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 13 of 19.
“At the moment we're having a pendulum-swinging approach to legislation rather than sitting down, getting the Productivity Commission to look at our industrial relations settings and saying, 'Okay, what is the impact on productivity in our industrial relations settings, what is the impact on growth and what are the trade-offs we're willing to make?' We will always make trade-offs to protect workers—that is important—but at the moment we can't even have a civilised examination of the evidence to see where we could make a difference and what the trade-offs that we're implicitly making are in an ideological way as opposed to a fact based way. I want to call out the government's reluctance over the last four years, or coming up to four years, to actually look at award simplification.”
“In this country we have always had a pendulum approach to industrial relations reform, where one of the major parties comes in and brings in lots of red tape and then the other major party comes in and changes a lot. It's incredibly unproductive and very damaging for businesses and consumers.”
“These include the EPBC Act, housing and industrial relations. I give the government credit that they are trying to address the EPBC Act and regulatory reform there, and they have made modest steps in relation to housing. However, I want to call out that, from a housing point of view, there are further ways they need to go, including incentivising the states effectively to make the regulatory reforms required. The way they are currently incentivising the states is not working because all the states are not going to meet the current incentive structure the government is planning to use. The government has to rethink how it is going to incentivise the states to reduce regulatory burden. The other area the government should be addressing, honestly, is industrial relations. This is a real blind spot for the government, I believe.”
“It doesn't matter what side of politics you are from; we all want families and young people to be able to access housing. I want all Australians to be able to access energy as cheaply as possible while doing the right thing in terms of emissions reduction. It was right for the Treasurer to acknowledge that supply-side reform is critical to this. I think it's positive that we see a government on the progressive side of parliament talking about red tape reduction, because this is normally the area that is left to the conservative side of parliament. The question now is whether the government is going to act enough on the issues it identified. Let me talk about those three areas where I think it needs to work hard. Firstly, it needs to prioritise areas of the economy that need reform most urgently from a regulatory reform point of view.”
“It is time the government acted like a service provider to citizens as customers rather than as a monopoly provider, with all the abuses that come from there. I'll use a particular example that goes to an amendment I am moving to this bill, to show how ridiculous—I can't think of a better word—government sometimes behaves in its bureaucratic activities as opposed to trying to address the issues our citizens face and doing that as easily as possible. Let me start with ambition on regulatory reform. I was extremely heartened when the Treasurer stood up and spoke about the book A bundance . The message was clear—that is, supply-side reform is required to deliver things the community wants, including cheaper energy and housing that is affordable and accessible. These are the things the entire community wants.”
“If the government is truly going to make a difference to productivity through legislative and regulatory reform, it has a very, very long way to go and it needs to up its ambition. I will talk about three areas where I believe the government needs to address regulation and needs to step up its ambition. The government needs to prioritise the areas which can make the biggest difference to the economy, needs to update its speed in addressing these issues—including by utilising AI—and needs to change incentives fundamentally. It also needs to change the mindset where government is effectively a monopoly provider of services to the economy and acts like that, and abuses its monopoly powers like many other organisations across the economy.”
“I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 and would like to inform the House that I'll also be moving an amendment to it. I'm supportive of this bill because it contains a number of practical and positive changes, including the implementation of the tell-us-once principle for businesses, which is a long overdue step that will increase efficiency and reduce duplication. Good regulation is absolutely critical. When it is done well, it improves the lives of both citizens and businesses by making systems more navigable, reducing red tape and allowing more time and resources to be spent on creating value. Reforms like this matter. But I want to be clear: this bill as it currently stands is extremely modest, and the scale of the challenge we as an economy face is extremely large.”
“But, under the legislation, this is no longer going to be possible.' I want to understand which vulnerable groups the government has considered, because the acknowledgement that it's excluded temporary protection visas goes to the point that the government recognises that there are some people who should not be able to be considered only 'on the papers'. My question is: what about those other vulnerable people in those other classes? Why should they not be able to have the opportunity to, at least, be considered for a verbal hearing rather than being excluded by regulation 'on the papers'? Question negatived. Bill agreed to.”
