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 12 of 19.
“_____ SHEET 2 (1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) A notifiable instrument made under subsection (2) must be consistent with the principle that the amendments made by this Act in relation to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over the 3 year period beginning on the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 of the table. As I outlined in my second reading speech, reform of our Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act is long overdue—for our environment, for our economy and for our country. However, serious loopholes remain.”
“(3) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 : (a) designated large facility ; (b) safeguard emissions ; (c) safeguard outcome ; (d) scope 1 emission . (2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert: 235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa) Insert: (fb) any relevant advice obtained by the Minister from the Climate Change Authority in accordance with section 136AC; and (3) Schedule 1, page 156 (after line 3), after item 317, insert: 317A At the end of Division 7 of Part 11 Add: 170CB Publication of reasons Despite any other provision of this Act, if the Minister makes a decision under this Part the Minister must publish the reasons for the decision on the Department's website.”
“(2) Before the Minister decides whether or not to approve, for the purposes of a controlling provision, the taking of the action, and what conditions (if any) to attach to an approval, the Minister must obtain advice from the Climate Change Authority in relation to: (a) the accuracy of emissions estimates provided by the person proposing to take the action, including the consistency of the methods for making those estimates with methods prescribed by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 ; and (b) the impact that the action would have on safeguard emissions for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken and future financial years; and (c) the impact that the action would have on the safeguard outcomes; and (d) whether the action would place a safeguard outcome at risk; and (e) what conditions (if any) it would be appropriate to attach to an approval if the Minister were to approve the action; and (f) how the person proposing to take the action plans to mitigate emissions caused by the action, including: (i) committed, time-bound measures to mitigate gross emissions; and (ii) reliance on expected or potential future measures and technologies; and (iii) feasibility of proposed strategies.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and amendment (1) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together: SHEET 1 (1) Schedule 1, page 94 (after line 6), after item 218, insert: 218A After section 131AB Insert: 131AC Minister must obtain advice from Climate Change Authority in relation to designated large facilities or potential designated large facilities (1) This section applies if an action is likely to result in: (a) an increase, in the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or future financial years, of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is taken; or (b) a new designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or a future financial year.”
“Let's be honest: there are very difficult trade-offs here, but most Australians do not have access to the Public Service advice that helps make those difficult trade-offs clear. So I very much support the FOI recommendations coming out of the robodebt royal commission. We should be decreasing, rather than increasing, restrictions to cabinet documents. So I once again recommend and urge the government to support the member for Indi's amendments. I think they go to the heart of building trust in government by building a better public debate, and I think both of those things are really critical.”
“In the dearth and vacuum of information, you will have other players who play, and I respect many of the think tanks and others who play in the space. But there are also many bad actors who play in this space, who try and fill the void of good public data and good public debate with sometimes quite misleading information. That actually decreases trust. So I urge the government to completely rethink its approach on this FOI bill. What would it take to increase transparency in this country to give people more confidence in government and more information and certainty so our community can be more well-informed about what are the good policy choices that we should be urging our government to be making and what are the difficult trade-offs that we should be urging our government to be making?”
“We do need the frank and fearless advice of the Public Service to be more available to the country, rather than less available to the country, so that we can have the debates that we need to have in this country about difficult political and public issues. There are many difficult challenges that we are facing as a country—economically and socially. As a member of the public rather than as a member of the parliament, I would love more of that information to be out there in the public domain so that, as a member of the public, I can be better informed about whether the government is serving the people or whether it's not, about what policies we should or shouldn't be considering and about what policies have been considered and why, justifiably, they have been left alone.”
“I'm disappointed, I'll be honest, with the Prime Minister who, in a question I asked specifically on this issue, denied that robodebt had anything to do with FOI, when in fact the robodebt royal commission is explicit in that, in relation to cabinet confidentiality and how that inhibited a negative for robodebt. I'd also like to make the observation, more broadly, about what we're trying to do in this country to improve the quality of debate. Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, spoke yesterday, very powerfully, at the Lowy Institute, talking about the need to disagree well, to have fact based and broad based conversations and to do this in an effective way. Let's be honest: the parliament doesn't do that very often. But, to do that well, we actually need the information to back it up.”
