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 18 of 19.
“Similar admissions are present in the sections covering telcos and social media companies. Page 153 of the explanatory memorandum states that, under the SPF, 'there are unlikely to be significant additional costs for telecommunications providers who are compliant with current obligations'. The EM acknowledges that self-regulation has not worked, yet this bill will introduce minimal additional provisions on top of what these industries are already promising to implement. In perhaps the most overused quote, attributed to Charlie Munger, 'Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.' This bill will not change the outcome, because it does not change the incentive. My amendments are pretty simple. I've spoken to bank CEOs on this topic, and they don't have a problem with it either. They say: 'Publish scam data.”
“I acknowledge that the companies are investing. I acknowledge that the companies hate to see these scams as well. There's no sense of bad faith, but I think the truth is that they have not done enough and I don't believe this bill drives them to do enough yet. The impact statement of the explanatory memorandum states that the regulatory cost between the SPF and the status quo is an initial investment of $100 million and ongoing investments of $31 million. However, the impact analysis estimates that 70 per cent of this cost is already accounted for by non-affiliated banks, with the four major banks expected to increase their funding by only $6.2 million on initial investments. This is despite ASIC finding that the scam strategy and governance of the four major banks is less mature than expected.”
“(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the information must: (a) be in the form required by the SPF rules; and (b) contain the details required by the SPF rules. (4) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision. Note: This means subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision of an SPF principle for the purposes of section 58FJ (about civil penalties). As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, I'm extremely doubtful that the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 will be enough to incentivise businesses, including banks, telcos and social media companies, to properly address scams. I believe they will do as they have done, trusting the process to be delayed and slowed down and requiring individuals to pursue these actions in lengthy procedures over months and years. They can win the war by attrition.”
“(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (after line 4), after section 58BG, insert: 58BGA Publishing information about scams detected, reported and responded to — civil penalty provision (1) A regulated entity for a regulated sector contravenes this subsection if the entity fails to publish the following information on a publicly available website: (a) the prevention, detection and disruption of scams over the last 3 month period (the reporting period ); (b) the response to scams over the last 3 month period (the reporting period ); (c) reports relating to scams over the last 3 month period (the reporting period ); within the period provided under subsection (2) and in accordance with the requirements under subsection (3). (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the period is within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 24), after the paragraph beginning "The entity must keep" in section 58BC, insert: The entity must publish information about scams detected, reported and responded to.”
“In conclusion, this bill will substantially improve the external dispute resolution processes from a virtually non-existent baseline, so I will support it on that basis. But the assertion that this will make a really significant difference in terms of reducing scams and scam losses, drive meaningful levels of investment and, ultimately, better protect consumers is, in my mind, highly questionable. This legislation ignores the calls from a consortium of consumer groups, instead taking a pragmatic and, ultimately, soft approach to implement a modest improvement over what we already have.”
“The government should include this in the primary legislation. That is something that the government can do right now to protect our consumers. I'm still flabbergasted that, at this stage, they haven't. I also welcome the amendments made by the member for Warringah, which will go some way toward reducing the information asymmetry that currently exists. Under this amendment, which the government has agreed to implement, regulated entities will need to provide certification of obligations within a set timeframe of scam complaint or face civil penalties. I will be closely scrutinising the certification process as it emerges through the regulation to ensure that it is robust and meaningful. These amendments should be minimum requirements.”
“Let's make scam prevention a point of competitive tension in the system, rather than a tick-box exercise. While I will trust the regulation to appropriately determine exactly what metrics are reported by each sector, I believe that this can be explicitly included in the regulation. I want to come back to this: what can the country do to fight against scams? One thing that the country and this parliament can do to fight against scams is make sure that consumers are armed with the best information they can possibly have when choosing where to put their money. It's about knowing which banks are doing a good job to fight scams and which banks need to pull up their socks. That allows consumers to make informed choices when they are faced with organised crime that is driving scams and making it so hard for consumers themselves to detect scams.”