“I would love the minister to engage on the question of why the government even drafted and determined the ART in its current form, if it is willing to so quickly go back and say, 'People should no longer have a hearing and we give ourselves, the government, the opportunity to pass regulations on that basis—that whole groups of people no longer have the opportunity to have a hearing.' This is when the ART professionals, looking at the merits of the case, say: 'I have additional questions here. These are important questions. I would like to be able to put them to the applicant.”
“I'd like to ask the minister about the case that I'm trying to make in relation to vulnerable Australians who go to the ART to be heard on issues outside of student visas. The fact is that the government has given itself the ability to do this via a regulation to exclude entire classes and to include other groups of applicants who would no longer be able to ever be heard in front of the ART themselves. Consider, particularly, the breadth of vulnerability of some of those people who might be included in that Why does the government feel it appropriate to do this from a regulatory point of view, as opposed to coming to this parliament and making the case for it?”
“I argue that the government should, in this case, listen to the Law Council and the protections it is are arguing for, and they should support my amendments in this case.”
“The ART is the final place where individuals who feel that the state has not been fair or accurate in its dealings with them can make a case, and the state has to come up, be honest and adjudicate this fairly to make sure that it has not overreached or made a mistake. This is up for citizens of our community taking those actions . My concern, really, with this legislation in relation to the ART is that it now says to people that they will only be determined on the papers. Vulnerable Australians who may be making those representations to the ART may be representing themselves. I know many from my constituency have gone to the ART and represented themselves. Under this current legislation, they may have no opportunity to be heard, and that this could be extended to other visa classes is of real concern.”
“While I acknowledge that these regulations are disallowable, for something so fundamental to the role of the ART I would agree, again, with the Law Council, who argue that 'decisions that remove the ability of whole classes of individuals to have a hearing should, if included in legislation at all, be determined by parliament under primary legislation'. These reasons and those arguments made by the Law Council have driven me to draft these amendments, which would remove the minister's ability to expand this requirement to other temporary visa classes, instead requiring further changes to be made in primary legislation as recommended by the Law Council. I think we should take a moment to reflect on what the purpose of the ART is and why this is important.”
“While they support the government's decision to exclude protection visas, they argue that it is likely that vulnerable applications could be captured by expanding these powers to other classes, including provisional partner visas, bridging visas and employer sponsored visas. All of these things could be captured without coming back to the House. I'll quote from the Law Council's submission on this bill: These decisions go to the core of how the Tribunal operates for potentially wide groups of people, and relate to its overall design, as determined by Parliament only a year ago. Such decisions should not be left to delegated legislation.”
“As the Law Council of Australia argues, the blanket refusal of oral hearings for all cases represents a 'disproportionate response' to the issue at hand. That brings me to my amendments. The legislation as currently drafted includes student visas but also allows, within regulations, other visas to be captured by this blanket refusal of oral hearings. I think this is of real concern. A case can be argued that student visas can be determined on the papers, though there are some—I'll be honest—who argue that that is really not the case, particularly seeing that 50 per cent of all study visa cancellations or refusals have been overturned, which says that this is actually an area of great contention. But the fact that other visas could be included in this could also be problematic. I go back to the Law Council of Australia.”
“I acknowledge the government's point that the Nixon review found that the system of review currently in the ART was being exploited by some to draw out and extend processes again. They particularly highlighted student visas. They recognised that, with student visas now accounting for 40 per cent of all lodgements, this can potentially have the impact of holding genuine reviews that are needed in limbo for months, often at great distress. So I do find there are good grounds for finding efficiencies within the ART system, such as increasing the scope to review cases on the papers. However, I do currently have concerns about how this legislation is drafted, and these go to the heart of my amendments. There are obvious concerns about mandating that a type of visa class must be decided purely on the papers.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 6 to 15), omit subsection 367C(2), substitute: (2) An application made to the ART for review of a reviewable migration decision is an application to be reviewed on the papers if the decision is a decision to refuse to grant a student visa. (2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 24 to 27), omit subsection 367C(4), substitute: (4) Without limiting paragraph (3)(b), regulations made for the purposes of that paragraph may prescribe kinds of, or circumstances relating to, applications made before, on or after the commencement of those regulations. I appreciate that we need to create a system that enables decisions to be made efficiently and fairly.”
