consistently. There are some companies who say they want the producer offset and there are some streamers who are not asking for the producer offset. If you addressed this now you would actually fix this going forward rather than have a situation where, I expect, over time, more of those companies will accept a producer offset.”
“They uphold the intent of the legislation while protecting taxpayers, supporting independent producers and ensuring the parliament can make informed decisions about the future of Australian content.”
“I have withdrawn that at this stage on the basis that there is some concern that it could have unintended consequences on the writers' royalties. So I think further consideration of that amendment will need to be made to make sure that it doesn't interfere with writers' rights. But the principle of the amendment I had previously circulated but am not moving right now is that the terms of trade and intellectual property of our shows is actually really important. It is one of the most important ongoing streams of revenue for independent producers. It is the independent producers that all of these content quotas are intended to protect. To summarise, these amendments are targeted, reasonable and designed to strengthen the effectiveness and fairness of the bill.”
“So my amendment would simply require streaming services to provide detailed information for each subgenre, the number of commissioned titles, total production expenditure, hours produced and stats on platform availability and provide ACMA and the parliament with transparent, accurate data to assess whether the investment is genuinely flowing into these vulnerable genres at the time of the statutory review. This report will be published online, provided to the minister and tabled in parliament. This amendment doesn't impose subgenre quotas, but it would ensure that the parliament has the evidence it needs to determine whether further action is warranted. These amendments, I think, are well targeted. I previously also had an amendment in relation to the terms of trade—particularly protecting IP.”
“So this is why that is not a particularly big issue and is one where I think there is a strong argument. The second argument I would like to make is about mandating subgenre reporting to track investment in children's and documentary content. We know that key sectors, particularly children's programming and documentaries, are under significant pressure. Although these genres are eligible Australian programs, the bill does not require the streaming services to allocate any minimum level of investment across these content types. This bill already requires reporting to ACMA on business operations, including subscriber numbers and revenue.”
“The producer offset is a piece of tax legislation I fought for very strongly, but I recognise that these offsets are expensive for the Australian taxpayer. This is money that the Australian taxpayer puts in. I think it really goes contrary to the intention of this bill, which is to get overseas platforms to invest in Australian content, to allow them to include taxpayer money in their Australian investment because it is demonstrably clear that Australian taxpayer money is not overseas money from these platforms in terms of investment in Australian content. So I do think this is an area where there is an issue. I appreciate there are other issues in terms of consistence with previous legislation for free-to-air and other platforms, but my understanding is that the producer offsets are not a factor in content in other parts of the system.”
“This means taxpayer money intended for the independent sector is treated as though it is the streamer's own investment even when the streamer is not actually contributing to these funds. My amendment would exclude the value of the producer offset from qualifying Australian expenditure until streaming services genuinely spend more of their own money on Australian productions, particularly in cases where they currently can recoup part of the production costs through the offset, and avoid unnecessary complexity as offset arrangements are made at the contract stage and obligations are acquitted over a three-year period. This is a simple measure to ensure public money is not counted twice and that the purpose of the producer offset is preserved. I think this is important.”
“However, this bill does not go far enough to support and sustain the screen industry. For this reason, I am moving some amendments which seek to address the loopholes that I identified earlier. These amendments are practical, targeted and designed to uphold integrity in the system. First, I will talk about the producer offset amendment. Producer offsets are government funded tax offsets covering 30 per cent of production costs. Although intended to support production companies and independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with streamers like Netflix, is for the streaming services to cashflow productions on the condition that the offset is later handed back to them. Under the current bill, the value of this offset can be counted as part of qualifying expenditure that streaming services must spend on Australian content.”
“(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), at the end of section 121FZO, add: (3) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection (1), the ACMA must: (a) publish a copy of the report on its website; and (b) give a copy of report to the Minister. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. As I outlined in my speech on the second reading of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, screen content quotas for subscription video-on-demand services are long overdue. They're essential to ensuring Australians stories continue to be told.”
“(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert: (1A) The report must include the following information about each subgenre included in the report: (a) the number of commissioned titles; (b) the total production expenditure incurred in Australia; (c) the number of hours of content produced; (d) whether the content qualifies as "Australian content" under the National Classification Code or ACMA guidelines; (e) the release dates and platform availability within Australia. (1B) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is an example of a subgenre: (a) scripted drama; (b) documentary; (c) children's programming; (d) comedy; (e) animation; (f) reality and factual entertainment.”
“(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 23 (after line 34), after subsection 121FZN(2), insert: (2A) However, the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the relevant year does not include expenditure incurred by the provider or providers of the service in the relevant year in commissioning an Australian screen business to produce an eligible Australian program unless, under the relevant agreement with the Australian screen business, the ancillary or secondary rights are all times retained under the ownership and control of the Australian screen business and the primary licensing rights revert to the Australian screen business after a period of 3 years, or 5 years if the program has been commissioned for a subsequent season. (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 24 (line 32), after "report", insert "disaggregated by subgenre".”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to (5), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), after "nil expenditure", insert "but does not include any amount which may be subsequently recouped via the refund of part or all of a tax rebate on the program through any producer offset scheme".”