“I also rise to support this amendment. Out of all of the bill, this is probably the most important part to change. I thank the member for Indi for making these changes. I want to reiterate what was said by the member for Clark in terms of robodebt. The government has made a huge deal, and rightly so, about the impact of robodebt on individuals and the enormous stain that it is on Australian political public service history. Something which was so clearly put in the robodebt royal commission has been ignored. In some cases it seems to mischaracterise some of what of the robodebt royal commission said. Saying that somehow this fits within the robodebt royal commission's observations and recommendations is very disappointing, and I'm disappointed.”
“I also urge the coalition, the Greens and all the other parties in the parliament to work on these bills to make them better and get them passed. They are urgent, they are important but they still have a way to go.”
“In conclusion, I am really torn, I'll be honest, whether to support these bills in their current form. The reforms are urgent to protect nature, to enable clean energy and to support productivity. I have been consulting widely with business and environmental groups, and they are telling me, to a person, that the laws matter and we have to get them right. I believe, on balance, that these bills are better than what we have now—but, given the short time I have to consult on this, it's honestly hard for me, hand on my heart, to tell that to my community with absolute certainty. There are opportunities to seriously improve the bills, and I urge the government to engage seriously with the crossbench amendments that have been put forward in good faith and engage across the parliament; I think there's an opportunity.”
“If the government were truly serious about recognising the climate impacts on nature, they would strengthen the safeguard mechanism alongside these bills to make sure those protections are really there—but they are missing. Finally, I acknowledge that the business community, who I've spoken to, also have a number of concerns or changes they would like to see in this legislation. I don't have time in this speech to go through them, but I think some of these are very valid and thoughtful concerns and they should be addressed in the drafting of these absolutely mighty bills. I understand a number of constructive amendments have been put forward via the crossbench to identify and manage some of the loopholes. I will also be moving some amendments.”
“Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and nature, from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires, droughts and extreme weather. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, they aren't required to be considered by the minister or the EPA or be independently verified. In fact, the legislation explicitly prevents the minister from considering anything beyond the set approval tests. The government argues this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism, but that's not managed effectively. The safeguard mechanism is relied on heavily here, yet it is not effective enough in its current form to carry the burden. It needs to be expanded and fit for purpose.”
“The Samuel review criticised the overuse of biodiversity offsets, which should be used as a last resort. Instead, they've become the default. The new restoration fund risks creating a pay-to-destroy model, letting developers offset destruction with a cheque and shifting responsibility to the government. The New South Wales Biodiversity Offsets Scheme has shown the pitfalls of this approach, with the funds accumulating but not being effectively spent. Western Australia's Pilbara region has seen similar issues. There is an argument, and I see the argument, for having some sort of fund here. But the use of offsets needs to be strictly controlled and only genuinely used as a last resort, not as a licence to destroy critical habitat. Finally, on climate, I'm disappointed climate is not properly considered in these reforms.”
“My next concern relates to transparency and independence. I'm pleased to see the NEPA—the National Environmental Protection Agency—established, but I have real concerns about its independence. The minister retains decision-making power and may delegate to NEPA, whose CEO will be appointed by the minister of the day. That's not independence. The Samuel review explicitly recommended against retaining such ministerial discretion. It undermines trust, transparency and enforcement. The NEPA must truly be the tough cop on the beat—independent, transparent and free from political influence. I do not think that, in its current form, such independence is guaranteed, and it therefore may not provide the enforcement that our environment needs. My next concern relates to the offsets proposed restoration fund.”
