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 8 of 19.
“So, while I accept that this bill has good intentions, I accept that there is some scope for this bill to create unintended consequences, and I think this is the piece that is really important for the government to measure, keep pursuing and keep an eye on. If it does have these unintended consequences then the government will have to swiftly act to change this. It will take time to implement, but this is important in assessing the effectiveness of this bill. But I would like to talk to the broader cumulative impact of some of the super reforms that have been put forward in this place over the past few years. Superannuation policy constantly grapples with balancing consumer protections for a relatively disengaged cohort of Australians and the important point of driving competition.”
“But, as the FSC points out, the explanatory memorandum outlines that showing stapled products requires collecting information from the ATO commissioner, which adds an administrative barrier to finding stapled products. Currently, onboarding platforms are able to use third-party verification services to find stapled products through fund information rather than the ATO. This process is often faster, but can admittedly be less reliable. The FSC is concerned that making the ATO the single source of truth will result in administrative delays that mean, in effect, only default funds will be shown under these exemptions. This, I believe, is not the intention of the bill.”
“If we put a blanket ban on the advertising of products when onboarding, there is one less opportunity for consumers to assess their current fund and adjust their choices if necessary. In response to this feedback from industry, the government has made certain exemptions to a blanket ban. For example, in the minister's second reading, he advised that advertising would be permitted if the advertised product was (1) the employees stapled product as confirmed by the ATO, (2) the employer's default product or (3) a MySuper product that meets certain requirements, including passing the annual performance test. These are sensible changes and the legislation requires advertising of new products to be accompanied by information about current stapled products to highlight the benefits or lack of benefit in switching products.”
“Obviously, we don't want this to be used as an opportunity for employers to cross-sell conflicted products, but a blanket ban, as was originally canvassed, is not a viable option, because the obvious beneficiaries of a blanket ban are default funds. It is estimated that about 60 per cent of Australian super fund members are invested through a default super fund option that was selected by their employer—often their first employer. But, even if these funds were a good option at the time, there is no guarantee that performance is sustained. In 2022, ASIC reported that nine of these default products were failing the performance test, which impacted about 800,000 members according to Morningstar.”
“Without the ability to advertise new products, incumbents can become easily entrenched, and, without constant competitive pressures, performance and consumer outcomes can weaken. While many Australians are disengaged with super, we should not simply take this as an accepted fact. The start of a new job could be an important opportunity for Australians to re-evaluate their retirement savings options. To the extent that we can, we should be encouraging Australians to be engaged. Actually, it is an area where I think it would be appropriate to be spending government money in terms of advertising—perhaps much more so than other government funded advertising campaigns. Advertising, more broadly, has a role to play in this.”
“The intent of this schedule is therefore not without cause. We know that many Australians are generally disengaged with their superannuation—perhaps even more so than usual at the point of starting a new and exciting career opportunity. When clicking through the often lengthy onboarding processes, many of us will take the path of least resistance. The tendency can and has been exploited. But some in the industry and I are concerned that this legislation will have unintended consequences that, in fact, lessen competition in the sector—not strengthen it. Advertising may have certain negative connotations in today's highly commercialised environment, but the ability to advertise is an important mechanism for new products to break into markets and to disrupt the landscape.”
“Duplication of superannuation products costs Australian workers millions each year—with more than four million Australians holding more than one superannuation account. The more that we can do to minimise unnecessary and unintended duplication is a positive step forward. Schedule 2 puts a ban on advertising superannuation products during the employee onboarding process subject to certain exemptions. This change has come about after a series of cases in which employers were found to be directing new hires towards underperforming financial products to which the employer had a relationship. Perhaps the most high-profile case of this was MYOB, who was accused in 2023 of directing employees towards an underperforming high-fee fund with the option to stick with their existing fund buried in the fine print.”
“Similarly, I note that schedule 6 increases the rebate claimable by wine producers from wine equalisation tax in an effort to provide additional support to Australia's wine industry, and I support these measures. But schedules 1 and 2 are the most consequential changes and the ones for which this bill gets its name. Schedule 1 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to allow an employer to request information about an employee's stapled superannuation fund from the ATO if the employee has not selected a product during onboarding. This is an important change that will make it a little bit easier for employers to act in the best interest of their employees by identifying their stapled superannuation product rather than creating duplicated funds when a default is not provided as part of the ongoing onboarding process.”
