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 9 of 19.
“But, more importantly, this moment reflects decades of advocacy from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, elders and organisations who have fought tirelessly for their children and for future generations. I want to particularly acknowledge the SNAICC, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, which has been advocating for this legislation which recognises the rights of Aboriginal children since 1991. Their persistence and leadership have been instrumental in bringing us to this point. It has taken us too long, but it is important that we're here now. Our progress to close the gap is too slow. In fact, we often go backwards.”
“As Noel Pearson has said, our strength comes from three threads—our ancient Indigenous history, our British institutions and democracy, and our history of multicultural achievement. This commission sits at the intersection of those threads. It reflects our responsibility to ensure that our institutions serve and protect all Australians, including the youngest members of our First Nations people. While the commission has existed in some form since 2024 and has been operational since 2025, this legislation strengthens its independence, formalises its powers and functions and provides clarity about its long-term funding and authority. This bill also fulfils a commitment made by the government under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. It is a significant step forward, and I commend the government for bringing it forward.”
“I rise to speak in support of the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026. I'm honoured to speak on this legislation which places into statute the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People and establishes the national commissioner as an independent statutory officer. This is an important step. It is a step towards stronger accountability, stronger advocacy and, most importantly, better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people across the country. I commend, in particular, the minister—who's in the room—for the work that she and many other ministers have done to get to this point.”
“I could not be more proud that people like Ahmed Al Ahmed made a huge difference in people's lives by saving them, because he did not look at religion or anything else. He stood up for Australian values, and I am proud that he is part of this country. We have to be very careful how we lead this, because this is a special country. It is not easy to be this diverse, but we can do that. That means having a version of Australia that we can all buy into.”
“We are not going to get back to that cohesive Australian country that some would like us to get; we are going to be more divided than ever. I think it is up to us now, as a country, to build on that inclusive version of Australia and to accept that we have Australian values. We expect people to live by the rule of law. We expect people to live by our Australian values, but those Australian values encompass the view that your safety and your acceptance are not dependent on your ethnicity, your sexuality or your religion. It is down to you and your contribution to this country. As I said, as a child of a migrant, I couldn't be more proud to be part of this country. I couldn't be more proud of my mother's contribution to this country as a migrant. The member for Kennedy referenced Bondi.”
“I think we just have to keep coming back to the individuals rather than to blanket groups who try and other and dehumanise parts of our community. I think we need to build a modern version of the Australian story, because we have this Gallipoli myth about who we were back in 1914. We are a very different nation from then and, frankly, a much greater nation from then. To see the world, you don't need to travel the world; you can actually experience the world here in Australia. I think that is a wonderful thing and is something that I enjoy enormously. I see a version of Australia which represents the breadth, the depth and the diversity of our country and can unite around inclusivity rather than hark back to a past which excludes a whole bunch of Australians. If you exclude a whole bunch of Australians, you know what?”
“It comes down to you in terms of your responsibility and in terms of your character. That is what this country is based on: the moral authority of the individual. That is something that we have to focus on when having these sorts of conversations, because there is an implication—I'm not going to make assumptions about what is deliberate and what is not, but I look at the people who are watching this debate today, and I think of the people at home. Every Australian who is in this country, who is willing to live by our values, who commits to the words of our citizenship pledge, which I'm delighted often to hear said by people—those people deserve our respect, and they deserve our support, and we can learn and thrive from their difference as well as the contribution that they make to Australia.”
“But I really want to talk about integration, because what we say about this in this House does matter. I feel very strongly about this, particularly as an incredibly proud daughter of a migrant—my mum's family. The reason why I think this is really important is that we have a country that is one of the most diverse in history, and that is a remarkable thing. I don't think it's easy to have a country as diverse as this country is. I think we need to take that responsibility carefully. Part of that responsibility is treating people with the dignity of the individual, which is actually a deeply Western value. It's a deeply liberal democratic value: you have a moral authority based on you as a human. Your moral authority and your role in life don't depend on your ethnicity, your ethnic origin, your religion, your sexuality or anything else.”