“Our screen industry is too important, too vulnerable and too full of potential for us to settle for the status quo. Australian stories enrich our culture, strengthen our community and help us see ourselves on screen. The bill lays important groundwork, and I support it, but we should remain ambitious, and I wish I had seen a more ambitious bill. I look forward to working within this parliament and with my community to build for a stronger, fairer and more vibrant screen future that our nation deserves.”
“These amendments are (1) excluding any producer offsets recouped by streaming services from qualifying expenditure; (2) settings terms of trade such that any agreements about an eligible program provide business and ancillary rights to the production company with primary licensing rights returning to said company after three years or after five years if the program has been renewed; and (3) mandating the reporting of sub-genres in required reporting to ACMA and the minister. I urge the government to consider these reasonable and fact based amendments, which respond to the challenges of the screen industry and the complexity of managing and regulating this industry. In conclusion, this bill moves us in the right direction, but we cannot pretend it's enough.”
“Legislating to prevent further reduction in investment is an excellent start, but these numbers are not good enough. If our goal is a thriving, world-class industry capable of telling Australian stories to Australian and global audiences, then we cannot congratulate ourselves for maintaining the current baseline. We do need settings that drive additional investment, nurture emerging creatives and build a sustainable pipeline of Australian content for the future. All of these loopholes lessen the positive impact that this legislation can have on our screen industry. This is why I've circulated three amendments which aim to fix some of these problems, which I will discuss more in the consideration in detail.”
“The bill's proposed thresholds—10 per cent of expenditure or 7.5 per cent of revenue—sound ambitious, but the government's own explanatory memorandum tells a different story. It states that the total expenditure required of major streaming services would be between $175 million $200 million each year on Australian content, consistent with current expenditure for Australian adult drama, children's and documentary programs by SVODs, which is on average $193.4 million. In other words, by the government's own modelling, these quotas do not meaningfully increase investment. They simply legislate what the streamers are already spending. This bill risks locking in the status quo at a moment when the Australian screen sector desperately needs growth, ambition and renewal.”
“It would prevent the erosion of Australian identity in the global digital market and avoid scenarios where beloved programs are reshaped for foreign audiences, for example by re-recording Bluey with American accents. We invest in Australian stories not because of their content but because of their culture. And, fourthly, there is a lack of stipulated investment. Children's and documentary content continue to suffer from chronic underinvestment. While the bill sets an overall quota, it does not protect genres uniquely vulnerable in the market. Sub-reporting for genres would at least give us the data needed at a review to determine whether further action, including sub-quotas, is necessary. Finally, there are quotas that simply legislate the status quo. This is the final challenge with this bill. We need to be honest about the numbers.”
“Perhaps the government is not aware that increasingly streamers are saying 'Okay, we know how much producer offset you are going to get. We want that back to be able to fund this show.' This is of real concern because this is very, very substantial government backing of the Australian screen industry, which will be used to, effectively, subsidise the big companies whose content quotas we are trying to manage. Thirdly, another gap is the absence of any requirement for Australian producers to retain their IP. Without their IP they lose the economic and cultural lifeblood of their work. A simple safeguard allowing streamers a 36-month licence period, after which rights revert to the Australian production company, would ensure Australian stories remain in Australian hands.”
“Producer offsets exist to strengthen the independent sector, not to subsidise the multinational balance sheets of these streamers. When these offsets were first introduced, the minister for the arts said at the time, 'Its intention was that the independent sector should be beneficiaries of the producer rebate.' When a $10 million project ends up costing a streamer only $7 million yet they can count the full $10 million, the public carries the burden while the streamer claims the credit. I understand this was retained for consistency with free-to-air transmission quotas; however, no such trend is occurring in that sector, and, if it did, it too would need reform. This has been raised with me by different screen producers personally, talking about how this is a growing trend.”
“Stakeholders have been very clear: without firm guardrails like the guidelines used by Screen Australia, this system will be easy to game and hard to fix. These guardrails may be included in regulations or published by ACMA once powers are granted but it is essential we monitor them closely and review any potential manipulation at the statutory review. A second issue is also fundamental. Under this bill, streaming services can count taxpayer funded producer offsets as part of their Australian expenditure. That is not investment; that is substitution. Although these offsets are specifically designed to support independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with Netflix, is for the streamer to cash flow production on the condition that this government offset—the taxpayer funded offset—is handed to them.”