“Australians have given up faith on this. That is why I will be moving an amendment to this bill that will seek the publication of scam data—including information about scams detected, responded to and reported—from all regulated entities on a quarterly basis. This model is currently used by the Payment Systems Regulator in the United Kingdom, where institution-level data on banks is published, and there is no suggestion that publishing this data has had unintended consequences. The explanatory memorandum outlines that industry self-regulation is occurring in some sectors, but not at a pace consistent with growth in scam activity. Let's let Australian consumers make informed decisions about who is best placed to look after their money and who is actually protecting them best against scams.”
“The evidence emerging from the UK, despite the arguments over data, is that the scheme is working. I would have liked to have seen a stronger option modelled in the explanatory memorandum. Given that, this bill, in its current form, needs to be substantially strengthened. Principally, it needs to explicitly address the information asymmetry that exists between regulated entities and consumers and incentivise regulated entities to innovate and combat scams above and beyond what is simply required. I acknowledge the minister's offers and assurances that some of these requirements will be included in the codes, but I'm not entirely convinced by the reasoning for why these cannot exist in the primary legislation. I believe that this bill leaves too much to the regulations and operates too much on faith.”
“Australian corporations, particularly banks, are investing a lot in relation to scams. I acknowledge this, but it is clearly inadequate. Instead, this bill will give corporations a basic set of minimum standards, which will be quickly surpassed by scam innovation, to allow them to demonstrate to consumers that they have met their obligations. So banks will say they've met their obligations, and consumers are still going to get scammed. The impact analysis of this legislation is also missing any consideration of a UK style reimbursement model. While I hold reasonable reservations about a complete reimbursement model, I think that this bill has completely failed to even consider stronger options and compromises, such as those brought forward by a coalition of consumer groups, including a presumption of reimbursement.”
“We're bringing in the social media companies, and we're bringing the telcos in. This is great.' I accept that, and I support that. But, again, let's look at the impact of this work. On page 153 of the explanatory memorandum, it states: Under Option 2— that is, the Scams Prevention Framework— there are unlikely to be significant additional costs for telecommunications providers who are compliant with current obligations. So it's basically saying that they're not going to have to do anything really different if they're compliant with current obligations. In that case, what is the bill actually going to do? The EM acknowledges that self-regulation has not yet worked, yet this bill will introduce minimal additional provisions on top of what these industries are already proposing to implement.”
“If the banks were doing such a great job of this already, why has the account payee verification technology, which was being introduced last year and will be introduced this year, been in Europe since 2017? Why have Australians been so slow to get the benefit of that technology? Because the banks have not had enough incentive to do something about it. This code is a great thing, but the truth is that the banks know more about how to improve their technology to fight scams than the regulators know, and the banks need very strong incentives to really be imaginative, be innovative and fight scams. I do not believe that this bill has enough incentives in there; I think this bill is just another catch-up bill. I know that the bill and the government have been clear in saying: 'Look, it's great.”
“This isn't about consumers being silly or consumers falling for really silly tricks—for which, frankly, we all need to have 'buyer beware'. This is about organised crime targeting Australian consumers, using the most effective and sophisticated technology, constantly evolving and constantly getting better at targeting and getting money out of Australian consumers through scams, and the banks are not doing enough to fight this. Australia is one of the countries with the highest amount of per capita losses from scams. The banks here are not doing enough, and I am just not convinced that this bill creates that incentive strongly enough for the banks, where almost all the money has to go through, to be really racing to the top. It's important to come back to the point that I raised before.”
“That's just six per cent. Ongoing costs would be a measly $1 million and just one additional FTE, according to the EM. This is despite ASIC finding that the scam strategy and the governance of the four major banks was less mature than expected. Let's come back to the first point that I raised. Australians are losing $2.7 billion every year on scams, and that is the stuff that we know about. Under this bill, banks will be expected to make a net contribution of $100 million in implementing the scams framework. While $100 million is a lot of money, $2.7 billion lost every single year is a vast amount of money for Australian consumers. The point that I continually hear and I continually want to make is that this isn't about consumers being negligent.”