“We're here to talk about migration and integration. I'm going to focus mainly on integration because I think that is the urgent point in terms of the discussion today, given some of the earlier comments that have been made. But firstly, briefly on migration, I think it's perfectly appropriate for us to have a conversation about the levels of migration. They have concerned a lot of Australians, and a lot of Australians are legitimately worried about house prices, about young people being locked out of homes and about infrastructure not keeping up with our population—100 per cent very fair questions. There are also very fair questions in terms of what pathways are available to people and making sure that those pathways are appropriate. I think those are really important questions.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Australians are worried about inflation. There's been a lot of arguing in this House about whose fault it is, but the question I'm being asked is: what is the government actually going to do about it? Australians are scared by the prospect of interest rate hikes, they are scared by their bills going up and they feel that the cost-of-living relief doesn't actually get to the heart of the problem. So the question is back to you: what will the government do about it?”
“There are many benefits to workers, but there have been no assessments of the relative cost to productivity and how to find the right balance there. I think this is where, if the government is serious about productivity, it could go back to the PC and say, 'Assess IR on the basis not of ideology but of benefits to workers, costs to productivity and how we get the right balance.' It is an area where I do want to see the government, frankly, be more ambitious. Finally, it is about making sure that governments give quick answers to businesses, because agencies like the ATO and others take a long time to deliver answers. That is a problem for the government, for the productivity of businesses.”
“But it's been around six months now since the productivity roundtable, and we're no closer to having concrete measures of how the government is going to do this. I haven't seen any stronger incentives for the government, in putting in the system, to say, 'This is how we're going to make it easier for people to do business.' It has to translate into real-world action on the ground. There's a lot of goodwill. I believe there's a lot of desire to do the right thing, but there's got to be pressure and a drive that we haven't yet seen from the government to really make a difference in these areas. The government is also unwilling, it seems, to really, properly look at industrial relations reform. It has changed a lot of industrial relations in the last three years.”
“Then it really comes down to how we help the private sector and the non-market sector drive productivity over time. The problem with driving productivity is that it's not a fast turnaround. I respect that the government has done some important work on things like the nuisance tariffs, the passing of the environmental laws and construction codes. Those are all useful things that the government has done. But it takes time to move productivity along. Again, that means going faster and harder and recognising that these benefits will take time. This is an area where the government has said it will step up, in reforming regulations and measuring effectiveness in terms of regulatory burdens on business.”
“For instance, the EV fringe benefits tax is an area where I think we should be pulling back, because there are cheaper ways of lowering carbon in our economy than through that tax. Then the other question is: how do we make better outcomes with every dollar that we spend in the public sector? This is where the government has been very slow to move on using, for instance, AI and automation to better deliver public services. It took them 3½ years to give us an AI plan, which I've read, and it is not very good on the detail. Frankly, this is the opportunity to deliver better outcomes for the community without putting more pressure on government spending. I think this is the area where the government really needs to be much, much, much more ambitious.”
“We need to have a set of rules that basically say, 'You can't grow government spending faster than the long-term growth rate of the economy.' Then it is about the difficult choices in pulling back government spending and making sure that, for every dollar we spend, we're actually getting the best possible outcome. A big area I see this in is infrastructure spending. The government has a pipeline of more than $100 billion, with $32 billion overspent at the moment because of the confluence of public-sector and private-sector demand. Frankly, a whole bunch of those projects don't even have a strong business case to back them in the first place. I'm someone who has really significantly backed climate change policies, but they have to be done on a lowest-cost basis.”
“But the truth is that where we are right now is not where we need to be. Spending needs to be addressed in its own right on the basis that it has grown far too fast. It's now at 26.9 per cent, which is the highest percentage of GDP for many years outside of the pandemic. That public sector spending is not consistent with a strong private growth economy given the current issues with productivity in the economy. So what can we do on spending? First is bringing in those fiscal rules and reinvigorating the Charter of Budget Honesty, which has been ridden roughshod over by both the major parties for a time.”
“Australians really saw with a heavy heart the increase in interest rates last week and the increase in inflation in the past couple of months. This is of real concern to all Australians. The big question is: what do we do about it? I'm making the argument that we need to have stronger action on spending restraint. The government needs to step up on this. But, long term, we also need much more powerful action on productivity reforms if we are going to permanently address what we are seeing right now, which is that, if the economy starts to speed up, inflation will pick up and then the interest rates will have to go up again. There was a bit of a debate between the major parties last week on whose plans were worse for the economy and under whose circumstances spending would go up more. Everybody is partly right.”