“Since the EPBC Act commenced in 2000, more than 11.5 million hectares of land have been cleared, including three million hectares of remnant native vegetation. A University of Queensland study this year found most land clearing occurs without assessment of environmental impacts, worsening both the biodiversity and climate crises. Even though forests are home to threatened species, and logging and land clearing can wipe them out, these exemptions persist. I do not believe the government should have introduced these laws without dealing with these exemptions. I think they know that. I think they're leaving these exemptions open as a negotiating ploy, potentially, with the Senate. That is another reason why it is not appropriate for that to not be included in these bills before the House.”
“Again, this ambiguity is not good for business. The second concern shared widely across Wentworth and the country is the continued exemption for continued native forest logging and the continuous use exemption allowing land clearing without federal approval. Currently, logging covered by the regional forestry agreement is exempt from the EPBC Act. This exemption remains unchanged in this legislation. This is deeply disappointing. RFAs are not adequately protecting threatened species and I believe the government knows this. The Forestry Corporation of New South Wales was recently taken to court for breaching its state's laws. We know that, without proper regulation, species like the greater glider, the koala and the grey-headed flying fox are heading for extinction.”
“My concern—and this has been echoed by others on the crossbench and also by the environmental movement—is that this definition is too broad, too discretionary and open to exploitation. This definition covers defence, security, strategic interests or international agreements and then explicitly says, 'This does not limit the matters the minister may consider.' This is, again, a broad definition of national interest. I have a definition and I'm sure someone else has a different definition. There are all sorts of things that we may or may not agree are in the national interest, but I think having this broad power in these bills creates a significant loophole and a great deal of uncertainty in the legislation. There could, as Ken Henry recently warned, be a 'conga line of developers' lobbying for this carve-out.”
“Firstly, let's start with national interest approvals and proposal pathways. There are two provisions in these bills for national interest. The first national interest exemption allows for approval of projects subject to conditions in a specific timeframe as an expansion of an existing power. The minister can consider our national security or a national emergency. I understand this is a 'break glass in case of emergency' clause, with a statement of reasons published whenever it is used. This appears to be appropriate to me. However, I hold deep concerns about the new power for national interest approvals or proposal pathways. This power allows the minister to determine that if an action is in the national interest, it need not satisfy the three approval tests or can be exempt altogether.”
“If done well it could, again, provide greater certainty and transparency for businesses, improve conservation outcomes, and help reduce delays and duplications in assessments. Stronger, clearer standards can benefit both nature and business alike. Let me move to my concerns with the bills. Whilst I commend the government on the introduction of the reforms and for engaging both with environmental groups and business groups—many of whom I have spoken with in the last week and who have been, on the main, very appreciative of the constructive engagement that they have had with the government—there are still some very significant sticking points that could seriously harm the integrity of this legislation and actually create harm for the environments that the laws are seeking to protect.”
“For instance, under unacceptable impacts, if an impact would seriously impair the viability of a species or cause significant irreparable damage to habitat that is critical for species' survival, approval cannot be gained. I believe these are sensible changes. They give a clear understanding of the boundaries while also strengthening environmental protections. Importantly, the government has also committed to introducing bioregional planning as a key part of the new environmental system, and I look forward to seeing these take shape. These regional plans will provide strategic context for decisions at a landscape scale, proactively identifying areas that are suitable for development, those that are environmentally sensitive and those where restoration is really needed.”
“If implemented well, this streamlined model will help accelerate project time lines, provide greater certainty for proponents and deliver stronger environmental outcomes—an essential balance in today's economic and ecological context. Secondly, let's talk about the assessment process. We have the opportunity in these laws to have less ambiguity about approvals and assessments. For instance, a clearer definition of what constitutes an unacceptable impact can be beneficial to the environment and to business. Businesses needs certainty to invest. They need certainty to put in all the effort to put forward an investment case. If unacceptable impacts are very clear, that makes it easier for businesses to make decisions.”