“This bill has seven schedules. While I will not go through each schedule in detail, I note that, on balance, there are positive measures held within the bill, but I also note it is quite inappropriate to include some of these schedules as one bill, because they are not the same thing. It means it makes it difficult to support some bits and not other parts. I'm pleased to see schedule 5 lists six new deductible gift recipients, including in particular some organisations that I've worked with—in some cases, I even supported their DGR status—including Equality Australia, the Great Synagogue Foundation and the Parenthood Project. This represents important recognition for these organisations and for the philanthropic work that they do.”
“I move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) affirms the objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way; (2) notes that: (a) while advertising of superannuation products has led to poor outcomes in some circumstances, advertising does and should continue to play an important role in fostering competition and driving innovation among superfunds; (b) while Australians are often disengaged with their superannuation fund, efforts to legislate additional consumer protections in response to this disengagement can unintentionally weaken competition between funds; and (c) any weakening in the competitive pressures on superfunds to maximise net returns for customers also has a hidden cost to the retirement balances of account holders; and (3) calls on the Government to acknowledge this policy tension and commit to reviewing this and other legislative measures for the individual and cumulative impact on fund incentives and performance".”
“I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. While I will not oppose this bill, I want to raise concerns I have with schedule 2 of this bill, which could result in less, not more, choice in superannuation products. Reduced competition in superannuation has a hidden cost for all Australians, and we need to be alive to these risks when making what we may think on the surface seems like a no-regrets change—and there are other issues we have had in, for instance, making things like the performance test. Some of those changes we have made in those areas have ended up reducing choice or reducing dynamism in the super industry. We need to be much more alive to unintended consequences, which is why I have a second reading amendment to this bill.”
“on indulgence—I'm regularly told by members of the public that the behaviour in this chamber is out of step with what modern Australia expects. People often tell me that, if they behaved like we do in their workplaces, their schools and their community centres, they would be thrown out or suspended. I know we are all genuinely concerned about social cohesion. As a country, we disagree passionately about many issues and, as politicians, we keep on asking everyone to have a robust debate but with respect. People are sick of politicians saying, 'Do as I say but not as I do.' If as a parliament we expect this from our country, then we must lead by example and start by doing it here.”
“For that reason, I support the bill, but I continue to offer this challenge to the government of this day and those of future days: we set up these statutory authorities, and they are important, but, if we do not listen and implement their recommendations, then we are literally just doing something that feels good but ultimately makes no difference in the end. That will be the proof of the success of this and whether it makes a difference to Defence families and veterans' families, as it should. It is the implementation that really matters, and that is up to this government and every government after it.”
“For the Defence community of Wentworth and for communities across Australia, this reform matters deeply. It reflects years of advocacy, the courage of those who came forward in the royal commission and the collective determination to do better. To those who did so—I thank you. After decades of inquiries and too many lives lost, we cannot afford to fall short again. This bill lays the foundation for stronger oversight, greater accountability and, ultimately, better support for our veterans and serving members.”
“However, the effectiveness of this new structure will depend not only on the legislation itself but on the commitment of government and agencies to work with it in good faith. Independence must be matched by cooperation. The minister, Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs must be prepared to engage openly with the commissioner and to act on recommendations. Without that, even the strongest statutory framework will struggle to deliver the change that is needed. We cannot allow this commission to become yet another body whose recommendations sit on shelves. Its purpose is to ensure that reform is implemented, that failures are addressed and that the wellbeing of those who serve, and those who have served, our country is placed at the centre of policy and practice.”
“The commissioner will be able to publish reports and provide advice to the minister, and those reports will be tabled in parliament. This ensures transparency and keeps the parliament and the public informed about progress and ongoing challenges. It also creates the expectation that government agencies will respond to findings and recommendations in a timely and constructive manner. Finally, the bill includes transitional and consequential provisions to ensure continuity. Existing functions and inquiries will transfer to the new statutory commission without disruption. This will allow the new body to begin work with momentum and clarity. Taken together, these elements create a stronger and more independent oversight architecture than has existed previously.”
