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 6 of 7.
“In fact, I was very interested to hear the member for Fremantle speak on this bill last week. He seems to share my view in relation to the committee, noting it is important that, with respect to matters of national security and the national intelligence community, ordinary parliamentarians who are not members of the executive can have some visibility over these matters. These are worthy aims, and I am very much on board. Other committees in this place have rules that not only allow but require crossbench members to be part of them. Membership of this proposed committee has no such requirement. It has no requirement that a member of the crossbench be included—members of parliament who the Australian people have entrusted with a third of their vote, the same as Labor and the same as the coalition.”
“In 1975, minor parties and Independents accounted for only four per cent of the primary vote. Fifty years later, the non-major-party vote of 34 per cent represents the highest recorded since the emergence of the two-party system. That's nearly a ninefold increase. This is the modern Australian political landscape—a third of the votes for Labor, a third for the coalition and a third for the rest. Understandably, the major parties do not like this trend, and, understandably, they would like the status quo to remain where the two major parties are the only voices in Australian politics, and this bill is evidence of that. For good reason, the government is creating a parliamentary joint committee on defence, and the stated aim of the bill is to inject greater parliamentary transparency and accountability and oversight of Defence.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), omit "members.", substitute "members; and". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), at the end of subsection 110ABA(2), add: (e) 2 persons, each of whom is a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator but not a member of the Government or the Opposition. In this year's federal election, Independents and minor parties received more votes than the Liberal-National coalition, achieving 34 per cent of the primary vote. While Labor would have us focus on their 94-seat so-called supermajority, only about 35 per cent of Australians gave Labor their first preference. This is no anomaly. This is a very long trend in Australian politics.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. Foodbank Australia's H unger r eport 2025 reveals that one in three Australian households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. This means that 3½ million Australian families could be going without food tonight. Foodbank has a proposal that would make it cheaper for food producers to donate excess food to those in need, reduce food waste and save taxpayers' dollars. Will the Treasurer commit to legislating a national food donation tax incentive which would achieve these aims?”
“The government has made a good start, but, given the size of the crisis at hand and the responsibilities given to me by the people of Bradfield, I won't be supporting the amendments to our nature laws as proposed. My hope is that when these laws go to the Senate, our house of review, they will return here to this chamber with some additional safeguards attached, particularly for forestry protection, ministerial discretion and climate. When I see movement on these issues, I look forward to supporting the bills as amended, because our communities, our nation and our planet are depending on it.”
“How is it possible that in 2025 strong nature laws are drafted without any consideration for the human induced climate crisis in which we and future generations must live? Finally—because I'm running out of time, not because I'm running out of amendments to critique—I want to talk about the process of drafting and creating the national environmental standards. We won't see them before the bill is passed, and the Samuel review into the EPBC Act could not have been clearer that the NES is the fulcrum, the foundation, of reform. To quote the minister, this is a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity' to do what we can for nature. When we do, we help not just other species and future generations; we help ourselves here in this lifetime. I support the intention of strengthening our nature laws.”
“Despite the government's rhetoric on understanding the science of nature, there is very little regard, if any, for climate in these nature laws. There's no requirement that major polluting projects be assessed for their climate impacts, contrary to international law and the recent ICJ opinion. Nor is there a requirement for natural systems or ecosystem services to be assessed for their contribution to helping address climate impacts, be that in mitigation, adaptation or recovery. This is despite climate also being one of the top three reasons that Australia—and, in fact, the globe—has a species extinction crisis. The government is quick to criticise the coalition for not understanding the severities of the climate crisis, but the lack of climate consideration in these proposed nature laws makes me want them to take a look in the mirror.”
“So, if the government is seeking to broaden the discretion provided to the minister to weigh in on decisions, then hold tight for even more decisions that favour industry over nature. As I've said before, if these laws don't protect nature, then which laws will? The way these amendments are drafted, there remain major loopholes, and restrictions on approving unacceptable impacts via ministerial discretion is just one of them. What about the specifics? The proposed new laws do nothing to end land clearing or old-growth logging. The RFA and continuous-use exemptions and the failure to address large-scale deforestation remain, and this is despite knowing that habitat loss is one of the three main reasons for species extinction.”