“If some businesses are trying to do the right thing and follow the laws and other businesses can get away without doing the right thing, you just encourage good businesses to behave badly. Having stronger penalties and clear standards is a way to actually get better action and make sure those bad actors can't run a lower-cost of business model because there aren't significant penalties. This long-overdue shift sends a clear message: environmental harm will bring serious consequences. Let's talk about what it does for business, particularly around faster time lines. I welcome the government's introduction of a new streamlined assessment pathway under this legislation. It replaces an overlapping, confusing stream with one coherent pathway, cutting duplication and delay.”
“The new agency will have the power to issue environmental protection orders, to require harmful activities to cease, to initiate both directed environmental audits and new compliance audits, and to use real-time tools to monitor breaches and respond effectively. These powers go to the heart of ensuring that the environmental protections are more than just words on paper. Equally important is the strengthening of penalties. Under the proposed reform the agency will be empowered to seek to substantially increase fines, including civil penalties, up to—this is really significant—$825 million in the most serious cases. I think these are important, for the environment and also for business, on the basis that bad actors in business make it worse for everybody.”
“This bill's introduction of new powers to create these standards and to require that decisions made by the minister responsible for the new Environmental Protection Agency align with them is a welcome and necessary reform. But while this mechanism is promising, its impact depends on the strength of the standards themselves. I understand that they sit outside the act. Transparency is limited. But if government wants to rebuild trust, the standards must face this sort of scrutiny. Secondly, I believe we're going to get stronger enforcement through this law. One of the most welcome elements of the government's proposed EPBC reforms is the establishment of a new National Environmental Protection Agency with the authority and independence to enforce our environmental laws properly.”
“It is unacceptable to bring a bill, with 1,500 pages of legislation, into the House and expect that the House should vote on this complex legislation within less than seven days. I can't in good conscience say to my community of Wentworth that I have full confidence in this bill and all its contents within this time frame. These reforms are complex. The devil is in the detail, and they require full scrutiny. But let me tell you, there are positive things about the reform, and I do want to acknowledge that. There are parts that represent real, albeit overdue, progress, starting with higher standards. Higher, stronger standards—national environmental standards—are the cornerstone of the Samuel review's recommendations.”
“First created in 1999, this act established a legal framework to protect, manage and preserve nationally and internationally significant flora, fauna, heritage sites and ecosystems. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel AC's statutory review found that our nature laws were outdated, ineffective and not fit to address future or current environmental challenges. It was damning. Since my election in 2022, I have called for a stronger EPBC Act, which will finally fix our broken environmental laws. However, these reforms were overdue three years ago; they were overdue two years ago. Last year they were overdue, and they're overdue now. While I welcome that the government is finally acting, I'll be honest: the process is not appropriate.”
“They know that uncertainty and delay in project assessments come at a cost, including delaying renewable energy projects critical to combating climate change. They know that degraded ecosystems create risk, not resilience. They know that protecting the environment is essential to long-term productivity, liveability and prosperity. As former treasury secretary Ken Henry put it in his recent address to the National Press Club: Boosting productivity and resilience relies on environmental law reform, but the biggest threat to future productivity growth comes from nature itself. More particularly, from its destruction. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms have been coming for a long time.”
“Our environment is in crisis. Nature is one of Australia's most precious assets—internationally recognised, deeply loved, and a source of solace, wellbeing and joy for so many—but it is in rapid decline. The 2021 S tate of the e nvironment report found that over 1,700 species and ecological communities are now threatened or at risk of extinction. Species loss is accelerating. Our oceans are warming and acidifying. Since that report was tabled, we've seen more extreme weather events, more fossil fuel projects and still no major overhaul of our broken environmental laws. It's not just nature that's hurting. Business leaders, economists and investors are increasingly calling for stronger, clearer environmental legislation.”