“I move: That this House: (1) notes that the: (a) Consumer Price Index rose 3.8 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025, up from a 3.4 per cent rise in the 12 months to November 2025; (b) Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) warned last year that the Australian economy could not sustainably grow faster than 2 per cent without running into inflationary pressure; (c) RBA has downgraded Australia's medium term productivity growth forecasts to just 0.7 per cent, per year; and (d) Government undertook an economic reform roundtable with progress made on areas including nuisance tariffs and environmental approvals; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) introduce stronger impact assessments, scrutiny and executive accountability for identifying and discontinuing costly and ineffective regulation; (b) rein-in Government spending, reinstate fiscal rules, reform the Charter of Budget Honesty and make ministers and departments more accountable for blowouts in budget measures; (c) identify how technology and artificial intelligence can support better provision of public services and government effectiveness; and (d) recalibrate Australia's patchwork of climate and industry policies to a framework that transitions the economy at the lowest cost.”
“Again, I think seeing how other countries in the world do this and doing this much more effectively are ways that this can be strengthened, and I think those should be clearer objectives of the sector to really drive those connections.”
“I am thinking particularly of two aspects of that. One is better preparing our young people for work by driving that connection between business and universities and the working world—not just business but also the non-market sector—because when our students go into the world of work, which is increasingly competitive and where we are seeing young people struggling to get on that first rung on the ladder, we need to do the best we possibly can so that they are well prepared. That, I think, supports that connection. The other part of deepening those connections that I think is really critical is ensuring that the wonderful research of our tertiary institutions, which in many cases is absolutely world-leading, is then translated into productivity and innovation outcomes in industry and the wider economy.”
“I support the amendment put forward by the member for Berowra in relation to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. I think the point that the member just made is a fair one. The objectives of the body should reflect what ordinary people see as the role of universities. I think they are pretty well reflected in ways that I think most people would understand. I think that is appropriate. I don't think it's in conflict with anything that the government is seeking to achieve, but I think it is adding to it in a useful and constructive way. A point that I added—and I'm grateful to the member for being open to the addition—was particularly around the linkages between business and industry and universities. I think that this is a part of the tertiary sector more broadly that can be much, much better.”
“They deal with many of the design flaws that I have highlighted in my speech. I think the government should look carefully at these amendments, and I think this is an example of where strengthening our democracy is strengthened by broadening participation in the contest of ideas. This bill could be strengthened. I believe this bill should be strengthened, because we do need a university system that opens doors, not closes them, and a system that fuels ambitions, not burden. We do need a system that ensures every Australian, regardless of background, can experience the transformative period of discovery, independence and learning that so many of us in the House remember so well. But we have a lot of work to do here, and we need this commission, if established, to be as strong and robust as possible.”
“If the commission is to provide meaningful advice on sustainability and fairness in higher education funding, it's got to go beyond just looking at the government funding for higher education and also consider the full picture, which includes the impact of student contributions and debt on access and opportunity. These are not simply minor design questions. They go to the heart of whether the commission can do the job it is being asked to do, which I do believe is important. At the same time, the sector has waited a long time for clearer stewardship, and many accord reforms depend on having a body like this in place. I support the accord, and I support the principle of an ATEC. However, I support the amendments put forward by Kate Chaney, Monique Ryan and Julian Leeser. They strengthen this bill.”
“If the commission is to identify emerging risks, warn when funding settings are failing and think deeply about the future of tertiary education, it really should have the ability and capacity to initiate work within its remit and publish its findings independently. Secondly, as to resourcing, on paper the commission is independent, but in practice its staff will largely be drawn from the Department of Education. The danger is that, instead of building new capability, we risk rebadging existing resources and adding administration without actually adding capacity. Finally, as to remit, the accord was highly critical of the Job-ready Graduates Package and called for a more coherent and equitable student contribution system. Many expected ATEC to play a central role in that reform.”
“A national steward able to take a long-term view of the system can help ensure that policy is guided by evidence rather than by short-term pressures. But, for that promise to be realised, the design of the commission matters. If we do establish this commission, this has to lead to change. It has to lead to long-term, evidence based change. I do have some really significant concerns that the current design of the commission means that the ability to achieve the changes that Australians want is compromised. Firstly, as to independence, the accord envisaged a body capable of providing robust, evidence based advice, yet, under this bill, the commission can generally only provide advice or publish reports when asked by the minister. It must also take into account ministerial priorities in performing its functions.”