“The acting CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation said that he was deeply concerned with the proposed exemptions, arguing its application was wide open to interpretation and could easily be misused. He said: Too often the national interest is falsely conflated with the coal and gas industry and their commercial interests. And, if it's not the intention of this government's environment minister to misuse it, what about that of a future government's environment minister? To be clear, we've had laws that, for 25 years, have given the minister the power already to intervene to protect nature. This has only been flexed once, to my knowledge, and that was arguably more about politics than it was about nature.”
“A competent, tightly codified and well-resourced, independent national EPA is most likely to be able to deliver for nature and industry. You may have noticed that there was a silver star there, and perhaps I've been a little too generous, because this takes me to the frowny-face stamp, which is around the wide discretion provided for the minister to make decisions not in favour of nature but possibly against it. I'm referring to the national interest exemption, where the minister may consider Australia's national interest, be it defence, security or emergency needs, when ignoring the protections of nature. So far, the proposed law fails to define what projects could qualify for this exemption to protect the places we love.”
“The second is stronger penalties for proponents who intentionally and persistently damage areas of high biodiversity and conservation value. The truth is that we can't put a value on platypus or Baudin's black cockatoo habitat, but we can use pricing signals to deter harmful behaviour. Stronger penalties will go some way to helping with that. But we are going to need a well-capacitated, independent regulator to prosecute. That's where the third gold, or rather silver, star comes in, with the establishment of the National EPA. In principle, this is a laudable amendment. We need to depoliticise decisions that have been made in the last 25 years under this law. The minister, in a political position which is more easily influenced by special interests, needs to be removed from as many of these decisions as possible.”
“But I can tell you who it is most likely working for. That's the fossil fuel industry—literally hundreds of new approvals over those 25 years. I am, by nature, a very positive individual. The glass, for me, is usually half full, so let me turn to the elements of the government's amendments that deserve a gold star. These include a shift in focus from a law based around process to one that makes outcomes clearer. That's why the codification of national environmental standards in these laws is so useful. All stakeholders will know and understand what good and bad look like. This also gives the consent authorities, be they future state and territory governments, the National EPA or the minister, a consistent yardstick against which to measure the merits or the shortcomings of a given project.”
“As it was drafted, passed and gazetted, the EPBC Act 1999 gave the minister for the environment the powers to intervene in decisions of national significance for our environment. Yet this happened only once over that entire period. All the while, literally hundreds of new coal, gas and fracking projects were approved, causing—rather than ceasing—habitat degradation and destruction and climate change impacts. The government is at pains to tell us that this reform is once in a generation, and that means we truly need to get our skates on. It's very difficult for me not to be drawn into a joke about the Macquarie skate right here, but I shall not, because it's a bit too serious to joke about. We've already heard that the law is not working for nature. It's not working for renewable energy, for housing or for anyone.”
“The average global temperature between 2000 and 2025 has shown a significant upward trend, with the 20-year period of 2001 to 2020 warming by approximately one degree Celsius, relative to 1850 to 1990 averages. The last decade, 2014 to 2023, is the warmest on record, at about 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Recent data indicates that the most recent 12-month period, July 2024 to June 2025, was 1.55 degrees Celsius warmer than 1850 to 1900 averages. We are breaking records here, and not in good ways. It's almost as if our environment, the places we love, have gotten worse since we introduced the laws enacted to protect them. It's little wonder that there are so many people interested in the success of these laws, including, I bet, future generations and the natural world on which we all depend.”
“The remainder is from other disturbances, like logging and wildfires, that may not be permanent but degrade forests. One would think that any amendments to the laws here in 2025 would most certainly seek to address this calamity, like, for example, removing the exemption for large-scale logging in New South Wales, which is still possible under regional forestry agreements. Now I go to the second main driver of species loss: climate change. Let me stress, climate change—or, more precisely, the inadequate management of rising average global temperatures and the impacts that this brings to habitats and species survival—has been one of the main drivers of Australia's threatened species list blowing out.”