“That's eight years now that people in Europe have been protected against these scams, while Australian banks have been dragging their feet. This is the concern that I have—that this bill does not sufficiently drive at the incentives in the banks and in the different actors to really stamp out the scams. It just brings them up to a minimum standard, which they can constantly try and pull back on. However, the impact statement of the explanatory memorandum states that the regulatory cost between the SPF and the status quo is an initial investment of $100 million and an ongoing investment of $31 million. However, the impact analysis estimates that 70 per cent of this cost is accounted for by non-affiliated banks, with the four major banks expected to increase their funding by only $6.2 million in initial investments.”
“There are measures that we can put in place to create a race-to-the-top approach, which is actually required, instead of implementing a floor. The evidence of this is buried in the impact analysis by the explanatory memorandum. This analysis states that the legislation will have minimum impact on the organisations above what is already being achieved under industry-specific policies, such as the Safe Scams Accord. The Safe Scams Accord was implemented in 2023, with the greatest contribution being the inclusion of the Australian Financial Crimes Exchange, the AFCX, which allows organisations to share the details of scam activity and pay verification accounts. The pay verification will be rolled out through 2024 and 2025. This is fantastic, except that this technology has been in place in Europe since 2017.”
“While this bill falls short in key areas, I do agree that it will support a substantially better external dispute resolution approach than exists currently. Having gone through this with my constituent, I found it extremely difficult to understand what avenues are open, and I am pleased to see that this bill will create a single front door for scams. I acknowledge that this bill will provide clear guidance for how AFCA will be able to deal with and assess scam cases. But the bill is not enough, because, ultimately, I think it fails to create incentive schemes that will force those with most visibility and resources to tackle these problems at their source. This legislation, as the government seeks to pass it, will not fundamentally address the information asymmetry that exists between banks and their consumers.”
“I cannot vote against a bill that creates a better framework for external dispute resolution in place, but I hold serious doubts about the impact this bill will have on scam losses, prevention and detection without amendment. That's because the bill focuses on inputs rather than outputs. This bill will enable the Treasurer to designate economic sectors to be subject to legislation and make enforceable scam prevention codes. It will require regulated entities to take reasonable steps to put in place governance arrangements that will help detect, prevent, report and disrupt scams. It will also introduce a substantial civil penalties regime to be enforced by the ACCC for regulated entities that do not meet these codes. This bill will create greater precautions on the telcos and, particularly, social media companies.”
“Does it remove the information asymmetry that would be able to demonstrate corporate negligence? Does it incentivise corporations to do their utmost to protect their customers against criminals trying to access the money, or does it create minimum standards that absolve companies of their responsibilities to their customers? While I am pleased that this bill will address the problems with external dispute resolution, I still believe there are significant weaknesses in the legislation that will undermine its effectiveness. We are operating on an article of faith in these codes that would take nearly two years to implement. It is just not good enough.”
“Testimony from consumer action groups include anecdotes of corporations dumping pages of legal documents on scam victims, days before the hearing, with the intention to overwhelm and befuddle. Meanwhile, the concurrent framework of external dispute resolution is a hodgepodge of interconnected regulators with large holes in their remits that ultimately serve to confuse, rather than help, victims of scams. It is through this lens that I review this bill. It may be that this bill has good intentions, that it assigns responsibility fairly across a scam ecosystem comprising banks, social media companies and telcos and that it creates rules and standards that are better than the status quo. But I want to know how it will work for people like my constituents. Does it offer them real opportunities for redress?”