“Without the ability to access information and investigate systemic issues thoroughly, the commission would risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. Properly exercised, these powers will allow the commissioner to identify failures, monitor progress and drive meaningful change across the defence ecosystem. Fourth, the bill includes protections for those who provide information to the commissioner. This is one of the most important elements of the legislation. Many veterans and serving members carry difficult experiences and may feel vulnerable speaking out. Clear legal protections and strong confidentiality provisions are essential to ensuring that people can provide evidence without fear of reprisal or harm to their careers, reputations or wellbeing. Fifth, the bill establishes reporting and accountability mechanisms.”
“These include monitoring systemic issues affecting the wellbeing of serving members and veterans, reviewing the implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and providing independent advice to government. The commissioner will also be empowered to engage directly with veterans, families and communities and to bring lived experience to policy for reform. This ensures that the voices of those most affected remain central to the reform process. Thirdly, the bill provides the commissioner with strong inquiry and information-gathering powers. The commissioner will be able to initiate own-motion inquiries, conduct reviews at the request of the minister and compel the production of documents and information where necessary. These powers are critical.”
“Behind every statistic is a life lost, a family grieving and a community changed forever. This bill represents an important step forward to breaking that cycle. I now turn to the bill. Firstly, the bill establishes the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission and the commissioner as a standalone statutory entity. This is significant because it moves the role out of existing defence legislation and into its own framework, reinforcing its independence and ensuring that it operates with clear authority and accountability to parliament. A statutory footing sends a strong signal that this role is permanent, independent and central to long-term reform. Secondly, the bill sets out the core functions of the commissioner.”
“It also ensures that strong protections are in place for those providing information to the commissioner. That is essential. If we're serious about understanding what has gone wrong and how to fix it, people must feel safe to speak openly. The need for this reform cannot be overstated. Over the past 30 years, more than 50 inquiries into defence and veteran suicide have generated over 700 recommendations. Yet, too often, those recommendations have not been fully implemented. None of the previous inquiries have produced adequate or effective results, in part because successive governments have failed to act decisively on the advice of experts. Today we are living with the consequences of that failure. The incidence of suicide and severe mental health challenges among current and former Defence personnel remain an ongoing national tragedy.”
“They were clear that this was, for them and for many people, the most important recommendation coming out of the royal commission and that any oversight body must sit independently both from the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs if it is to command trust and deliver meaningful change. Independence is not a technical detail. It is fundamental to the success of this reform. For too long, veterans and serving members have been asked to provide evidence and lived experience into systems they didn't fully trust. Creating a commissioner that sits separately from Defence and Veterans' Affairs helps reduce that burden. It provides greater confidence that inquiries will be conducted without fear or favour and that those who come forward will be heard and protected.”
“Following the release of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide recommendations, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence in late 2024 alongside a number of my crossbench colleagues. In that letter we called on the government to adopt recommendation 122 of the royal commission as a priority, which recommended the establishment of a new, independent statutory entity to oversee system reform across the entire defence ecosystem. We made that call because we'd heard directly from veterans, from families and from stakeholders in our own communities, including people very specifically in Wentworth, where we had conversations with a number of veterans about this very issue.”
“I welcome the opportunity to support to speak in support of this Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025. I'm privileged to represent a large and deeply engaged Defence Force community in Wentworth. Our electorate is home to veterans from many conflicts and many, many decades of service. They are a community defined by courage, professionalism and sacrifice. They have served our country with bravery and integrity, and they deserve nothing less than our full support in return. But pride in their service sets a very real expectation that this parliament will stand behind them not just with words but in action. After countless reports, inquiries and reviews into the wellbeing of service members and veterans, that expectation has never been more justified.”
“The number of people in my community who have come into my office and told me stories of their experience—they are people you would look at and never know what they have been through and what their families have been through. We all know people who have lived through this violence. We teach our kids to recognise the warning signs. We talk about prevention and early intervention. Yet still the violence continues. If we are serious about ending this crisis, we must empower the institutions responsible for addressing it. This cannot be solved with silos or through slow, fragmented reform or yet another royal commission. It requires urgency, coordination and accountability. The evidence is in front of us. The recommendations are on the table.”
“This would map and track all Commonwealth plans affecting victims-survivors of domestic and family violence, including the rapid review response, the Closing the Gap agreement and the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. It would require regular dashboard updating to cabinet and ensure that addressing domestic and family violence is treated as a whole-of-government priority, not confined to one portfolio. The report also calls for strengthening the powers of the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission and establishing it as a statutory authority. This would give the commission the ability to compel agencies to provide data and information, improve transparency and ensure that implementation and funding decisions are properly monitored. Every one of us reads the news and feels the weight of these stories.”