“The number of species listed as threatened has increased significantly, with 130 species added in 2023 alone, bringing the total to 2,098; 741 species have been added to the threatened list since 2000. That's a 53 per cent increase. In my beautiful electorate of Bradfield, threatened species have almost doubled, from 40 to 79 in the short period between my two runs for public office in 2022 and 2025. What have been the main drivers? It's habitat loss, it's invasive species, and it's climate change. Let me go to the first of these: habitat loss. In the 25 years since 2000, Australia has lost 9.22 million hectares of tree cover, about 22 per cent. While not all of that is old-growth forest, roughly 37 per cent of the loss is considered permanent deforestation resulting from land use changes, like agriculture and infrastructure.”
“Let's go to my happy place, science, and then straight to a less happy place, the facts. Australia's biodiversity has declined significantly over the last 25 years between 2000, when the EPBC Act was enacted, and today. Threatened species' populations have dropped, on average, by two to three per cent per annum. Key threats include habitat loss, invasive species and climate change. While some conservation efforts have shown success in slowing decline, these have been insufficient to reverse the overall downward trend. Overall, threatened species' populations have declined—birds by 61 per cent on average, with terrestrial birds seeing the steepest drop at 62 per cent; amphibians have seen a 97 per cent decline in relative abundance; and plants have seen a 68 per cent decline in relative abundance.”
“For me, I started work at the Australian Conservation Foundation as their very first climate change campaigner, and I found myself thrown into the deep end of negotiations around laws to reform water rights in the Murray-Darling Basin and environmental reforms that we now know today as the EPBC Act—all 19 syllables of it. Twenty-five years young, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—when originally birthed—was intended to provide a national framework for protecting the environment and conserving biodiversity, especially matters of national environmental significance, like our reefs, our precious forests and our Ramsar wetlands. It aimed to clarify the roles of the federal government and improve cooperation between states and territories. How effective have these laws been in protecting the places that we love?”
“At the end of the last century, 1999 to be exact, the nation was experiencing the long-term millennium drought, or the 'Big Dry', which was starting to worsen. That was the same year that Prime Minister Howard and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, introduced the coalition's signature climate change policy, the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. It was also that year, in March, that Cyclone Vance, one of the most powerful cyclones to hit the mainland of Australia, crossed the coast, causing significant damage in WA.”
“We need a tomorrow where every young person feels seen, where they feel supported—a future where asking for help is normal, not a weakness. So what should the government do? First, make mental health support truly accessible. This means more qualified counsellors, in every school. It means free, immediate access to psychologists, no long waiting lists. Second, invest heavily in early intervention. Teach emotional literacy from a young age. Launch powerful public campaigns. Break down the stigma around mental health. By acting decisively today, we empower young Australians to thrive. We build a strong, healthier and much more hopeful tomorrow—for everyone.'”
“Today I'm reading a speech I selected from entrants in the Raise Our Voice competition. This speeches from 13-year-old Kaya. She writes: 'Right now, too many young Australians are struggling. It's a silent crisis that affects our future. In 2023, anxiety was the leading health burden for young females, while, tragically, suicide and self-inflicted injuries led for young males. Despite one in five seeking support, a concerning 10 per cent did not receive the help they desperately needed. Last year alone, 298 people aged 18 to 24 lost their lives to suicide, alongside 94 children and adolescents. These deaths now represent over 30 per cent of all fatalities in these age groups. Why should we care? Because these are our children, our siblings, our friends.”
“It's uneconomic, and it's unfair on the personnel. We can't continue to fail to internalise the externalities and appropriately cost a clean-up on climate. We need to get on the front foot, and doing so will help ready our communities to weather the onslaught of a changing climate, free up our ADF personnel and community volunteers to better serve, and save Australians money by investing in preventive measures upfront. That's why I find it extremely easy and pleasing to stand here today, second this motion put by the Member for Warringah and commend it to the House and chamber.”
“Firstly, we rely on volunteers such as those in the RFS to prepare us for wildfires by carrying out fuel-hazard reductions, and we rely on volunteers in the SES to help us with emergency response and recovery from storms and floods. We basically rely on the goodwill of volunteers in our communities. But, in a changing climate, we can't rely forever on the kindness of strangers. The second thing we do when things get really bad all at once is call in the members of the ADF and spread what is already very thin capacity across a terribly broad and complex response situation. When the ADF is called out to do this and assist state and local authorities with evacuations, logistics, clean-up and other critical support operations, they are not defending our country. Our ADF should not be deployed to clean up after climate crises.”