“These are not just my words to describe it, these are the words of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, in testimony to the House Economics Committee last year. Currently, there is nowhere to turn. Internal dispute resolution within organisations is patchy and varied, and there's an obvious and problematic information asymmetry that prevents its consumers accessing information that might prove an organisation has been negligent. These companies are not incentivised or obligated to disclose information that might support my constituent that I was just talking about. Instead, they play hardball, disclosing information only under the threat of legal action.”
“Now he is under unimaginable stress, navigating regulators, local police and Interpol and receiving mental health support. This is the experience of a growing number of Australians. They are no longer those obvious scams that I used to warn my mum about, I'll be honest. It is a case of everyday Australians, savvy Australians, people who know what they are doing and who are really thoughtful about trying to guard against scams, losing vast sums of money—home deposits, their life saving—through complex and sophisticated, organised crimes. It's not simple; this is organised crime. It is incredibly sophisticated. The things that people are trying to guard against in their normal, everyday life, the things that we've been warned against—those basic checks that we can make are just not cutting it anymore.”
“According to the explanatory memorandum for the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, four per cent of Australians were impacted by scams last year—that's nearly one-in-25 people. When you talk to members of the community, it feels like many more. The combined total of the losses we know about reached $2.7 billion—enough money to fund the government's changes to HECS and HELP indexation this year. These numbers are so hard to grapple with because they're so large—until it becomes personal. A young man recently contacted my electorate office, having fallen victim to an investment scam that cost him nearly $200,000. He's a bright, young guy, trying to build a future, who had worked hard and saved—and just like that, it was gone.”
“Australia has every religion, we have so many different languages spoken at home and we are welcoming of people of different sexualities and genders. This is the country that we're trying to protect, and I really question whether people trying to promote hatred in different groups in our community should go unfettered. I think there should be guardrails around this, and that is why I am seeking support from the parliament on this. Finally, in our country we will often disagree vehemently. We will disagree over conflicts overseas. We're a multicultural nation and we will always have people on different sides of any conflict, but I do see that my community is unified in the sense that they do not stand for hate and intimidation of others based on their religion, sexuality, ethnic background or ability status.”
“Or should we also be considering what happens to vulnerable communities when people are promoting and really intending to increase hatred against a group and there is little recourse that these individuals have—certainly not under the criminal code? That is a real challenge and a real question. Australia has always had some appropriate restrictions on free speech. Defamation law is one of them. You can't defame somebody. There are all sorts of things. There are appropriate guardrails around this, and I think we need to be really clear on this. I value our incredibly diverse community of people from all parts of the world. Fifty per cent of our country either was born overseas or had a parent born overseas. My family is half-half—half born here; half born overseas—when it comes to my parents.”
“The amendments I have put forward are designed to stop the promotion of hatred and the promotion of harassment—the people who are out there promoting it. To be convicted of this, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is our highest evidentiary proof, that you had the intention to promote hatred in the community. That is a really high bar, and I genuinely believe it is appropriately so. When people ask me about the concerns about free speech, which I acknowledge, I say, 'Look, do we want people who are intending to promote hatred?' That is their goal. Is that something that we should be protecting without any guardrails?”
“It's these sections—sections 77 and 78 from chapter 11 of the WA Criminal Code—that are actually the inspiration for my amendment. The provisions in the WA Criminal Code have not resulted in the curtailing of free speech in WA. They have not led to censorship. But they have put behind bars people who would seek to stoke hatred. In 2011 a Western Australian man, Brendon O'Connell, was found guilty under the new section 77 of harassing a young Jewish man in 2009. But, to demonstrate the law's necessary limitations, there are also precedents where these sections have been rejected in instances of minor offensive slurs, because that is not the intention. I want to talk about this point a bit further because this is really critical.”
“I'm also suggesting in the amendment that the term 'intersex status' be replaced with 'sex characteristics' to better reflect the preference of the LGBTIQ community and the direction of not only various state laws but also international human rights recommendations. I acknowledge that this is a really difficult area to legislate, and I am not naive to the challenges. People are rightly concerned about the protection of freedom of speech in such a robust and flourishing democracy as we have here, and so am I. But let me make some reassurances. This amendment will not remove your right to speak freely or to protest. How do we have some certainty around this? The amendment is based on legislation that has been in WA for the last 20 years. In fact the Western Australian crimes act has had a similar offence for the last 21 years.”