“In important areas such as defence, if there are no voices to represent that third of the country that did not vote for the major parties, then I think that actually reduces trust in the system for all those people who were seeking to be represented by alternative members of the community. I think that the government should bear that in mind in relation to who it puts forward and who goes onto this committee. I'd also like to note the opposition's concern that there could be crossbench members of this committee. I would like to note, from a security point of view, there have been various slurs, I would say, made of crossbenchers. 'Slurs' is probably a bit of a harsh term—'imputation'.”
“I think we also need to recognise that to have proper scrutiny of Defence will, on occasion, require a different level of security clearance and different level of security disclosure than in the normal case of committees. I want to then talk briefly to the composition, and I support the composition that has been outlined in the papers, but I'd like to make a few comments to it. It's going to be seven government members and six non-government members. I'd like to urge the government and future governments to reflect on the composition of the parliament and the composition of the votes in the country and make sure that the defence committee reflects that, because around a third of Australians did not vote for the major parties in the last election, and that's a similar level to the previous election.”
“I sought to actually join the defence subcommittee this term and have joined the bigger committee because I thought it was such an important area. But, again, I was very surprised, because defence is such an important part of our country and our security. It is such an important part of our budget. I'd just assumed that the parliament would have a standing standalone defence committee as partners such as the US and the UK have. So I think it's a very commonsense recommendation from the former committee that this be established, and I think it's very commonsense to actually establish it in this parliament. We need accountability and transparency, and we need a depth of examination of Defence because of the incredibly important role that it plays.”
“I rise in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which will establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. I think this is a really important move, and it's one that I wholeheartedly support. Let's look at why. We look at our strategic environment, and defence is only more important now, and it's only a more important consideration for this parliament and future parliaments than it has been before. We do live in uncertain times, and our defence community and our defence forces are absolutely integral to maintaining our security. I must say that I was really surprised to see that defence was actually covered in the joint committee with foreign affairs and trade, and then foreign affairs and aid.”
“My question is for the Treasurer: Many people in the business community and at the economic reform roundtable have asked for regulation that better enables growth as well as manages risk. But any permanent consolidation of red tape is hard when the incentives for regulators and, frankly, politicians is for just to add more and more complexity. How can the government permanently shift incentives to reduce regulatory complexity, and will you set targets for reductions in regulatory complexity?”
“I strongly urge the government to consider the consequences of such blunt instruments and caution the government, and, indeed, future governments, against using the powers enabled in this bill to bring in other visa classes. I urge the government to accept the amendments made in good faith by members of the crossbench. They are very moderate amendments that will add to the protections in the bill without taking away from the overall purpose and, hopefully, impact of the bill on people's processing times.”
“The final amendment, my amendment, would remove the minister's ability to expand this requirement to other temporary visa classes, instead needing further changes to be made in the primary legislation, as recommended by the Law Council of Australia. If the government were to accept the member for Curtin's amendment, I would see no reason to move my own. I conclude by saying that no-one disputes that lengthy delays in the tribunal process increase costs, reduce the effectiveness of our entire visa system and unnecessarily hold up genuine visa applicants. There is a human cost as well as a financial cost to the problems of this current system.”
“The first amendment, from the member for Warringah, would require these changes to be reviewed within three years, allowing the parliament to determine if there have indeed been unintended consequences. A simple review after three years will make sure we have accountability on these decisions. The second amendment, from the member for Curtin, will maintain some level of discretion within the tribunal to hold oral hearings for student and other temporary visa categories if they find sufficient reason to do so. I think that is very practical and simple. The default will be towards determination on the papers. However, that amendment still allows the tribunal discretion if they find sufficient reason to hold an in-person hearing.”
“While I acknowledge that these regulations are disallowable, for something so fundamental to the role of the ART I would agree with the Law Council, who argue: … decisions that remove the ability of whole classes of individuals to have a hearing should, if included in legislation at all, be determined by Parliament under primary legislation. I take the view of the Law Council very seriously in these matters, because this is about making sure—as I said at the start of my speech—that people can access justice when they believe that government has not served them, as individuals, whether they have been excluded on visas or whether they see a decision by government as unjust. There are some amendments to this particular bill that I urge the government to accept.”
