Nicolette Boele
Bradfield · Independent · Australia
“For the last 25 years, even though we've had national laws to protect the places we love, our environment has continued to deteriorate. Experts say that's because our key environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is all about following processes and not about achieving outcomes.”
“They're full of vague, non-binding language and they're all about process. To be clear, there are some good things in the draft standards, such as requirements to have community engagement plans and strengthened water protections.”
“Thorough consultation can help mitigate problems such as these so they do not arise, and the changes proposed by my amendment would ensure that reforms are considered systematically and holistically and that they are informed by lived experience.”
“The Ku-ring-gai arts community has received some devastating news in the last few weeks. First, we learnt that the Marian Street Theatre redevelopment in Killara had been terminated by council. After nearly 100 years, it was shut down in 2013 due to age and safety issues.”
“Shortly thereafter we heard the equally devastating news that the property holding the much beloved independent Roseville Cinema, a community icon since the 1930s, is going to be sold. A judge has ordered that the building be sold to pay off the debts incurred by the owners.”
“As responsibilities across the disability ecosystem shift across jurisdictions, it is more important than ever that thorough, meaningful consultation is undertaken to understand and to avoid unintended consequences.”
The complete record
Every one of 345 lines we hold for Nicolette Boele, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 7.
“They're full of vague, non-binding language and they're all about process. To be clear, there are some good things in the draft standards, such as requirements to have community engagement plans and strengthened water protections. But when it comes to preventing the most important things, like habitat destruction and degradation, they fall short. What we need are science based limits on these drivers of extinction, because koalas don't care whether companies and bureaucrats follow the right processes; they care about whether their trees are cut down. Environmental laws should do what they say on the tin: protect the environment. I call on the government to strengthen the standards before tabling them in parliament.”
“For the last 25 years, even though we've had national laws to protect the places we love, our environment has continued to deteriorate. Experts say that's because our key environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is all about following processes and not about achieving outcomes. Last year, the government passed major reforms to try and fix this problem. The linchpin of the new law is a set of rules called the national environmental standards. These standards are supposed to set clear, enforceable limits on decision-making to prevent environmental harm and improve outcomes for our threatened species, our forests, our rivers, our wetlands and our oceans, so it's disappointing that the draft standards do not set clear outcomes for the environment.”
“Ku-ring-gai Council has signalled a federal contribution would make it more viable for council to step in and make sure that the Marian Street Theatre continues, and the government could also help ensure that the Roseville Cinema, our independent Roseville cinema, is not demolished, even if the building is sold, by guaranteeing that the cinema would secure public financial support. A strong arts scene is critical to a thriving, connected community. The government can act now to write in a plot twist if you like and change the ending of this story delivering a strong art scene for a community that's so desperately wants and deserves it. Thank you.”
“We should be doing everything we can to ensure that this doesn't happen. It's critical that we recognise and preserve cultural heritage. To ensure that there is adequate arts infrastructure for our growing communities on the North Shore, we have to work harder. These two examples, the Marian Street Theatre and the independent Roseville Cinema, are clear cases where, rather than building new infrastructure from scratch, we can step in now and preserve and revitalise the spaces that already exist. Here's where the federal government can help.”
“Shortly thereafter we heard the equally devastating news that the property holding the much beloved independent Roseville Cinema, a community icon since the 1930s, is going to be sold. A judge has ordered that the building be sold to pay off the debts incurred by the owners. This is a cinema that's been showing blockbusters and arthouse films to dedicated locals for almost 100 years, and it crawled through COVID without a cent of government support. Losing it now would be a tragedy to our local arts scene. These are two losses for our community in quick succession. These will impact current and future generations of Ku-ring-gai locals, who will now have to grow up in a community with less going on, a diminished cultural scene and fewer venues to bring people together and to create and connect.”