“It makes Australian citizens mistrustful of government when the bureaucracy cannot seem to understand the purpose or the intention of the law. It is exactly these sorts of things that I do think we need to address in this sort of legislation. I commend the government for the introduction of this legislation. I spoke about it in positive terms in the House. But I also want to acknowledge that the government needs to be much more ambitious about this sort of legislation. I would hope to see this sort of legislation every sitting fortnight—and much more substantially—if we are going to truly redress the balance between regulation as risk management and regulation that is retarding growth. We do need to get that balance right, and the current settings are not quite right.”
“She was deployed overseas, and because of her deployment—her status—she was not entitled to paid parental leave. The AAT recognised that that was not the appropriate decision, and that was overturned. Services Australia then took this major to the Federal Court so that they could overturn the ruling of the AAT. In that particular instance, I cannot see how it is in the interests of the taxpayer for Services Australia to spend more money fighting an Australian member of the ADF on paid parental leave which she was entitled to—although, under a technicality, she wasn't entitled to it. So my question is: why would Services Australia take this person to court? It is those sorts of actions that are wasteful in terms of government resources.”
“I will be looking for those critical assurances very carefully. I also understand and have had assurances that the government will make the legislative changes required to make this a permanent change in the legislation—not just through the powers he's enacting in the next couple of days. I will be looking very carefully for those changes. I want to note, however, the point of this—which goes to some of the points that the minister raised, saying that the issue that I raised was not about better regulation and better government services. I really want to take issue with that, because I think it does actually go to having better regulation and not wasting taxpayers' money, so driving productivity. In the case of the individual I was discussing, this person was a major in the Army.”
“I rise to speak to the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill in the consideration in detail stage. I was intending to move an amendment in relation to a member of the defence forces who had been caught up in bureaucracy and, through this bureaucracy, was not able to access the paid parental leave that she was entitled to as an Australian citizen. The minister referred to this in his speech. However, I spoke to the Deputy Prime Minister today, and he made assurances that he will write to Defence today or tomorrow in relation to this to ensure that future members of the defence forces and their spouses will be entitled to the paid parental leave that the member of my community, Major Caitlin Pedel, was not allowed to access under the current rules. I thank the DPM for his action in this space.”
“Until we change those incentives, and I think competition law is part of it, we will not fix this. Thirdly, I believe we need to change our procurement laws, and I support the National Construction Industry Forum setting out clear behavioural standards. We need to give that teeth when it comes to procurement. Finally, I believe we need a broader regulatory setting for the construction industry. If Labor were to back this, it would show that Labor is willing to really step into this rather than still play the political game on the ABCC. The ABCC failed. It did not address the issues. But, if the government does not put in a broader set of reforms that are permanent, it won't address the issues either. This is an industry that absolutely needs a fundamental overhaul for housing, infrastructure, clean energy infrastructure—you name it.”
“Firstly, the Master Builders Association has suggested—and I fully support—having an enhanced taskforce across the AFP, the state police bases, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission. We need a heavily resourced taskforce to address these issues of corruption or other sorts of criminal activity when they come up because the jurisdictional challenges in this industry are real. I know this firsthand from speaking to people about it. So this is something that we need resources for now. Secondly, we also need competition reform. The industrial relations system, which is largely not subject to competition law, creates an environment where there are incentives for corruption. You can effectively ensure that the subcontractors that you're suggesting get the deals, and that is the perfect place for corruption to start and to fester.”
“As I said, I support the appointment of the administrator. I think it has been imperfect. I think there are actions that they should have taken and questions for them to answer. But overall I do believe that this was a constructive approach as opposed to deregistration of the union, which I think would have only made things worse. But the truth is that the CFMEU administrator cannot deal single-handedly with the breadth of corruption, thuggery, misogyny and other issues facing this industry; it needs broader action. I and others wrote to the Prime Minister back in June last year and said, 'Appoint an administrator, but go much further. There are key issues that you need to have in mind,' and many of those are still relevant. I want to talk through three of them.”