“The Law Council of Australia, while supporting the decision to exclude protection visas, argues that it is likely that vulnerable applicants would be captured by expanding these powers to other classes, including provisional partner visas, bridging visas and employer sponsored visas. The Law Council's submission to the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs states: These decisions go to the core of how the Tribunal operates for potentially wide groups of people, and relate to its overall design, as determined by Parliament only a year ago. Such decisions should not be left to delegated legislation.”
“As the Law Council of Australia argues, the blanket refusal of oral hearings for all cases represents a 'disproportionate response' to the issue at hand. In the last two financial years, almost 50 per cent of all student visa cancellations or refusals heard in the ART have been overturned, bringing serious doubt to the assumption that even student visas are clear-cut cases to be determined purely on written submissions. This brings me to another issue, and the one my amendment deals with. This is the ability of other visa classes to be captured in the future by this blanket rule, simply by regulation. While it may be the case that many student visa cases can be suitably determined on the papers—although, as I have already pointed out, even this is questionable—certain other temporary visa classes could be problematic.”
“I do agree that the ballooning number of review decisions, particularly for student visa refusals, which now account for 40 per cent of all lodgements, holds genuine reviews in limbo for months, often at great distress. I acknowledge that the Nixon review found that the system of review was being exploited by those looking to draw out and extend that process—again, particularly focusing on student visas. For that reason, I do see good grounds for extending the discretion of the court to review cases on the papers, as in schedule 1, and to dispense with oral hearings wherever possible. However, there are obvious concerns around mandating that a type of visa class must be determined purely on the papers.”
“It is actually pretty fundamental to making sure that government is accountable, even to individuals in individual cases. I also want to acknowledge that access to the ART and the speed with which it makes determinations are critically important, because justice delayed is justice denied. In some cases, this can truly have a significant effect on people's lives. That's the context in which I approach this bill. I look at this and go, 'Yes, I want to see the ART work more efficiently,' because, frankly, some of the delays that I have heard about in my electorate, around people's access to and work with the ART, are not acceptable and have significant costs to the community.”
“Currently, most matters are dealt with through an oral hearing, with the circumstances for dispensing with the hearing limited to occasions where both parties consent, or where one party has failed to comply with the requirements of the tribunal. This bill, instead, gives the tribunal discretion to dispense with a hearing when it appears avoidable, based on the facts of the case. Secondly, this bill amends the Migration Act such that the reviews of student visa claims must now be determined on the papers. Finally, the bill grants the minister the ability to extend this provision to other temporary visas via regulations. I want to recognise that the ART is a really important institution in our democracy. This is the last port of call for citizens when they feel that the government has let them down or has not served them accordingly.”
“I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The ART commenced operation in October 2024 in place of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The ART is responsible for reviewing administrative decisions made under various Commonwealth acts and instruments, including disputes on matters ranging from visas, the NDIS, Centrelink, PPL and workers compensation. This bill amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and the Migration Act in an effort to increase the efficiency in the processing of visas. It does this in three ways. Firstly, it expands the circumstances in which the ART can make decisions based on the papers.”
“It helps pay for housing bonds, new school uniforms, urgent medical costs or simply a safe night in a motel. It can offer a moment of dignity in a moment of chaos and can help a survivor and their children take their first steps on a life free from violence. I thank the government for its ongoing commitment to addressing family and domestic violence. I thank the minister for the constructive engagement we have had on this amendment. I urge the government and the minister to adopt this amendment and to support these changes that have been recommended by experts, including the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and been well supported by the people I speak to in the sector, including those who have survived this experience themselves. Let's make the crisis payment work for the people it's meant to serve. I commend this amendment.”
“It is unreasonable to expect them to. Requiring evidence that a person is setting up a new permanent home, especially in the middle of a housing crisis, is unrealistic and counterproductive. The government's own figures show that 13.8 per cent of crisis payment claims were rejected due to this condition or because the perpetrator was not formally registered as living with the applicant. Survivors may be moving from couch to couch, refuge to refuge. The system should recognise that fleeing violence, not whether the new lease has been signed, is the crisis. These changes are small, commonsense adjustments, but they could be the difference between someone getting real support when they need it and falling through the cracks. It is all about the detail for them. This payment can be life-saving.”