“The definition of 'qualifying expenditure' is so broad that streamers could sweep in costs with little connection to Australian content—internal IT allocations, corporate overheads, padding out numbers—and without creating a single Australian job or minute of Australian screen time. The requirement that costs fall under development, pre production, production or post production could be manipulated. We are relying on ACMA to scrutinise these costs with a fine-tooth comb, when we know and expect that services will work hard in some cases to minimise their obligations. If we are serious about transparency we cannot rely on a post-hoc audit by a regulator already stretched across everything from social media to national security laws.”
“However, in my consultation with members of the Wentworth screen community, peak bodies and representatives across different parts of the sector, there are significant loopholes which could be rectified to strengthen the bill. First, and one of the most important ones, is weak guardrails around the expenditure model, because at the heart of this bill is an expenditure model that leaves too much to chance. We are asking ACMA to police complex financial structures used by some of the largest corporations in the world but without giving ACMA any extra resources. This is a recipe for problems discovered only after the damage has been done.”
“A compliance framework is also established in this legislation, with ACMA empowered to determine eligibility and publish reasons and decisions reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. Finally, the bill includes a statutory review after four years. My hope is that by then we will have the data to make clearer, stronger decisions, including increasing these requirements if necessary. With an industry in crisis, I see the urgent need for this reform to be passed this year, with changes to be in effect from 1 January 2026. This is what the sector wants; therefore, I am looking to be not only constructive, as always, in my engagement on this bill, but also timely.”
“Programs must be newly commissioned with drama, documentary, factual or animated entertainment and under Australian control in development and production. The bill inserts new obligations into the Broadcasting Services Act, requiring eligible streamers to invest either 10 per cent of global program expenditure or 7.5 per cent of Australian sourced revenue in new Australian programs. Many in the sector, I will be honest, though, are disappointed, having advocated for a 20 per cent revenue model for over a decade. This model would deliver stronger investment without the capacity for services to manipulate their expenditure figures, which is of great concern to the industry.”
“While the regulatory design has required complex negotiations, the long period of uncertainty has had real and very negative consequences for the Australian film industry. Production companies have struggled to plan, and major streaming services have delayed commissioning decisions because they did not know if or when the obligations were coming, with renewals and new projects stalling as a direct result. However, I am encouraged by elements of this bill which have the capacity to make a significant impact. The bill establishes Australia's first legislated requirement for major streaming services to invest in new Australian screen content, applying only to major platforms with more than one million subscribers, excluding specialist services. It defines what qualifies as an Australian program using existing content standard definitions.”
“Our stories should be treasured, and, without enforcement, they are fading. Australian content obligations for streaming services are something I've been advocating for since I was elected in 2022. I've worked extensively with Screen Producers Australia and with producers and production companies in my electorate who tell me how important this reform is. I want to highlight the incredible work of these advocates, especially Screen Producers Australia, in their tireless campaign to achieve quotas. I'm pleased to see the government finally introduce this legislation, and I commend them for taking this step. I will note—and I have been very frustrated—that it has been a long time coming, promised over three successive elections and again in the National Cultural Policy of January 2023.”
“However, a large proportion of Australian screened content available on these services tends to be older content, with the commissioning of new Australian content by streaming services low by international standards. A 2023 Ampere Analysis report found that Australian content comprised just 8.8 per cent of Stan's catalogue, 5.0 per cent of Paramount+, 3.7 per cent of Binge, 4.1 per cent of Netflix, 3.6 per cent of Amazon Prime Video and only 0.2 per cent of Disney+. Screen Australia's 2023-24 report shows a 17.5 per cent drop in Australian titles on TV in just one year. Without screen content quotas, our local industry is vulnerable. Streamers can choose to fill their slates with repeats and international reality TV that does not reflect our own. While these shows are entertaining, it's crucial that we see our lives reflected on screens.”
“It has endured years of neglect and underinvestment, compounded by COVID-19 and the growing dominance of global streaming services whose power far outweighs that of local creators. I've heard from constituents who have been forced to walk away from the industry they love—people whose skills, talent and livelihoods are at risk. When we lose those workers, we lose more than jobs; we lose storytellers, cultural custodians and the very voice of Australian creativity and Australian stories. We know that streaming services are now where most people and most Australians find content, whether it be Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV or Prime.”
“Wentworth is home to some of the most vibrant and dedicated people working in Australia's film and television sector, from production companies and screen writers to actors, directors, crew and many creatives who make the stories of Australia come alive. From iconic series like Kat h & Kim or Rake to recent successes like Colin from Accounts a personal favourite—and Boy Swallows Universe , these stories matter. Our local screen industry is not just an economic contributor; it is a cultural treasure. These are the people who help us understand who we are and reflect our diversity, our history and our hopes for the future. These stories help create community, foster respect and build understanding. They spark connection around dinner tables, workplaces and waiting rooms. Over the past decade, this sector has been worn down.”