“This is not the way the construction industry or any industry in our country should operate, particularly one that is so integral to our housing, to our infrastructure and to what makes this country work. So I put a pox on both the houses—on the Labor Party for turning a blind eye to the CFMEU's corruption for decades and on the coalition for failing to act effectively when they were in government for almost a decade and for putting forward the ABCC, which didn't actually deal with this and left us with this problem, which is still endemic. The question really is: how do we make a change now to make that fundamental shift in the corruption and thuggery of this industry so that we do not need another royal commission in three, four or five years and that this changes once and for all? I believe we have a long way to go there.”
“The CFMEU made contributions of $4 million to the Albanese government's successful 2022 campaign, and the government only took real action in relation to the CFMEU when forced to by the actions of brave investigative journalists, particularly out of the SMH , who I pay credit to, who have made a real contribution here. Let's talk about what's wrong with this industry. When I speak to people in this industry, as I do regularly, what I hear often is: 'Allegra, I'll speak to you, but do not tell anyone that I have spoken to you. Never mention what I have said, because these people could ruin my business overnight and they could destroy me and my family.' This is what's been going on, and it has been going on for decades.”
“I rise to speak on this important motion and echo serious concerns that I have and that my community has about the CFMEU and the corruption in the construction industry more broadly and to urge the government to take further action on this. While I support the administrator, I believe we need more than a three-year administrator because this has been an endemic problem for the last 40 years and it needs more action than one administrator to solve. The corruption, thuggery and general misconduct in this industry have been one of the worst-kept secrets across the country for decades. While I support, as I said, the government's action in terms of appointing an administrator, we need to be honest that the Labor Party has turned a blind eye to endemic corruption and thuggery in the CFMEU for decades.”
“I think that this is an example of where the government needs to act, and it should be acting today. So I ask the government to support this amendment or to come up with a better answer and a timeframe under which it is going to be delivered. In closing, the point that I'm trying to make here is that government is a monopoly. It is an imperfect monopoly, and it abuses its power. I think we need strong incentives to make sure that government acts in the interests of the country and its citizens. When it sees bureaucratic knots being tied amongst its citizens, it should act. If it's not willing to act on these little issues, where there's a clear path, I have little confidence that it is going to act on the big issues that are more difficult to fix.”
“I still have not had from the government any amendment that would make a change for the future. So I am putting forward an amendment to this piece of legislation that will, as I understand it based on the drafters, ensure that this situation won't happen for other people in the future. I spoke to Caitlin this morning, and I have to say I have full admiration for her. She said: 'Look, it's not about me. I just want this not to happen for other people. I know that there are other people out there who are also being denied paid parental leave because they have been posted overseas.' She's just trying to fix this wrong, and I am just asking the government to do something about this. I have been asking them to do this for the last year. I've been asking very politely.”
“The only reason she didn't was that she was deployed overseas for Australia. Because she was out of the country for a certain number of weeks, she was no longer eligible for this, and Services Australia took a completely bureaucratic, narrow interpretation of the law and took her to court. I just sit there and go, 'What a waste of money and what a perfect example of government fighting against what it actually believes.' I can't think of a single person in this House who would argue that a member of our Defence Force, when posted overseas, shouldn't be eligible for paid parental leave, but this is how the law is currently drafted, and Services Australia pursued this rather than accepting the natural justice of it. I have been trying to get the government to change this law for over a year, and they still haven't made any changes.”
“So let's see what Caitlin's experience was. She appealed this decision, and she won, which was great. You'd say: 'Okay, this is great. This is positive. She gets her paid parental leave.' Services Australia, in its infinite wisdom, decided to take her to the Federal Court to overturn this. She won the first time, but then Services Australia got her on appeal, and they won. So Caitlin Pedel has been rejected from having $14,000-odd worth of paid parental leave paid to her as a member of our Australian Defence Force. Services Australia has spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting a member of our Defence Force to stop her getting paid parental leave. Let's be honest: paid parental leave is open to all Australians—any Australian, actually, who fits the criteria. She fits the criteria.”