“Our federal law is inadequate and our state and racial vilification acts represent a hodgepodge of overlapping legislation that creates different classes of offences and different standards of proof depending on where you reside in Australia. In the internet age, when state borders are irrelevant to the flow of information, this just isn't going to cut it. Legal and human rights organisations have acknowledged that we have a gaping hole in our legal framework, and I and many others believe it's time for a nationally consistent approach. That is why I am moving an amendment to this bill that will create a new offence of serious vilification and promotion of hatred, and I urge this parliament to support my amendment.”
“People with Disability Australia expressed disappointment that 'this bill does not criminalise serious forms of vilification perpetrated against targeted groups, as originally intended'. For these communities and others, the amendments the government has put forward are positive, but they do not go to the heart of hate, the promotion of hate and the impact that it has on our society. They make illegal only the most extreme acts—if, indeed, they can ever be proven beyond reasonable doubt—but do nothing against the tidal wave of hatred, abuse and harassment that people in our community are subjected to daily. Incidents that make them feel insecure, unsafe and unwelcome in their own home, in their own country, and in the place they were born. Enough is enough.”
“But we should be listening more carefully when the people and groups that this legislation is designed to protect continue to protest its inadequacy. This was amply highlighted by the submissions to the Senate inquiry. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry highlighted in their submission that despite gradual changes over time to the Criminal Code: … there remains an environment of relative impunity with respect to the promotion, advocacy or glorification of racial and religious hatred and violence … Equality Australia and Rainbow Families, representing the LGBTQIA+ community, stated that, in addition to protections against targeted threats of violence, federal regulation needs to 'hold hate to account and prevent it spreading'.”
“In 2023, an online sermon called for the final solution in relation to the Jews, echoing the words of Hitler. These acts have a very human element to the people who they're targeted towards, and demonstrate a clear gap in our legal framework. As the director of security at ASIO, Mike Burgess, repeatedly said: words matter. Let me move on to the changes and their deficiencies. Within this context it is commendable that legislation has been brought forward by the government. The current bill will modestly improve the existing federal Crimes Act by lowering the fault element for existing offences from intent to recklessness, as well as by introducing a new offence for threatening force or violence.”
“They're the result of the festering hatred and animosity that is first allowed to germinate in dark corners of the internet and chat rooms, gradually manifesting in speeches, gestures and placards, until it ultimately spews out onto the streets in acts of violence. It is the cumulative impact of insidious, vitriolic statements, slogans and expressions that have absolutely nothing to do with robust debate, the exchange of ideas or the scrutiny of power. Let me give you some examples. In March 2023, protesters at an anti-trans rally held signs calling to destroy 'paedo freaks'. The royal commission into disability outlined instances of people's photos being posted online for the purpose of drawing vile comments and public humiliation.”
“Striking such a balance is no trivial issue. But today, overseas conflicts, polarising political debates and leaders, and tough economic conditions, mixed in with the apparently anonymous impunity of the internet and social media, have created an environment in which hate and division are festering. Australia's social cohesion is showing not only cracks but also chasms. While we have strict criminal laws against things like destruction of property and vandalism, and the perpetrators behind these crimes are being pursued by law enforcement, these incidents are not random. They're not isolated.”
“They don't understand why they can't go on excursions anymore, why they're not playing sport with others, or why they're being told not to wear the school uniform in certain public places.' This is absolutely tragic. I am proud the parliament unified against yesterday to say that we condemn this antisemitism, but we need to collectively be taking strong action. This legislation is part of the strong action that we need to take, as well as stronger sentencing, stronger policing, education and making sure those who have perpetrated these crimes are actually prosecuted. Let me come to the legislation. Whether we like it or not, the community is looking to us as lawmakers to draw a clear line in the sand. Australia has, for many decades, struggled with balancing freedom of speech and the protection of safety and civil liberties.”