“A short window should not be the reason why someone cannot receive help in a moment of need. Secondly, my amendment covers the definition of 'home'. Under the current rules, it is too narrow. Many of the most vulnerable victims-survivors live or are forced to move to informal, temporary or unsafe accommodation such as tents, hostels or crisis refuges, which are not legally defined as 'home' in the act. This disproportionately effects people who are already on the margins. I urge the government to replace the word 'home' with 'place of residence' in the legislation, to ensure we do not exclude those most in need. Thirdly, the current rules require that the applicants show they're establishing a new home. This is unnecessary. Under the Social Security Act, a person must already demonstrate they cannot return to their previous home.”
“Victims-survivors who are navigating police reports, relocating children, enrolling in new schools or seeking medical support are being penalised because they do not file paperwork in time or because their housing situation does not meet the outdated bureaucratic definition. This must change. Firstly, I'm calling on the government to extend the seven-day claim period. Seven days is an incredibly short period of time when someone is in trauma and in chaos. Survivors often do not know the payment even exists within that timeframe, let alone have the capacity to fill out the Centrelink paperwork and navigate online portals or prove the case while they're in hiding. The 2025 report found that 7.7 per cent of rejections were due to missed deadlines, including many more who had never applied because they were already outside the time limit.”
“It was a key recommendation of the 2024 parliamentary inquiry into financial abuse. When I speak to community legal centres, peak bodies and survivor advocates, the message is clear: we must not only support those in crisis but ensure that systems are there for people when they have made the brave decision to leave. That is what my amendment seeks to do. It focuses on the family violence crisis payment, a one-off non-taxable payment designed to support people experiencing extreme circumstances and severe financial hardship. Right now, it is not working the way it should. According to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee 2025 report , only half of potentially eligible people access the crisis payment and many are rejected on technical grounds. That is not what crisis response should do.”
“3 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(b) Omit "remain in, or return to, the home", substitute "remain, or return to, where the person has been residing". 4 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph. 5 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(e) Omit "7 days", substitute "14 days". It is no secret that Australia is in a domestic and family violence crisis. One in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner. According to the St atus of w omen r eport card , 37 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner in 2024. This is why I welcome this legislation, particularly the extension of the special circumstances waiver. This will finally make provision for victims-survivors of financial abuse who have provided false information as a result of coercive control.”
“I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit "Schedules 3 and 4", substitute "Schedules 3, 4 and 5". In brief, I'm going to move an amendment after this, but I have moved this amendment separately because I understand that the government is going to support this amendment. I'll speak to all amendments in my second speech. Question agreed to. I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name: (2) Page 37 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 5 — Extreme circumstances forcing departure from place of residence Social Security Act 1991 1 Section 1061JH (heading) Omit "home", substitute "place of residence". 2 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(a) Omit "his or her home", substitute "where the person has been residing".”
“From the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture, such as in salmon farming, to poor infection control in healthcare settings, the forces driving antimicrobial resistance are multifaceted and deeply entrenched. Without immediate intervention, including improved diagnostics and increased investment in research, future generations will be left vulnerable to infections we once easily cured. Just recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has significantly reduced research into new antibiotics. While this development may not affect him as much as coming generations, to protect the future of the human race, antimicrobial resistance must be treated as a credible threat. It is vital that the government addresses this danger for the health and safety of humanity. Thank you. Thank you, Juliette.”
“I'm delighted to amplify Juliette's voice today as part of our Raise our Voice in Parliament program for 2025: By the end of 2050, up to 70% of the world's infectious diseases are predicted to become untreatable due to antimicrobial resistance. Treatment for pneumonia is proven to become ineffective by 2040. Penicillin and numerous other first line antibiotics are already ineffective against staph and skin infections. With increased immigration and travel it is of the utmost importance to protect future generations from a problem that only the government can control: antimicrobial resistance. This looming crisis is not a distant threat, it is being accelerated by a number of urgent and preventable factors.”
“Too often, both of the major parties pull one lever or another that they think is politically convenient for their side of politics, rather than deal with the overarching needs across the whole of the economy.”