“Because she was posted overseas rather than deployed—because pregnant women cannot be deployed—she was refused paid parental leave, which is open to all Australians, because she was going to be overseas for more than the requisite amount of time. She was serving the Australian people overseas, but, because of the technicality that she was posted overseas, she was not eligible for paid parental leave. The services are a really important part of my electorate. I have three enormous bases in my electorate: Watson , Kuttabul and the Victoria Barracks. I deeply respect the contribution that the defence services make to our community, and they are really important parts of our community. But the feedback I get constantly from the defence services is that we don't pay enough attention to families when we look at defence.”
“All of these issues relate to how government interacts with individuals. The truth is that government is not accountable for this, because how do you hold government to account on this if you're just a citizen? That is what we have to do. I believe that we, as a parliament, need to reorient ourselves towards what the things are that make a difference in people's lives, what their touchpoints with government are and how to make it as easy as possible to deal with government. How can we do that? That comes to my amendment, because it is about a terrible case of government working completely against the interests of the country and of individuals. I have a constituent, Major Caitlin Pedel. She is a member of our armed forces. She was posted overseas while she was pregnant.”
“We need to change the guidance to the regulators, but we also need to create some hard targets for the government to be held accountable to, and I support the real push of the BCA and other business groups around this. The second point I want to make on this is one that was made by the previous speaker, which is that government is a service provider, but it is a monopoly service provider. Across the economy, we are suspicious, as a country, of monopoly service providers because we know that, if you let a monopoly run a service, you often get poor service, and that is what we get too often from government. I have had so many conversations with members of my community who have gone to Services Australia for a particular issue and have literally spent hours on the phone and then have been cut off and couldn't get back on the calls.”
“He said he's talking to the Productivity Commission about this, and I think that is an appropriate step, but what I want to know is when he is going to come back to the House and report on those measures. Regulatory reform and red-tape reduction are really hard, because all the incentives across the economy, particularly in this House, are: 'If there's a problem, let's regulate, because it's no cost to anyone.' I often hear this: 'If you just put in a regulation, it doesn't cost the budget anything.' In many cases, it doesn't cost the budget anything, but it costs businesses something, and that is the problem. That is why we do need to change the incentives around regulation.”
“But regulation in various forms can also have a very big impact on growth. We need to acknowledge that difference, and we need to consider how those two interact. But, as regulators, the incentives are all about risk, so it is up to the parliament and the government to indicate that growth and opportunity are also needed in terms of how we think about our regulatory settings. This is where we need some explicit guidance to regulators to do this, and I believe we need some incentives to achieve that as well. To achieve those incentives, what we need to do is to have some hard measures and targets around this. I asked the Treasurer last week about whether he would put in targets, potentially around regulatory reform.”
“It has been six months since the election; it has been probably five months since the Treasurer spoke on these issues. There have been, as I understand, around 400 areas of regulatory reform identified by the regulators as potential areas of reform, but we need the government to be showing what the plan is to address these areas and how quickly they're going to deal with this, because this is hard. This really comes to the third point I want to make. I believe we need to change the incentive structure around regulatory reform. There was a lot of discussion at the economic reform roundtable about the idea of balancing risk and growth, and this is quite a fundamental question that we are trying to face as a country, because regulation is there for very good reason. It manages risk.”
“This is an area where the government could legitimately show to businesses that they're serious about trying to make things better for business as well as for workers. When I talked to my niece and she asked me, 'Am I being paid correctly?' it took me hours to try and work out whether she was being paid correctly, because of the complexity of the awards. That complexity serves nobody except lawyers, and it stops us moving forward as a country. This is an area where the government could take action in a way that continues to protect workers, but it hasn't to date. If the government is serious about regulatory reform, firstly it needs to get more serious about housing reform, and it needs to look at industrial relations as well. Secondly, it needs to up its ambition on speed.”