“It's a key strategy to deter future aggressors and to defence our nation. Experts simply opine that, compared to the other options, it's the superior move, and hence we commit $368 billion to it over a full 30 years. Let's look at health care, where we are starting to weigh up the policy options. Health insurers offer members rebates to have regular dental check-ups, and governments do it for bowel and breast cancer screening. Why? Because their experts, generally actuaries, show them that investing to prevent harm early saves money over the longer term. It saves a lot of money. But, when it comes to climate change impacts so far, we simply don't do these things. Instead, we do this.”
“Immediately before being elected into this place, I worked in finance, at a venture capital fund, where I served as a member of its impact committee. My role was to evaluate the counterfactuals of an investment—that is, what would the cost or impact be had the fund not invested into a particular climate tech solution? What if we invested at series A and B rather than series C, or what if we didn't invest at all? When governments put their budgets together, you'd hope that they would also be asking these kinds of questions. What are the cost of and the likely return on investing in this policy over that one, and what if we invest in early prevention rather than coughing up at treatment time? Let's turn our mind to defence, for example. The government has never really produced an economic calculation of investing in AUKUS.”
“My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Last week, Australia and the United States signed the critical minerals framework agreement. Responsibly exploiting our natural resources, securing offtake and diversifying trade partnerships are worthy aims. But the owners of these resources, the Australian people, are left in the dark about how they will benefit. If the PRRT for other resources is anything to go by, this deal won't be making much from royalties that we collect. What we do know so far is that two companies will receive significant Australian government investment. When can Aussie taxpayers expect more detail about how the deal works for them?”
“To reduce ministerial discretion in decision-making, we need an independent, statutory environmental protection agency with the ability to make decisions free from ministerial influence. It's ministerial influence that, time and time again, has resulted in the interests of industry being preferred over nature. Industry has a powerful voice, earned through decades and decades of political donations. Nature is voiceless. This week is Youth Voice in Parliament Week. For years, the youth of Australia have been using their voices so clearly, begging us to protect our natural environment and the climate which sustains it. This week, let's do what we must and let's listen to them.”
“Australia's environment laws are broken, and we know this categorically from the Samuel review, finalised five years ago this month. Over three years ago, the then minister for the environment and water said the laws don't work to protect the environment or smooth the way for sensible development, all against a backdrop of accelerating environmental destruction. The current laws don't work—not for nature and not for business. On that, there is consensus. But the laws must work for both. Where there is a tension between the two—where approval decisions could go either way—nature must win out. If nature doesn't win the battle in our environmental laws, it will not win it anywhere else. To achieve that, I implore the government to put in place this one safeguard.”
“Please work with the Albanese government to ensure that Australia's commitment to human rights, justice and equality is reflected in our country's domestic and international policies and actions. That is the end of the statement, and this is what I've committed to do.”
“Each day of silence deepens the sense of betrayal among communities who see this government—rightly or wrongly—as indifferent to mass starvation and war crimes. Jewish, Muslim, Christian and multicultural Australians alike are watching our government's response. The trust we have all worked so hard to build is at risk. Internationally, Australia's credibility is on the line. If we are serious about upholding a rules-based international order, we cannot rely only on words to express our condemnation of war crimes in Gaza. I ask you to call for immediate action by the Australian government. If we all stand together, there can be strength in numbers. If we do nothing, who will support these people?”
“Every major UN body and humanitarian agency has confirmed what is now undeniable: this is a man-made famine, engineered as a weapon of war. Senior Israeli officials have made clear that this is a deliberate policy. Children are dying of hunger. The devastation is not incidental; it is intentional. As Jews—many, including myself, descendants of Holocaust survivors—we know what it means when the world looks away. We cannot be silent while these crimes are carried out in our name. The Australian government should be outwardly committed to human dignity, justice, and the preservation of life. Australia doesn't need to be a major player to show moral leadership. The longer we fail to act, the more damage is done here at home.”