“The Ku-ring-gai arts community has received some devastating news in the last few weeks. First, we learnt that the Marian Street Theatre redevelopment in Killara had been terminated by council. After nearly 100 years, it was shut down in 2013 due to age and safety issues. There was always the intention to redevelop the theatre, and a great design was subsequently developed. The new precinct would have offered a multipurpose arts centre with two theatres, a rehearsal space, a community meeting space, a cafe, an exhibition space in the foyer and an outdoor amphitheatre. It would have been an incredible generational investment, but, after all that work and considerable costs borne by council in commissioning the design and obtaining development approval, the project ultimately proved too expensive for council to proceed alone.”
“My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Today marks 80 years since the US began nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. It's also 63 years since Britain last tested on Australian soil and 30 years since France last detonated bombs on French Polynesia. Our Pacific family is calling loudly and clearly for us to honour the legacy of the lives lost and damaged by disease and the environments destroyed, by committing to ban nuclear weapons. When will the government sign the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?”
“Thorough consultation can help mitigate problems such as these so they do not arise, and the changes proposed by my amendment would ensure that reforms are considered systematically and holistically and that they are informed by lived experience. These changes, if adopted and implemented, would strengthen the quality of decision-making, and they would build trust in a system that, for many people, currently feels opaque and unpredictable. They would build a social licence for a reform process that many feel has been, frankly, too rushed and exclusionary. If we're asking people to place their confidence in these significant changes to the NDIS, then we must legislate our commitment to including them in the process with openness, with respect and in a spirit of genuine partnership. I urge the government to support this amendment.”
“As responsibilities across the disability ecosystem shift across jurisdictions, it is more important than ever that thorough, meaningful consultation is undertaken to understand and to avoid unintended consequences. A related example is the New South Wales government's recent decision to potentially lock out small businesses from providing services under Thriving Kids, by limiting tenders to non-profit providers only. I've heard from many allied health and disability small businesses in Bradfield—people with deep connections to the local community and the vulnerable children they provide services to—who fear for the future of their businesses. Equally, parents are concerned about the continuity that these vital services provide for their children.”
“It would require the minister, before making rules regarding eligibility, assessment methodologies and support determinations, to publish an exposure draft and allow at least 28 days for public submissions. It would require genuine engagement during that period with people with disability, organisations representing the disability community and sector, and other relevant stakeholders. And, importantly, it would require transparency by mandating the publication of a summary of feedback received, along with the minister's response and a disability impact statement outlining how the proposed rules are expected to affect participants and prospective participants.”
“The independent NDIS review released in 2025 was clear in calling for deep and ongoing consultation on reforms with people with disability, their families, their carers, representative organisations and disability service providers and workers. While the new technical advisory group will undertake consultations when developing their expert advice, the legislation does not set out how comprehensive this consultation needs to be, and, although consultation is required with states and territories, there are minimal guarantees that this will involve the kind of deep consultation called for in the independent review. My amendment will give effect to the review's recommendation and aligns the bill more closely with the principle of inclusive co-design.”
“As this bill stands, critical aspects of the scheme, including eligibility criteria, functional capacity assessment, assessment methodologies and funding rules, are not set out in the primary legislation but left instead to future rules made by the minister. Those rules will determine who can access the NDIS, how their needs are assessed and what supports they ultimately receive. These are crucial considerations with serious implications for people's lives, and yet there is currently no minimum requirement in this bill for how people with disability are consulted before the rules are made. This is a serious gap.”
“(3) Before making rules to which this section applies, the Minister must publish: (a) a statement summarising the feedback received during the consultation period and the Minister's response to that feedback; and (b) a disability impact statement setting out the expected effect of the proposed rules on participants and prospective participants. I move this amendment to strengthen consultation requirements for the key National Disability Insurance Scheme rules. This amendment goes to a simple but fundamental principle that decisions about people with disability should not be made without them. It speaks to the profound truth contained in the slogan 'Nothing about us without us'.”
“(2) Before making rules to which this section applies, the Minister must: (a) publish an exposure draft of the proposed rules; and (b) allow a period of not less than 28 days beginning on the day the exposure draft is published (the consultation period ) during which persons may make submissions on the proposed rules; and (c) take reasonable steps to consult the following persons during the consultation period: (i) people with disability; (ii) organisations representing the disability community and disability sector, such as Disability Representative and Carer Organisations; (iii) any other persons the Minister considers appropriate.”