“But the pace of progress does not match the urgency of the problem. What we have is a patchwork of recommendations and commitments, spread across multiple plans and portfolios, often without clear timelines, accountability or consistent reporting. The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's 2025 report provides a practical way forward. It recommends that the Commonwealth establish a dedicated implementation and delivery oversight mechanism to drive action and ensure that commitments are actually delivered. It doesn't sound complicated. It sounds like the sort of thing that might already be in place, but it's not. I think that this is really critical to making sure that we deliver on the commitments that have been made to people.”
“Australia is facing a national crisis in domestic and family violence. Intimate partner homicide rates are rising, not falling. In 2023-24, 46 women were killed by a current or former partner. That is one woman every eight days. One in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15. These are not just statistics. These are lives cut short, families shattered and communities left grieving. And the most confronting reality is this: the numbers are not improving; they are getting worse. We can see this crisis clearly. We do not need more evidence to tell us it exists. What we need is faster, more coordinated action. The government has taken some important first steps, including commissioning major reviews and agreeing to a national cabinet response and funding package in 2024.”
“When you do reviews and these parliamentary inquiries, how do we get everyday people, not just people with vested interests, to engage in these things? There are innovative ways to do this online. We have never actually had a world where it would be easier for us to engage the community and citizens in these things. This really comes back to the final point: trust matters. The strength of the Australian democracy, of our economy, of our institutions, depends on trust. It is eroding, and there are ways that we can deal with it. It is about transparency, accountability, institutions, delivery and community, and it is time this government took those properly into account.”
“Audrey Tang, a person who has really driven enormous change in trust in Taiwan, said: We recovered from the trust crisis not by asking people to trust the government, but by encouraging public services to trust the people. And that comes down to community. Who are you asking? Who are you engaging? How is government listening and responding to the concerns of the community? Are there different and exciting ways that people around the world are doing this? Citizens' assemblies—a recent poll found that actually almost 50 per cent of Australians are open to citizens' assemblies to deal with possibly difficult issues. Maybe, at a certain level, if you have enough people—in some countries, if you have enough people to sign a petition, the government has to respond. That is, I think, a way that government can be accountable.”
“Access to institutions, the courts and those other institutions, should be free and fast. Only 42 per cent of Administrative Review Tribunal cases are resolved within 12 months. That's not a strength of institution, that is not justice delivered and that doesn't build trust. Deal with that. Fourth is delivering, because, ultimately, people trust people who do what they say they're going to do, and that applies to governments as well. We haven't seen quality or accountability from governments in the delivery of better outcomes for people. Make sure that people feel like the services that they're paying for are actually delivering better results; that will ultimately build trust. Finally, I'm going to talk about community.”
“They contradicted ministers publicly about some of their interpretations or their work. They were brave because they were there to represent the public. Now public servants have become more the servants of the government as opposed to the servants of the people. How could you increase the transparency and openness of public servants to criticise, to share the information that they're putting forward to government? Again, you would build trust. If you can handle a criticism, you build trust. Australians really recognise this. In terms of competition in the parliament, make sure you have the rules that allow competition. Instead, last year the Labor government with the coalition passed rules to make it harder for Independents and minor parties to be successful in elections. That doesn't build trust; take those back.”
“Right now, we can't even get this government to be accountable to the things that it sets up. When there are big issues, sometimes people ask for reports by committee inquiries. The government has commissioned tens of these committee inquiries. It has responded so far to four committee inquiries within six months, which is what it's meant to do. It has 55 reports that are outstanding beyond the six-month mark. That is where the government could build trust—by building accountability. Third is institutions, and that is not only about building the strength of our parliament and ensuring competition in our parliament but also about making sure that people have trust in other institutions such as our courts and the Public Service. For a time, particularly when I was growing up, public servants were seen as providing frank and fearless advice.”
“If you want to build accountability, if you want to build trust then start by answering the questions and take them further. Be accountable to the weaknesses and the strengths of the things that you have brought in and recommended. Make sure that your projects are assessed. Before policies are put forward, give some KPIs, give some costings and then, three years later or however long it takes, come back, assess the project and the policy against its KPIs and its costings. That's what you do in business. That's about building accountability for the outcomes that you said you're going to achieve. If government is clear on what it's going to achieve and not afraid of assessing whether or not it has actually achieved that in a policy, then we will have better public debate. And frankly, I believe we will have better policies.”