“We want a system that harnesses emerging technologies to deliver excellence in teaching and learning, one that innovates to be the best in the world and one that supports Australians to upskill and reskill throughout their lives and recognises that a three-year degree is no longer a set-and-forget approach to education but that this is an ongoing dialogue. Finally, we want a system that delivers a rewarding and enriching experience for students, because students still need to be at the heart of our universities and, in many cases, students do not feel that, and the evidence bears this out. Establishing the Australian Tertiary Education Commission is an important step towards that coherence and towards accountability.”
“It found that tertiary policy had lacked clarity and long-term stewardship. I agree wholeheartedly. Australia needs a more coherent and innovative tertiary system—one that allows students to move easily between vocational education and university and to have prior learning recognised, one that builds strong partnerships with industry to translate research into real-world outcomes, and one that partners very strongly with business and employers to make sure not just that our students are learning the foundation skills to enable them to think critically but also that they are equipped, when they join the workforce, with some practical skills and the skills that the business community and the wider community are saying are in demand.”
“I know that, having spoken to many students and families in my electorate, this is a real concern to students and their families—that the great experiences that many of us had in the 1990s and earlier in the 2000s are not being replicated by the current university system, and, particularly, that connection that so many of us got from our colleagues and classmates in universities is not being replicated in the current university sector. These issues feed into, more broadly, issues in terms of productivity and social mobility. They go beyond just education. If we want a dynamic, innovative and cohesive society, we must ensure that learning and opportunity remains within reach, remains relevant and remains engaging for our young people. The universities accord was frank in its diagnosis.”
“It has equipped generations of Australians with the skills to strengthen our economy, enrich our community and deepen our democracy. Yet, for many young Australians today, that promise feels increasingly fragile. Student debt is rising and opportunity can feel more distant. Around three million Australians carry student debt, with the average balance exceeding $27,000. In many disciplines, student contributions have risen sharply over time, leaving graduates with debts that can shape life choices for years, from where they live to whether they start a family or buy a home. The student experience has also changed very significantly, particularly after COVID.”
“As our fourth-largest export, it is a driver of national prosperity today and the foundation for tomorrow. It underpins economic growth, social mobility and research capability, and it strengthens our democracy through critical thinking and civic participation. My community cares deeply about access to high-quality education and a system that is sustainable, future focused, fair and accessible to all. One in 13 Wentworth residents are currently enrolled in tertiary study, and around 70 per cent of our community hold a tertiary education—one of the highest rates in the country. But we must ask ourselves whether the system is still delivering on the promise that higher education has long represented in Australia. For decades our tertiary system has opened doors.”
“I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. Many in this House will have wonderful memories from their time at university—a time of discovery, of independence and of learning not only about the world but also about ourselves. For many Australians, it is the first time they are away from home, the first time they encounter ideas that challenge them and the first time they start to imagine the contribution they might make to our country. That sense of possibility is what our higher education system should offer every Australian—the opportunity to learn, to grow and to build a future. Higher education is vital to Australia's future.”
“Phoebe Cridland becomes the first ever Winter Olympian from SCEGGS in Darlinghurst. This is a huge achievement, and I know the entire SCEGGS community will be backing her this time. Finally, Ally Hickman, one of the youngest members of the Australian team at just 16, is competing in snowboard, slopestyle and big air. While Ally narrowly missed progressing to the final after heats this morning, I'm sure we'll be seeing much more of her. Each of these athletes reflects the dedication, discipline and determination that leads to every Olympic moment. They carry not only the Australian colours but also the pride of their families, coaches, schools and communities. Congratulations to all the athletes from Wentworth and all the athletes competing for our country in these games.”
“The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina have well and truly kicked off, and I'm incredibly proud to see several athletes from Wentworth competing for Australia on the slopes and the ice. Even more exciting is that all of them are making their Olympic debut. First, double congratulations to Jason Chan and Holly Harris, representing Australia in ice dance. Having come agonisingly close to selection for Beijing 2022, the perseverance and dedication they have shown since first competing together has been rewarded with their selection this time. Emma Bosco will be representing Australia in two events at these games: moguls and dual moguls. After returning from a serious knee injury in 2020, Emma has consistently improved with each international outing, demonstrating remarkable resilience.”