“I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 3, page 100 (after line 6), after Part 2, insert: Part 2A — Significant NDIS rules National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 13A After section 209D Insert: 209E Additional consultation requirements for certain National Disability Insurance Scheme rules (1) This section applies to National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of any of the following provisions: (a) a provision relating to functional capacity assessments or assessment methodologies; (b) a provision relating to eligibility criteria or early intervention requirements; (c) a provision relating to the determination of supports or the setting of funding levels.”
“This is something I wrote to the minister about in November last year. A New South Wales parliamentary inquiry backed this idea last month, and so did the Productivity Commission. Thrive by Five, the Parenthood and Early Childhood Australia are all calling for it. The commission would oversee national data and systems performance; drive consistent safety regulation, including a national working-for-children check; and manage government payments incentives. This commission could be established alongside the Deloitte project and existing investments in childcare capacity. I call on the government to keep the momentum going and work with the states and territories to establish a national commission now.”
“If you're in that position, hearing that a worker retention payment is lowering your cost of living or that the government is waiting for Deloitte to finish a report before they can increase the child care subsidy just doesn't hold up. When costly child care locks parents out of work, we lose valuable skills, and productivity slows. Businesses miss out on experienced employees, and our tax base shrinks. Paradoxically, this contributes to a glut of expensive childcare places in Bradfield that nobody's filling. So local planning that prioritises for-profit over non-profit providers, workforce shortages and high out-of-pocket fees mean supply and need just aren't lining up, and that points to a market in need of proper stewardship through a national early childhood education and care commission.”
“Or they've signed up, but the changes haven't improved their workforce shortages because, even with higher wages, workers simply can't afford to live and therefore work in the Bradfield electorate. Bradfield is one of the most expensive electorates in which to rent or buy a home and has some of the highest child care fees anywhere across the country. Constituents contact me regularly to say that, even if spots are available, they simply cannot find one that they can afford. For a lot of families, it comes down to one parent, usually the mum, deciding to work essentially for free once they take out the childcare gap fee or just not work at all. To repeat, that means all of one parent's income sometimes just goes to childcare.”
“All of this represents progress at a high level. I look forward to the government providing an update on this project delivery timeline. All of this represents progress. But in my electorate of Bradfield, things look a little bit different on the ground. Much loved non-profit and community providers are struggling to stay afloat, and some have already closed despite being at capacity with extensive waitlists. These centres have been squeezed between increasing fixed costs, such as rent and insurance, and the need to meet strict conditions around fee growth to receive the worker retention payment. At the same time, plenty of for-profit providers haven't signed up to the worker retention payment at all, so workers aren't benefiting from higher wages and Bradfield families are facing higher fees.”
“I commend the government for reforms made to date, including establishing a minimum entitlement to three days per week of subsidised care; safety reforms, including mandatory child safety training for educators; directly investing $1 billion in expanding childcare capacity; and improving childcare worker salaries to address systemic workforce shortages through the worker retention payment. I welcome, too, the government's decision to extend the worker retention payment to 30 June 2028 with another $3.6 billion behind it and by opening it up to more family day care and in-home care services. I acknowledge the work being done to work out what safe quality child care actually costs to deliver. This is an unglamorous but necessary task, and the government has commissioned Deloitte to undertake it.”
“This government has set affordable and high-quality child care as a key policy goal, and I fully support these efforts. Good child care involves our children getting the best possible start to life, our essential workers being supported and well paid, and more parents having the choice to re-enter the workforce. We know that good child care generates benefits well beyond the individual child and the family. It's often described as one of the highest return forms of public investment because it delivers social, educational and economic benefits simultaneously.”