“Despite the appointment of an administrator, which I supported, we still see appalling conduct from self-interested actors undermining trust in this critical sector and holding back the house-building and other building that we need in this country. Finally, we need to improve the allocation of existing housing. Too many young families are squeezed into two-bedroom apartments while empty-nesters remain in large, mostly unused, homes. The key reform here is a transition from stamp duty to land tax, unlocking mobility and better using our existing housing stock. It is fairer, it is the appropriate thing to do, and the federal government needs to work with the states to enable this to happen. Our generation of parliamentarians will be judged on whether we fix housing affordability, and it is time to pull all the levers that we possibly can.”
“In addition, we need to make sure that, when we are investing in infrastructure, that is doing things like enabling the sewerage and other treatments that are needed for housing. Thirdly, we need to stop demand-side interventions like the five per cent deposit scheme that the government has recently brought into being, which has absolutely no friends among people who know how house prices are driven—economists and housing experts. We know these don't work. We know that these have made things worse for young home buyers. But still we are seeing a government introducing pieces of legislation that just make it harder for young Australians to buy their own homes, rather than easier. Fourthly, the government must deal with the CFMEU once and for all, appointing a genuine industry regulator with teeth.”
“The government's national licensing for electrical trades is a good start but still won't help my constituent fast enough. Even if we fix migration and training, it will take far more than skills to solve this crisis. Firstly, the crossbench has long called for the government to restructure state incentives to help clear the capacity and bureaucratic bottlenecks holding back housing supply. This approach is backed by the sector itself—the people navigating the red tape every day. Secondly, we need to prioritise infrastructure projects that enable housing. If the Commonwealth invests heavily in transport, that investment should be tied to appropriate zoning and development around new transport corridors.”
“That starts with a designated construction skills visa, like those of the UK, New Zealand and Canada—countries facing similar housing affordability issues. Instead, construction workers seeking to come here face delays of up to 18 months and high application costs. The government had a chance to act last year, but, inexplicably, chose to vote against my amendment to include trades workers for the specialist skilled visa pathway. The government must also deliver on its promise to tackle occupational licensing barriers between states and from approved overseas jurisdictions. I recently spoke to a UK citizen who is a fully qualified electrician but has now been forced to retrain because his UK qualifications weren't fully accepted here.”
“While I agree that the skills shortage is a major barrier to new construction, the problem runs much deeper than the recent decline in apprenticeship commencements. According to Jobs and Skills Australia, our construction sector is in a persistent shortage. The Master Builders association estimates that Australia will need half a million additional construction workers by 2029. If we assume a similar growth in apprenticeship completions over the next five years, we will barely make 20 per cent of this target. The industry already relies on migrant workers, and one in four were born overseas. So, if we're serious about addressing our shortage, we must lift skilled migration and do so urgently.”
“I rise to speak on this important motion moved by the Member for Wright. Last week, the Australian Financial Review reported that, at the current rate, every state in this country will fail to meet its housing target, with my state of New South Wales amongst the furthest behind. This comes as median house prices hit record highs across every major city. In Sydney, the median price has reached $1.7 million—19 times the median full-time salary. In 2003, John Howard famously said that he didn't have people stopping him in the street to complain that house prices had gone up—well, I do. It's clear we've reached a tipping point with fewer and fewer young Australians believing homeownership is within their reach. As the member for Wright highlights, enabling pathways into trades and apprenticeships is part of the solution.”
“This is about making sure that, in a moment of trauma, people are met with help, not hurdles. We live in a country where the social safety net is a lifeline for millions. That net must be sturdy, it must be just and it must evolve when it falls short. This bill does not overhaul the system, but it does improve it. It strengthens the threads of our safety net. For those few Australians who will be directly impacted by the changes—victim-survivors, single parents, people in crisis—it could be the difference between despair and a path forward. That is why I support the bill, and I commend it to the House.”
“The changes in this bill right that wrong, and I commend the government for correcting it. I would also like to briefly acknowledge that I'm moving a small amendment to this bill that will focus on improving the family and domestic violence crisis payment. This is a payment designed for moments of real, urgent need, but too many people are missing out on it because they don't tick the right box or they find out too late that they're eligible for it or they're told that their temporary accommodation doesn't qualify as a home. My amendment would extend the claim period, broaden the definition of 'residence' and remove a redundant requirement that makes someone prove that they're establishing a new home. These are all changes aimed at making the payment more accessible, more compassionate and more fit for purpose.”