“Instead, what we have in this government at the moment is that FOI requests disclosed in full have plummeted from 59 per cent in 2011 to just 21 per cent in 2023 and 2024, and refusals have doubled. First, change the attitude, change the FOI rules, change the laws around ministerial diaries and lobbyists, and go for radical transparency to build trust with the Australian people. Second is accountability. One of the things that I have said from the very start is: answer people's questions. That's what people expect from you. During question time, we spend over an hour every single day that parliament sits feeling like we are watching the government—in the main, not in all situations—skirt around questions through the cover of relevance, even though they're not answering a question, which sometimes is as simple as yes or no.”
“I was speaking to a former leader in one of the states of this country and they said to me that actually releasing ministerial diaries made them aware of how much lobbying was going on by a particular group on a particular issue. We could make sure there's much more transparency about who's sponsoring lobbyists. Those are some of the things that could be really important. But I think it really goes to an attitudinal shift in transparency, perhaps like Audrey Tang in Taiwan, who I will quote a number of times in this debate. In Taiwan they have really pushed for radical transparency. I believe I'd be very excited to have a government where so much of what government does is released—where it's released by the rule rather than the exception.”
“Particularly, it makes that choice through things like the FOI restrictions that are currently placed on the release of documents. So my question is: how can we build transparency so that, as a member of parliament and, frankly, as a citizen you have access to what is going on in government? You can understand what recommendations are being made and what opportunities are being considered. People say that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I believe strongly that if you can increase transparency you can increase trust in government. There are things that the government and parts of this country do already—things like releasing ministerial diaries so that people don't feel that perhaps government are meeting with lobbyists more than they're meeting with citizens.”
“There are five key areas that I believe we must work on to increase trust in our government and our institutions. These are around (1) transparency, (2) accountability, (3) strengthening our institutions, (4) delivering what we said we would and, finally, (5) the community and how they can be put back in the heart of government. Let me start with transparency. One of the things that surprised me, coming into parliament, was that the Public Service, or the work they do in the departments, was not accessible to me as a member of the House of Representatives. I'd thought that I would be able to talk to departmental people and see all the reports they write for the government. But no, because the Public Service is there to serve the government, and the government chooses what it releases and what it doesn't.”
“The Prime Minister, early in his term, said that he did want to improve trust in government. He said, 'I don't expect to make Australians fall in love with question time, but I do want more people to have greater faith in the integrity of our parliament and its representatives.' That's a laudable aim, but my concern is that the government, particularly the Prime Minister, is not taking the steps required to build the trust that we need in institutions. I could use the next eight minutes and a half to have a go at the Prime Minister. But what I'm trying to do, and more interested in doing first, is outlining where I believe that trust can be built—how we can build back. We can complain about the government of the day, or we can actually try to lead by showing where we should develop these areas.”
“I'd like to talk today about trust and how to build it, particularly trust in government. The ANU Australian Election Study recently found that only one in three Australians believe that people in government can be trusted to do the right thing. That is damning for all of us and something we desperately need to address. Also we're increasingly seeing a majority of Australians having a moderate or high grievance against government, business or the rich. And 64 per cent of Australians worry that government leaders purposely mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations. Finally, only 17 per cent believe that the next generation will be better off. We in this building should be worried about all these statistics. We do have a problem.”
“We must ensure that, when independent bodies provide evidence and recommendations, governments respond in a timely and meaningful way. I therefore urge the government to commit to clear timelines for responding to the commission's reports and inquiries, and to set out transparent implementation pathways for the recommendations that follow. This legislation lays foundations for stronger advocacy, stronger oversight and stronger outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and young people. Now we must ensure that this foundation is matched by action. For these reasons, I support the bills.”
“I draw the attention of particularly the government members in the House to the fact that more than 50 committee and inquiry reports across government that the government itself commissioned remain outstanding, without a response over six months. Only four were responded to within six months. That's not good enough, and it doesn't give me a great deal of hope, if we are setting up this new body that is going to report to government, that government is going to even respond to the recommendations, let alone act on them. If we are serious about accountability, which this body is seeking to be, the government must step up significantly in its efforts to respond appropriately and enact recommendations of various committee reports it receives as well as broader reports.”