“The team, which is made up of people from at least 15 cultural and ethnic backgrounds who are all representing Australia at the highest level on the world stage, makes it so clear how multiculturalism makes us stronger. People who choose to call Australia home share the same commitment to the principles contained in the citizenship pledge as Australians who were born here, a commitment to democracy, individual rights and liberties, and the rule of law. People from all around the world can contribute their unique, diverse cultural backgrounds, contribute to our great nation and share a commitment to these Australian ideals. We are all playing on the same team, and it's time that some politicians start behaving like it.”
“This time tomorrow, the Socceroos will still be playing Paraguay. It's a critical game for our World Cup prospects, but it also comes at a critical time back home, because, here in this building, politicians are weaponising the multicultural qualities of our soccer team and Australians across the country. These politicians are seeking to divide us by blaming multiculturalism for all our problems. It's immensely disappointing that politicians feel emboldened to put in the boot to those Australians born overseas or whose parents are born overseas but who now call Australia home. The Socceroos reflect who we are at our best. They may play soccer, but they are not political footballs.”
“Yes, some data centres will get built elsewhere if we slow down, but there's a reason that Amazon and Google are so keen to build here, and that is they'll struggle to find anywhere half as good. If data centres really represent such an enormous economic opportunity, the opportunity is not going to go away, and we can afford to take time to get this policy right. So we're faced with some important questions. Are we going to use our finite potable water to keep people and our environment healthy or to power AI slop? Are we going to let big tech bleed our communities dry or secure a fair return for the punter? Are we going to let data centres make climate change worse or ensure they boost clean energy supply? I think the answers are pretty clear, and my community agrees.”
“The assistant minister Andrew Charlton, who's leading the government's data centre policy, said earlier this month: … my view, is not that Australia should blindly accept or reject investment—Rather, Australia should actively set the terms on which that investment occurs… I couldn't agree more, but non-binding expectations just aren't going to cut it. The government needs to make those standards binding, and that's a first step. More broadly, we need to critically engage with the data centre boom and the rise of AI. The narrative we're being fed is that it's all about urgency. We're told that we don't have time to lose, otherwise the data centres will go elsewhere. It's the same playbook as the gas lobby.”
“This is a massive addition to energy demand at a time when we're asking Australians to help fund the build-out of our updated energy system—one that's reliable, cheap, clean and sovereign. The only way data centres can support the energy transition is if they build more renewables than they use. Otherwise, they're just sucking up new power faster than we can build it. I want to be clear that AI offers significant economic opportunities, but we have to ensure that the build-out of AI data centres avoids these problems. So what is the government doing about it? They've issued some voluntary expectations for companies to demonstrate national interest, support the energy transition, use water responsibly, create local jobs and meaningfully engage with communities.”
“Over half felt negatively about the growth of data centres, over 80 per cent were not confident the government will effectively regulate data centres and three-fifths were worried about a repeat of the gas industry experience and being ripped off. People were most concerned by the impacts on water supply and the energy transition, and rightfully so, because the numbers are astounding. We're a dry country, but data centres can use up to 40 million litres a day. The UN predicts that data centres will use more water by 2030 than every person on earth uses for drinking. Australia's largest proposed data centre in Western Sydney would use as much energy as two million Australian homes and generate the emissions of 560,000 petrol cars every year.”
“For every $100 invested here by a company like Amazon or Google, $70 to $80 flows overseas straightaway to purchase equipment that we don't manufacture here, like semiconductors and servers. The profits fly offshore too, particularly into the pockets of Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. These tech companies are experts at tax minimisation, being rivalled only, perhaps, by gas companies. Data centres are being built on the North Shore. We already have several data centres in Artarmon and St Leonards, and there are more cropping up in and around my electorate and, as we heard from the member for Bennelong, in places like Lane Cove West and Macquarie Park. I surveyed my electorate about these issues, and 750 people responded. Their views were unambiguous.”