“In one forum very recently, two students talked about their experience of antisemitism in the streets of my community. They were walking down the street. Someone saw that they had Jewish school uniforms. The car slowed down and did a heil Hitler sign and swore about the Jewish people. That's what the kids in my community are dealing with, and it is absolutely shocking. The day before yesterday I spoke to a friend of mine whose kids are a similar age—young primary school kids—and he said: 'It's getting really hard. We're trying to shield our kids from the antisemitism, but they don't understand why there are police constantly outside the schools, or why the guards have increased.”
“Finally, I've worked very closely with the Australian Union of Jewish Students to put pressure specifically on university vice-chancellors to stamp out antisemitism at the university. I was doing that work before 7 October with my colleagues the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Josh Burns and Julian Leeser. This work is ongoing and absolutely critical. It's a huge part of what I do in parliament, and that is because I'm really concerned about the rise in antisemitism. I was concerned before 7 October. And I can see the impact on my community every single day. This impact isn't just the violent occurrences. I've run student forums every single term and invite students from all my schools together. I always have two students from all my schools together to talk about issues.”
“One has been advocating for and seeing the success of $8.5 million given to the Sydney Jewish Museum, because that is a critical facility for educating people in this space. I have invited every single high school in my electorate to come together to talk about antisemitism and hear the testimonies of the Jewish schools about what they're doing and feeling and how we can better make sure the whole community and the young people in it are standing up against antisemitism. I also think a critical part has been around community cohesion. We have invited all the faith leaders of Wentworth together to talk about the mutual problems and challenges faced by faith leaders and to share some of those challenges with each other and build that community.”
“I'm calling to make sure that the laws are right. I called for, and we've successfully delivered in this parliament, strong anti-doxxing laws and the outlawing of Nazi symbols and gestures. I helped make sure security services are right both by ensuring we deliver tens of millions of dollars of enhanced security for the Jewish community and also by making sure that the policing is coordinated. I was calling for a national approach to policing, which the government announced before Christmas, and I meet every single week with Strike Force Pearl in Sydney, as well as with my local police, to understand what is happening in terms of policing and make sure the policing is right for the community that I'm facing. We've also been pushing to make sure that education is right. There are two elements.”
“A woman spoke to me recently, saying she was meant to be going overseas for a wedding—a very important, personal reason—but she was very afraid to leave her adult daughter at home because of what was happening. It is overwhelming. This is not an Australia I recognise. Yesterday, I was very proud to put forward and get support from the entire parliament in the House and the Senate on a motion that unanimously acknowledged the insidious rise of antisemitism in Australia and condemned it unequivocally. I think that is absolutely critical. This is why, to be honest, I have been working hard in the parliament and in my community—to make a real difference on antisemitism. Some of the things I've been focused on include, firstly, getting the right people there. I'm lobbying very hard and delivering Australia's first antisemitism envoy.”
“I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 but also to seek this parliament's support in passing my amendments to address some of the remaining deficiencies in the act. In recent weeks and months, my community of Wentworth has witnessed a horrifying increase in antisemitic incidences. These violent and destructive attacks have targeted houses, vehicles, places of worship and even a childcare centre. Almost daily, the Jewish community is being violently targeted by criminals. These attacks target Jewish Australians, but they have frightened my whole community; my whole community is frightened. People in Wentworth have been forced to install additional security cameras, dread going away or leaving their kids home alone and now live in a community patrolled 24/7 by police helicopters.”