“She has also said this can lead to inquiries and the ability for her as commissioner to make recommendations to parliament around these systems, with the data perspective and from the voices of the children. Listening to the voices of children is vital. It ensures that lived experience informs policy and that our institutions respond to what children and young people are experiencing on the ground. However, as I raised earlier, establishing the commission is only the first step. For this body to succeed, agencies must cooperate and the commission's findings must be acted upon. Its reports must not gather dust, and its recommendations must not sit unanswered.”
“Catherine Liddle, the CEO of SNAICC, has said: … the National Commissioner can finally serve as it was always intended—a true accountability mechanism to ensure governments follow through on their commitments to our children and families. She has also emphasised that this legislation gives the commissioner 'the independence, authority and statutory powers needed to drive accountability and systemic change'. The commissioner herself has highlighted the importance of listening directly to young people. She has said this will give her the ability to talk to kids, bringing their young voices into parliament to hear about the systemic injustices happening.”
“Finally, these bills provide clear accountability mechanisms. The commissioner will publish reports and provide advice to the minister, which must be tabled in parliament. This will help ensure transparency and maintain a clear line of sight between evidence, recommendations and government action. However, action must come from these reports and this advice. This commission is designed to support the delivery of the Closing the Gap commitments and align with Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children. In doing so, it will help ensure that the experiences and voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are not only heard but acted upon. Stakeholders have welcomed this reform.”
“The commissioner will promote and protect the rights, safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. The commissioner will provide strategic policy advice to government and support the implementation of key national frameworks, including Closing the Gap. The commission will identify systemic barriers and advocate for reform. It will be able to conduct research and inquiries, publish reports and engage directly with First Nations children, families and communities. Importantly, it will work to improve coordination across the Commonwealth, state and territory systems, which is essential if we are going to see genuine change. These bills also provide funding certainty, with $33.5 million allocated over four years from 2025-26 and ongoing funding thereafter.”
“If we are serious about closing the gap, we must be serious about supporting children from the earliest years of life. I share these statistics not to paint a hopeless picture but to underline how important the work of the commission will be and how much support and cooperation it must receive from governments and agencies across the country. This bill does several important things. First, it establishes the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People as a statutory agency and formally creates the national commissioner as a statutory office. This ensures independence, authority and long-term accountability within our system of government. Second, it sets out the commission's functions and powers.”
“We cannot ignore what they tell us about the systems that surround these children. Another key Closing the Gap commitment is target 4. By 2031, we aim to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children assessed as developmentally on track in all five domains of the Australian Early Development Census to 55 per cent. Nationally, in 2024, only 33.9 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children commencing school were assessed as developmentally on track across all five domains. This is a decrease from 35.2 per cent in 2018, which is the baseline year. Again, we are going backwards. Early childhood development is one of the strongest predictors of lifelong health, education and social outcomes.”
“I have long called for this to be raised, and I hope the state and territory governments will listen to recommendations made by this federal commissioner and their respective state and territory commissioners regarding this issue. Recently, Australia's human rights record was scrutinised by the Human Rights Council at the United Nations. There were serious concerns raised about our low age of criminal responsibility and rising incarceration rates. Our record was brought up countless times—specifically about the disproportionate impact on Indigenous populations. This is not good enough. Of course, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children grow up in strong, supportive and loving families and communities, but we cannot ignore these confronting statistics.”
“Data from the Australian Law Reform Commission tells us the engagement with the child protection system is itself a risk factor for later engagement with the juvenile justice system and adult incarceration. On that point, target 11, which aims to reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in detention by at least 30 per cent, is also going backwards. There has been no improvement from the baseline. The latest data from 2023-24 shows the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people aged 10 to 17 in detention on an average day is 26.1 per 10,000 young people. This is higher than the previous four years. Currently, the minimum age of criminal responsibility in six states and territories is 10.”
“At the time of the 1997 B ringing them home report into the stolen generations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children represented one in every five children living in out-of-home care. Today, that figure is closer to one in three. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 5.6 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be subject to a child protection notification and 10.8 times more likely to be in out-of-home care or subject to a third-party parental-responsibility order. The Family Matters 2025 report found that we're still far from achieving target 12 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which aims for a 45 per cent reduction in the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care by 2031.”