“My electorate office in Bradfield has been inundated with emails about Gaza, and those emails are coming in on a daily basis from people of all ages and backgrounds imploring me to speak out and to urge the government to do more to end the crisis. I selected the following constituent's email, received on 26 September, as it is imbued, in my opinion, with the sentiment of so many constituents' emails received. I'm reading parts of it out now: Dear Ms Boele, The intent of my letter is to express my grief and dismay at the atrocities unfolding in Gaza. I am a Jew, living in your electorate. Since 2 March 2025, Israel has blocked humanitarian aid into Gaza, with only a trickle entering in the past few days.”
“Thirdly, how does the assistant minister plan to work across portfolios, such as with Treasury, to raise awareness and advocate for remedies to current government policies that run counter to the objectives of these otherwise laudable industry initiatives—namely, the $12 billion annual subsidy for expensive, high emissions, imported diesel, where it's used by local and multinational miners in mining equipment? If the government is to truly deliver on the opportunities that are latent within these industry initiatives, these are the sorts of cross-departmental roadblocks that need your attention and stewardship, Assistant Minister.”
“This question is aimed at understanding how we can utilise the National Battery Strategy and the FMIA to build domestic manufacturing capabilities in cooperation with international partners: Firstly, how can this government use the NRF to partner with world battery manufacturing leaders to build both battery manufacturing and battery recycling capacities here in Australia? Secondly, how can the government, through increased manufacturing, leverage the massive demand pull for battery electrification of the mining equipment fleet here in Australia?”
“When I say that I want to hold the government to account on this, what I mean is that I really want to make sure that these good ideas—the FMIA, the Reconstruction Fund, the National Battery Strategy, the Industry Growth Program, the Cooperative Research Centres Program and the Research and Development Tax Incentive—are delivered to the maximum benefit of the people of Bradfield and, in fact, all Australian communities. That's why I've chosen to ask these questions of you today, Assistant Minister, and there will be many more of these during my remaining term in the 48th Parliament.”
“That project will see our nation export decades of unmitigated climate pollution to our region whilst the FMIA in contrast is about substituting the export of raw resources, such as iron ore, to South Korea, China and Japan for boatloads of green iron to those same countries. This green iron will be built on low-emissions renewable energy, free from the price shocks and supply constraints caused by international conflict and also built by Australians participating in meaningful, clean regional jobs.”
“The FMIA was designed to help keep our nascent clean industries here in Australia, and, with the Trump administration curtailing the IRA and adding tariffs, the FMIA has proven to be an opportunistic move, where we are now in a position to welcome those businesses back and, indeed, new ones to our shores. I don't have to tell you, Assistant Minister, that the beauty of the FMIA is that, done well, we can build the scale of clean industrial power needed to decarbonise our critical and other mineral commodities ahead of export. In doing so, we not only deliver ridiculously cheap and reliable energy for our nation; we also help to decarbonise the global resources economy. The FMIA feels to me like the opposite of approving the extension to the North West Shelf gas project.”
“I want to use this opportunity to commend the government for designing and passing the Future Made in Australia set of laws last term. It was both defensive and opportunistic—defensive because of the actions of the then Biden administration, which sought to retool its economy via the Inflation Reduction Act. The North American act saw businesses from Australia, already in this depleted secondary sector, leave our shores for the United States because the conditions for investment and government offtakes were more favourable there than here in Australia.”
“First, here is a bit about me and where I come from in my line of questioning: I have been appointed to two parliamentary committees because the scope of those committees is so close to my professional work of 35 years and because it's where I believe we can achieve outcomes to strengthen our economy and our national security now and help set up Australia in our region for this century. Those committees are the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water and theStanding Committee on Industry, Innovation and Science. My professional choices have been based around my learned belief that, with the appropriate government signals, such as what we choose to tax and how we de-risk capital, and appropriate competition and consumer protections, science industry and business can and should be the engine room for our economy.”
“This is my first opportunity to participate in a detailed debate regarding Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, and in fact I was not a member in this place when the bills that are currently being debated were introduced. I approached this debate in the spirit of what the people of Bradfield have sent me here to do, and, very specifically, that is to hold this government to account. This very debate could not be more appropriate for setting about that task.”
“My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. We need an emissions reduction goal. 'Go high,' said the science, 'That's your role.' Will the government have ambition, take a 75 per cent position or side with the sellers of coal?”