“With government predicting deficits for the next 10 years, the generation who will pay for it are the generation who are coming—that generation where they have fewer workers compared to the working-age population, where they are already more indebted when they finish university and education, and where housing is more out of reach. We should not be burdening them with investments that do not benefit the public.”
“The Productivity Commission has already outlined clear guardrails for modern industry policy. We should be following them. With deficits forecast for a decade and households under pressure from inflation and interest rates, every dollar needs to be tested. Does it expand productive capacity? Does it unlock innovation, or does it entrench unproductive investment? This is a cost-of-living relief government has to be focused on. The cost-of-living relief will only come from improving productivity and, really, effectively, supply-side changes. Undisciplined spending today only makes Australians worse off tomorrow. And, again, who pays for it?”
“When businesses believe that their competitive advantage is not innovation or productivity but their ability to secure government cheques, capital shifts away from doing what it does best, which is allocate efficiently to opportunities. Government capital, where it is trying to solve market failure, should be directed to those areas in which the private market otherwise wouldn't invest or wouldn't invest at the scale of the opportunity. And this is where we want private capital and public capital really to work in concert, but only where it's actually going to make a real difference. We do not want the private sector moving away from investment in R&D, electrification, digitisation and capacity building into how it can more effectively lobby in Canberra. That weakens productivity and distorts the economy.”
“There is a role for government in industry policy, but it has to be extremely disciplined, targeted at genuine market failures like climate change, where the market is not already operating effectively, and opportunities for technology spillovers that build national capacity. I am concerned, and not just about the price of Tim Tams. I'm concerned that discipline is slipping. I have competitive businesses and sectors coming to my doors and asking for money. Someone this week said to me: 'Allegra, other sectors are getting money. We employ people too. Why aren't we getting any?' That is of extreme concern to me.”
“Arnott's has not been Australian owned since 1997 and has been owned by US private equity firm KKR since 2019. So what are taxpayers actually getting? It seems that, since the 2019 KKR leveraged acquisition, Australians are actually paying 60 per cent more for homegrown Tim Tams. 'Timflation' is outpacing the consumer price index threefold. The NRF says that investment will expand production, but the funds merely refinance existing debt tied to past investment. But the terms of the deal have not been released, so scrutiny is limited. This is part of a broader pattern that does concern me: questionable investments across specialist investment vehicles, unknown contingent liabilities under the Capacity Investment Scheme and increasing industrial bailouts such as Whyalla and Tomago.”
“But the question I ask, particularly in the economic times that we have right now, is whether these funds are actually doing what they were sold to do—filling funding gaps, crowding in private capital, addressing market failure and building sovereign capability that would not otherwise be built by the private sector. And, when I look at recent decisions, I struggle to see it. Take Arnott's. The National Reconstruction Fund contributed $45 million to a $1.75 billion refinancing. There was no obvious funding gap. Government provided less than three per cent, and the rest came from private markets on commercial terms. The deal was oversubscribed, suggesting public funds actually crowded out private capital rather than attracting it. Market failure? It's hard to identify. Arnott's has operated successfully since 1865. Supporting Australia?”
“I'm in the House to talk about something a bit unusual, something I never thought I would be talking about in the House, which is one of my favourite biscuits: Tim Tam. But I do want to explain why that is relevant and, I think, extremely relevant to the business of the House. The government has established a host of specialist investment vehicles to direct public funds into priority areas, like renewable energy, housing, agriculture and exports. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund was established in 2023 to diversify and transform Australian industry.”
“Industry stakeholders I've spoken with welcome the much-needed regulatory certainty this bill will give and interpret it as an important signal that the government is shifting its posture to being pro-industry and pro-innovation. Digital assets have the potential to become a valuable and innovative sector of the Australian economy, and I'm glad to see the groundwork laid for its continued growth. For these reasons, I support the bill. Sitting suspended from 13:27 to 16 : 11”
“Specifically, it is critical to consider schemes that will fall outside the financial services regulatory framework that this bill provides. For example, operators that directly issue speculative tokens to the public as part of so-called 'pump and dump' schemes do not hold client assets, so they would not be covered by this regulation, while still posing a risk to the unassuming buyer. I encourage the government not to set and forget this legislation but rather to continue to work to foster the growth of the digital assets sector in Australia while mitigating potential harms to consumers. These will evolve and our regulatory environment should evolve with it.”