“My question is for the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. Today's data from rental affordability index shows that only two per cent of rentals are affordable for essential workers, like teachers. The New Homes Bonus was supposed to incentivise new homes and help fix this, but, with just the ACT likely to meet the target, the effectiveness of this incentive is under question. Will you consider restructuring the bonus scheme so there are interim payments to help the states do critical rezoning, speed up approvals and build the infrastructure they need to actually deliver these targets?”
“Earlier, I spoke about my amendment to the EPBC bill, which would require the environment minister to publish a statement of reasons for decisions made under the act. This amendment mirrors that change. If NEPA is to be the trusted independent body that the community expects, its decisions must be clear, consistent and explainable. My amendment would require the agency to publish a short statement of reasons for each significant decision, particularly any approval, rejection or enforcement.”
“I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 20, insert: 20A Publication of reasons If a registrable decision is published on the register of registrable decisions, the reasons for the decision must also be published on the register. My amendment to this bill continues the theme of transparency, this time for the new NEPA. Under this bill, the NEPA will pay a central role in approving, assessing and enforcing environmental decisions. These decisions will help shape the health of our environment and the credibility of the new system. Yet, as the bill stands, the NEPA is only required to publish notice of a decision, not the reasoning behind it.”
“I think this could not only achieve what the government wants to do—which is move to a streamlined mode overall—but also make sure that we do get faster approvals, when things deserve to be approved, straight off the bat and there isn't some unnecessary delay, which everybody, I think, is genuinely seeking to avoid. I do believe it balances the need for reform with the need for certainty and fairness during implementation. Again, I've spoken to the minister's office about this, but I recognise that this was circulated relatively recently, so I would urge the minister and others to consider that in the Senate.”
“Part of the importance of this bill is to make sure that projects can move swiftly through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's approval process if they are warranted to. I think the government has, appropriately, introduced a new streamlined process that should, hopefully, speed that up. I very much support that. However, I am aware that, when government sets up new things, it takes some time to bed them down. Things don't always go faster in a new process; they sometimes can go slower. What I'm urging the government to do in this case is provide a sensible transition period so that, perhaps, those businesses that are familiar with the current available pathways are able to use them until the new pathways are established, precedence is set and people are able to understand what is actually going on.”
“It also helps business proponents better understand precedents and improve future proposals. I have also moved a matching amendment to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill to ensure NEPA operates with the same level of transparency. I had a constructive conversation with the minister's office in relation to these amendments, but particularly this one. It is my hope that, while the minister, at this stage, has indicated that they will not be supporting this amendment, it will still be considered as part of any future amendments that go through in the Senate. Finally, I wanted to move an amendment in relation to some of the business groups I've consulted—and that is to sunset the removal of three project assessment and approval pathways over a three-year period.”
“The amendment would enable upfront consideration of climate impacts and prevent avoidable harm. It would also provide the government with useful data to inform future safeguard policy and to set conditions needed to mitigate a project's impact on the mechanism. My second amendment concerns transparency. It would require the minister to publish a statement of reasons for all decisions, particularly approvals or rejections under the EPBC Act. At present, both the minister and NEPA must publish notice of a decision but not the reasoning behind it. While the current minister generally does so voluntarily, this requirement should be embedded in law for all future ministers. Publishing reasons is vital for accountability, public trust and better decision-making.”
“My amendment will require the Climate Change Authority to assess any action that would allow a new facility to the safeguard mechanism or increase emissions from the existing one; independently verify proponents' emissions estimates; consider the likely impact on the safeguard's overall emissions trajectory and objectives; advise whether the action risks undermining those objectives and recommend appropriate conditions, such as declining annual emission caps; and provide that advice to both the climate change and environment ministers. While this advice would not be binding, it would ensure that emissions data and abatement plans are used meaningfully in assessments, not left to another minister after approval. Approving major emitters first and hoping another minister cleans it up later is poor governance.”
“The government argues that this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism. But they are not managed effectively. The environment minister is only required to notify the climate change minister and authority after a project is approved. The safeguard is not effective enough to carry that burden. Without an upfront assessment, new projects can add pressure to the mechanism, forcing others to cut more deeply or rely on offsets that may never materialise. I want to see a clear link between the safeguard mechanism and the EPBC process.”
“The bill leaves too much ministerial discretion over what constitutes the 'national interest', retains exemptions for native forest logging and land clearing, and risks entrenching a pay-to-destroy model through the new restoration fund and overuse of biodiversity offsets. These weaknesses threaten to undermine the very purpose of the reform and the protection of Australia's biodiversity. I'm rising to speak on amendments that will strengthen this bill, both for nature and for business. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and ecosystems—from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires and droughts. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, these are neither required to be considered by the minister or the EPA nor required to be independently verified.”