“I commend the work of groups like Movember, who over many years has raised awareness about men's health issues and done incredible work to address them. I fully support Movember in this work. The mental health challenges facing our community have only been made worse by the mass resignation of public health psychiatrists in New South Wales, where I'm from. This is likely to cause a serious disruption in the care of some of the most vulnerable people in our community and is the result of a failure over many months to resolve workforce issues in the New South Wales mental health system. I urge the New South Wales government to urgently find a solution to ensure that appropriate care is given to— (T ime expired)”
“Australia is facing a mental health crisis, and young men are on the frontline. Two-thirds of men face challenges engaging with health care, 45 per cent drop out of therapy with unmet mental health needs and more than 2,400 men died by suicide in 2023, making it the leading cause of death among young men. Behind every heartbreaking statistic is someone's dad, someone's brother, someone's son or someone's colleague at work. These are people that I hear from almost every week, desperately seeking help in emergency departments, waiting for months to see a psychologist or having increasingly fraught encounters with police, where issues aren't treated and things get out of hand. These are people who are falling through the cracks in our mental health system, and we need to do more to help them.”
“I wonder if we could better achieve these goals and reduce attrition challenges by providing more targeted measures for marginal cohorts and using the others to improve the pay and conditions of the jobs that these trainees ultimately participate in. The truth is that I don't know the answer to these questions because we don't yet have the data, but, without the evidence, I find it really difficult to support a piece of legislation that is not urgent. But, hey, there's an election soon, so I guess that explains the urgency.”
“I understand that free TAFE shows a commitment to addressing the skills shortages, supporting disadvantaged cohorts and boosting economic participation. I don't disagree with the intentions of the bill, and I believe that I could support a policy that looks to deliver free TAFE, but I do not understand the urgency to push this through right now. The current scheme is not expiring, and we do not yet have the data, at least in the public domain, nor has there been a proper review to make an informed decision about the outcomes of this bill and whether it is value for money for the outcomes we are seeking.”
“The data on the scheme is a point of contention. I know completions is a blunt measure, but I am concerned that we do not yet have the information currently to put it into a permanent scheme. Again, anecdotally, because the data is so poor, I understand that the attrition in the sector is driven by poor quality pay and conditions in jobs and apprenticeships that graduates participate in. I note that there is a review underway on this issue, with apprenticeships covering the topic of attrition and declining completions in apprenticeships. Given that all of these are interconnected, I think it would have been prudent to wait for the final report, or, even better, we could have commissioned a review of fee-free TAFE.”
“The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations website currently states that the government and the states have partnered to deliver over $1.5 billion worth of funding for 500,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places over 2023 to 2026. The current program expires in 2026, with a new scheme to take effect in January 2027. While I acknowledge the government wants to provide certainty to the sector, two years notice is not the standard notice in government given to the sector historically over other substantial pieces of legislation. Just a few months ago, the government was arguing for changes to international students, with less than six months notice for the universities to implement that timeframe. Two years notice seems luxurious in comparison, so I don't buy that this is the underlying reason.”
“Free TAFE might be a good initiative—it might be—but it is expensive and, if it is not addressing the root causes, then perhaps the money could be better deployed. So my question really is: do we need to commit to this policy right now, when the current policy doesn't expire for another two years, and when we don't have the data or the information to consider whether it should be permanently implemented. I do worry, I'll be honest, that this bill is politics over policy, signing up a future government to a commitment that looks good for an election now. The purpose of this bill is to provide for ongoing financial support to the states and territories for the delivery of free TAFE and vocational education and training places to ensure that people continue and complete their degrees.”
“Anecdotally, I've also heard, for example, that the ability to access free TAFE is helping students, particularly those from disadvantaged cohorts that may not otherwise be able to skill and train, and I think that is really important. However, the impact appears to be at the margins, as we would expect. We know for the higher education system and poorly designed Job-ready Graduates scheme that fees play a smaller role than we might think in determining what profession people take up. I acknowledge that the VET and higher education systems are different and that fees really do impact individual courses, but I think there are broader reasons why these industries are in shortage that are not addressed by this bill, and perhaps they should be.”