“We've seen this all before: a big multinational company comes to town, brings 'thousands' of jobs to 'boost' the economy, then takes the resources, sends the profit offshore and pays next to no tax, all while the temporary construction jobs dry up. We've seen it with gas, and we're seeing it again with data centres. Big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft are desperate to build data centres here in Australia. We have it all: tonnes of renewable energy potential, wide open spaces and a relatively stable democracy. Microsoft wants to invest $25 billion and Amazon $20 billion. It's the mining boom all over again. But where does this money go? Who benefits? Tech companies claim that these investments are good for the punter, but that's by no means guaranteed.”
“The average scam is worth roughly $7½ thousand, so the automatic reimbursement cap should be raised to that level from the proposed $3,000. I'm also calling for obligations on digital platforms to proactively identify and block repeat scammers rather than just react to reported scams. I'm calling for strong obligations on banks and telcos to prevent scams from occurring through disrupting scam emails and messages and to create effective and timely scam reporting mechanisms. I'll keep pushing to ensure that my community is protected from scams and scammers.”
“Everyone has a role to play in preventing and responding to scams—the banks, the telco providers, digital platforms—and government needs to ensure the right protection framework and penalties are in place, which appropriately shares responsibilities and consequences among those with the power to act. It's great to have the government continuing to develop its Scams Prevention Framework. The framework seeks to prevent, detect and disrupt scams, prevent scammers from using a service in the first place and actively look for scams and then disrupt them once they've been found. The draft rules are a big step forward, but we can do better. I've made a submission this week on how to strengthen the rules, and I'm calling for stronger reimbursements to ensure people are appropriately compensated.”
“Australians reported a staggering $2.18 billion in scam losses in 2025 alone, and in my community across Bradfield, from Wahroonga to Northbridge, the figure is in the millions of dollars every single week. But let me be clear: the costs are not just financial. Many victims are deeply ashamed and fearful, hiding their identity to avoid family pressure or social repercussions. With AI, it's becoming even harder to identify a hoax. We are now in a frightening world where AI voice agents can replicate your family members or friends asking for money.”
“Recently, a constituent of mine asked me a question: why is it that if a bank is robbed of a million dollars there'd be a major investigation and a criminal would be sent to jail, but if a scammer steals a million dollars from someone's bank account the consequences are far less certain? Unfortunately, this wasn't a hypothetical. This constituent was the victim of an investment scam, and he lost almost $1 million—that's life-changing money—but there were minimal consequences for those responsible. Scammers prey on vulnerable people who often aren't tech literate or may not be fluent English speakers, but we're all at risk. Everyday life, including many government services, relies on us transacting online, and scams affect far too many people.”
“If this government is serious about cost-of-living relief not just for one month but as a matter of principle, then fairness has to be part of that conversation. It cannot ask Australian families to return to the fuel tax status quo, while giving the country's largest and most profitable companies a free pass on the same tax. I support this bill because cost-of-living relief for Aussies is important, but I want the record to show this parliament has a choice about who pays fuel tax, and right now it's choosing to ask the least of those who can afford to pay the most. I urge the government to cap the fuel tax credit scheme with the same urgency it has shown in introducing this bill today.”
“It's unfair that right now a family filling up a car pays the fuel excise, that a small business running a delivery van pays it, that a tradie driving to job sites across the city pays it and that a volunteer driving hot meals to seniors pays it. But a multinational mining company burning hundreds of millions of litres of diesel pretty much pays nothing. The government's deliberately choosing to keep this unfair status quo, and it's made this choice for decades, regardless of which party has been in office. Today, I'm asking the government to look more broadly at extending this one-month half-strength discount. I'm asking the government to ask whether it makes sense in 2026 for ordinary Australians to be paying more tax at the pump than BHP, Rio Tinto and Gina Rinehart.”
“The proposal would also allow companies to keep receiving that fuel tax credit above $50 million, but only if they put that money towards electrifying and decarbonising their businesses and their supply chains—to buy electric trucks, diggers and rolling stock and to implement all the technologies and supply chain adjustments that are available to companies but that they are not currently incentivised to make because the fuel tax credit scheme means they can buy diesel so cheaply. This will build resilient transport systems and will bolster energy security. Capping the fuel tax credit is fair. Keeping it is unfair.”