“That said, there are opportunities for the government to do more to foster the innovation and growth of our digital asset sector. One way would be to grant ASIC the power to recognise digital currency regulatory arrangements of foreign countries, like the UK and US, as being equivalent to ours. This would open a huge door to those markets for Australian digital currency exchanges and coin issuers. It will also significantly improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of digital currency transactions in and out of Australia. Finally, while I acknowledge it is outside the scope of this piece of legislation, I also urge the government to continue to focus closely on how it can best protect Australians from the potential harms of digital currencies.”
“This framework is well regarded and is well understood, and it allows us to apply the principle of 'same risk, same regulation' to new technologies and products like digital currencies. My electorate of Wentworth is home to many of these firms and the business leaders who are spearheading the growth of Australia's digital asset sector. These are legitimate and innovative financial firms who want the industry to be properly regulated so that Australian businesses like them can clearly distinguish themselves from less scrupulous operators who risk undermining public confidence in the industry. In a time when many of our tech entrepreneurs and innovators are looking overseas for better growth opportunities, we need to give them every reason to stay. Giving regulatory certainty is an important step in the right direction.”
“Consumers want to be confident that they are reasonably protected from harm, regardless of whether the financial product they invest in is traditional or digital. I support this bill because I think it is an important forward step on all these fronts. Digital innovation is also a critical driver of productivity growth. This is a puzzle that Australia is struggling to solve, but it is essential if we are to ensure our economy continues to grow and our living standards continue to rise. Bringing digital asset platforms under the existing Australian financial services licence, AFSL, framework is a sensible way to regulate this emerging industry in a way that fosters growth without government getting in the way.”
“The Tech Council of Australia estimates that, with the right regulatory and policy settings, digital assets could contribute $60 billion per year to Australia's GDP. The digital assets sector is also paving the way to modernising our financial infrastructure, and it has the potential to strengthen Australia's competitiveness as a technological and financial hub in the region. As technology changes, our regulation needs to be nimble to keep up. Our regulation should not get in the way of progress but, rather, create the appropriate guardrails to seize new opportunities. Credible firms, and firms that are trying to do the right thing, just want to know the rules they play by. Investors want confidence in the platforms on which they are buying and selling cryptocurrencies.”
“Actually, one of the major criticisms—probably the biggest criticism—I have of this bill is the time that it has taken us to get here, because I think the need for this bill has been urgent and one that I've been pushing for since the previous parliament. This bill amends the Corporations Act and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to create a regulatory framework for digital asset platforms and cryptocurrency exchanges. It defines digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms as financial products and ensures these platforms are regulated according to Australian financial services law. This regulatory clarity will be a significant enabler of Australia's burgeoning digital assets industry.”
“I rise in support of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. Millions of Australians interact with digital assets in some form, as developers, as investors and as users. As this form of payment technology becomes more ubiquitous, it will become part of the lives of many more of us. But, until now, anyone buying or selling digital assets in Australia has done so in a regulatory grey zone that has offered little protection for users and a lack of certainty for legitimate digital asset platforms. This bill is a critical step towards addressing this lack of regulatory clarity, and it comes not a moment too soon.”
“It reflects the trust that we have in our healthcare workforce, supports better patient outcomes and helps build a more flexible and sustainable healthcare system for the future. For these reasons, I support the bill.”
“They want to feel safe, they want to feel in good hands when they go to a GP service or to any of our hospital or healthcare services, but they also want to make sure that our nurses, who we respect and whose care we value, get to work to the full extent of their practice. Let's be honest. There are a couple of other things. For those people who might be nervous about this bill, it expands the scope of practice, but it does have strong safeguards. Only appropriately qualified nurse prescribers will be authorised, and there will continue to be oversight to ensure prescribing is safe, appropriate and accountable. This reform will not solve every challenge facing our healthcare system, but it is a practical and necessary step in the right direction.”