“These are some of the wealthiest, most profitable resources companies in the country, if not the world. Shouldn't we at the very least be asking these companies to pay their fair share? Instead, they simply don't have to pay the fuel excise year after year, while ordinary Australians are told their reprieve at the bowser is coming to an end. That's why I'm bringing an amendment to this bill to endorse a proposal to cap the fuel tax credit scheme at $50 million per company. This $50 million cap would mean that farmers and small businesses could receive fuel tax credits because they receive credits totalling less than $50 million—no changes to those groups. This $50 million cap would affect only the largest resources companies in the country, who, frankly, don't need it, because they're already swimming in profits.”
“This money would otherwise have been paid in tax—tax that could pay for hospitals, schools and public transport. Instead, it was simply handed back, and we learned in recent months, through files leaked to the media, that BHP chose to scale back its plans to electrify its fleet and instead spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying new diesel trucks. And why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't it buy new diesel trucks and machinery, when the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme means they can buy that diesel so cheaply? Now the same applies to other big mining companies. The 18 largest companies benefiting from the scheme are all involved in the resources sector. Together they received more than $3 billion in fuel tax credits. Rio Tinto received $432 million in credits, and Glencore received $349 million.”
“But it's lasted only three months, and it's working, and it is now being wound back to half strength, whereas the fuel tax credit is permanent and far more generous than this temporary fuel excise cut for Aussie consumers. I understand why the consumer relief was designed to be temporary. It was in response to a specific shock—fuel price hikes because of conflicts overseas. But, as that relief is phased out, I just have to ask the government: why? Why are you willing to bring the fuel tax back for ordinary Australians while continuing to let the country's biggest mining companies off the hook? Those companies don't need cost-of-living relief; they continue to make huge profits. BHP made more than $15 billion in profit last year, yet, under the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, BHP received $622 million in fuel tax credits.”
“Ordinary Australians pay more tax on their fuel than some of the most profitable mining companies in this country. Companies like BHP, Rio Tinto and Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting pay effectively no fuel tax on the hundreds of millions of litres of diesel that they burn every single year—and they use enormous quantities of diesel. Mining companies use about a quarter of the diesel in Australia—eight billion litres. That's enough to fill every big ute in Australia 30 times. It's 3.4 times more than the farming and agricultural sector uses. The fuel excise discount for consumers has given relief to Aussies: nurses, tradies, parents doing the school run, pensioners, people on fixed incomes and farmers.”
“So I do sincerely welcome the government's decision to extend this measure for another month even at a reduced level. But there is something deeply unfair lying out of sight. The government is reducing the fuel excise discount for ordinary Australians by half, but at the same time it is retaining the fuel tax concessions for big mining companies in full. That fuel tax cut has been in place for decades. It's called the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, and it's the largest fossil fuel subsidy in the country: $10.8 billion this year and rising to $47 billion over the next four years. The scheme works by refunding fuel excise to big mining companies on all the diesel they burn. Most people haven't heard of this scheme, so let me be very clear about what it means.”
“I've heard from families and businesses in my community about their struggle to make ends meet. I heard from the frontline services like the Village Chef, our local Meals on Wheels service, which cooks and delivers thousands of fresh meals to those in need every single week. When the war hit, the Village Chef began to struggle to meet the rising fuel costs and maintain its valuable delivery service, impacting vulnerable people right across my community. In that context, it is appropriate that the government steps in and helps cushion the blow, and I know that, in my own community, people have been really relieved to see the prices come down from those astronomical heights that they reached in the early days of the conflict.”
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026 bill seeks to extend the cost-of-living relief provided by the fuel excise cut, and I rise to speak on it today because I will support that relief. I think this parliament, though, needs to have a more honest conversation about the topic and what is really fair for Australians. The fuel excise cut has provided welcome relief to Australians right across the country. Fuel prices have been hurting people everywhere, across my electorate and across every single electorate represented in this chamber. These price spikes were driven by a conflict in the Middle East—a conflict that sent oil markets into turmoil and pushed petrol and diesel prices to levels that put serious pressure on family budgets. These are real human costs of this fuel shock.”
“I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) the temporary fuel excise cut has delivered welcome cost-of-living relief for Australian consumers; and (b) the Government continues to permanently cut the entire fuel excise for Australia's largest and most profitable mining companies, through the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme; and (2) calls on the Government to cap the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme by introducing a transition tax incentive with the following elements: (a) a cap of $50 million annually, per consolidated corporate entity, so that it will not apply to small users of the Scheme such as farmers and small businesses; and (b) permit receipts by consolidated corporate entities above $50 million to be retained for capital expenditure in eligible electrification infrastructure and technology investments and to enable an orderly phase-out of fuels eligible for the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme".”
“These councils are already pulling their weight in building more housing supply, and they need assistance from the federal government to do this. I've already met with the minister to discuss this funding, and I'll keep pushing until we see that the funding that my electorate deserves and needs goes there, so that we have liveable places that people can call home, no matter what stage of their life they are in.”
“It's the roads, the cycle paths and the footpaths; it's the water and sewerage infrastructure; it's the electricity connections and public transport stops; it's open spaces, recreational facilities and cultural centres—all the things you need to make new housing development places that people can actually live. In the budget, the government announced $2 billion for these infrastructure improvements. I welcome this, and I want to see it flowing into housing developments that build genuinely affordable housing supply where it is needed most. Between the two LGAs that make up my federal electorate, we're working hard to deliver 11,000 new homes, slated for development over the next three years. I want to see a fair share of this $2 billion directed to Ku-ring-gai Council and Willoughby City Council to support that effort.”
“I'm also convening a roundtable in parliament in August, bringing together industry, parliamentarians, civil society organisations and academics, to drive the conversation on affordable housing and push us closer to real solutions. This is complicated, and it's difficult work, but, with your support, we can make it happen. Already, over 5,000 people have signed on to this campaign. So please join us. My goal is to ensure that, when governments talk about funding affordable homes, we actually understand what they're talking about and intend to deliver, and we can hold them to account. But, of course, there is more to the housing crisis, as the member for Adelaide's motion points to. Boosting housing supply isn't just about building houses; it's about building the infrastructure that underpins those houses.”
“That's why I'm running a campaign to establish a nationally consistent definition of 'affordable housing'. The first step is to craft the best definition we can. I'm consulting with experts on this subject right now, and we'll have something to report very soon. The next step is to get governments to cooperate. Now, that's a tricky part at the best of times, let alone on an issue as vexed as housing. But it's essential that we find a way to work together. The federal government has a unique position to lead on this, because of the leverage it wields through the GST, through the National Housing Accord and through programs like the special investment vehicle, the Housing Australia Future Fund.”
“To the New South Wales government, it means less than 30 per cent of gross income, and, to the Willoughby City Council, it means up to 30 per cent of a household's income for very low to moderate income households. It's a mess, and this mess has real-world impacts. Take the '30 per cent of gross income' definition. For most young people in my electorate—young people working in nursing, teaching, hospitality and retail—there just isn't anything available to rent for 30 per cent of your income. They end up paying more like 50 per cent, and they can't sustain that. So they move away—away from their families, their workplaces and the places that they love. The 20 to 25 per cent discount on market rent isn't necessarily any better either in an electorate with such high market rents. This patchwork system simply isn't working.”
“I support the government's efforts to make housing more affordable, but I stress that far more needs to be done to address our housing crisis. Let's look at one important piece of the puzzle for affordable housing. The government aims to deliver 55,000 social and affordable homes, and I welcome that. But this commitment doesn't mean anything if those homes aren't actually affordable for the people who need them. The question here is the meaning of 'affordable', because at the moment governments can't seem to agree. Let's run through some of the inconsistent definitions that we're dealing with today. To the Housing Australia Future Fund, the federal government's main housing investment body, 'affordable' means 74.9 per cent or less of market rent. To the Department of Social Services, 'affordable' means 75 to 80 per cent of market rent.”