“There is clearly a cohort of people who feel left behind, without a place in the version of modern Australia that we are trying to build. All too often, we see some people who feel that they are being left behind fixate on or even concoct grievances which are not the real cause of their disaffection. Unfortunately, there are leaders in this place that stoke fear and promote division, and so I'm here to stand and say and do the opposite—to be a welcoming, encouraging safe voice for my community in all of its beautiful diversity. I call on all other leaders of this place to do the same.”
“My electorate of Bradfield is proudly multicultural—Chinese, Jewish, Armenian and so many more. On the weekend I was contacted by a constituent deeply troubled by the anti-immigration protests which were about to occur in Australia's capital cities. This constituent is of South Asian heritage and has lived in Australia for close to four decades, safely and happily. But, in the face of the weekend protest, she said that her stomach was churning with grief and fear. It was devastating to hear these words. So let me state my position: I do not condone the rhetoric or actions of the protesters on the weekend. I condemn them both. But it's important to reflect on why this group of people felt compelled to march.”
“Referring a bill with such significant ramifications for people's basic rights to a committee for review is the absolute bare minimum level of scrutiny that government should permit. The government won a big margin in the last election—94 seats in this House. They must not be tempted to exploit that position by abandoning basic tenets of our parliamentary and democratic processes. On the contrary, I strongly urge them to use their huge majority to be the leaders that our people have elected them to be.”
“I agree with the Leader of the Opposition's statement that the bill is rushed. It's secretive and it's chaotic—this for a bill which explicitly confirms that people like these do not have a right to natural justice in administrative processes. This could result in them being involuntarily—read forcibly—removed from this country to a third country, with no ability to be heard in the courts about that occurring. What we're really talking about here is a breakdown in processes and a reduction of democratic norms at two very significant levels: the individual rights level, around people's right to natural justice, and the parliamentary level, by the curtailing of opportunities for scrutiny and informed debate. It's for both of these reasons that I consider the member for Curtin's motion to be entirely reasonable.”
“Each time, there was some contraction of the usual parliamentary process to get the bills through quickly and quietly, whether it was failing to refer bills to relevant committees for review or gagging debate on the bills in this House. We're seeing it again here with this bill. This bill may have significant ramifications for the people to which it applies. Combined with the measures passed last term to which I've already referred, this bill may be another step in that slow creep towards stripping away rights of asylum seekers in this country. These are people we have harmed by exposing them to the cruel and unusual offshore detention system we dreamed up in a shameful world-first—a system that the UK government toyed with copying from us but abandoned, because it was just too inhumane.”
“I rise in support of the motion brought by the member for Curtin to refer the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for inquiry and report. I watched with dismay in the last term of parliament when the Albanese government rushed through bill after bill limiting the rights of asylum seekers and visa holders in our communities. The measures they introduced included establishing mandatory visa cancellations for low-level offences, giving the government immunity from civil liabilities in connection with bridging visa cancellations and expanding powers to search and seize items in immigration detention centres without a warrant.”
“It's about ensuring that the roughly 260,000—and growing—e-bikes imported to Australia each year meet national import standards and are equipped with basic safety designs and antitampering protections. That's it. The Road Vehicle Standards Amendment (Safer E-Bikes) Bill 2025 does this. I want to reiterate that this bill is not about curbing the use of e-bikes. This bill simply brings e-bikes into line with safety expectations and clarifies ambiguity surrounding their usage. Implementing this will prevent countless injuries and, no doubt, save lives. I commend the member for Mackellar for bringing this legislation forward, and I commend the bill to the House.”
“I second the motion. I rise to support the Road Vehicle Standards Amendment (Safer E-Bikes) Bill 2025, moved by the member for Mackellar. Across our cities and suburbs, more Australians are choosing e-bikes. They are often a practical, affordable and sustainable alternative to commuting while providing that little bit of incidental exercise on the way to school or work. But as technology has advanced, delivering greater speed and power, our import and safety standards have failed to keep up. Even bikes with speed and power limits on them are easily modified. A recent Transport for NSW study found that 38 per cent of riders had tampered with their bikes, a figure rising to 57 per cent among 18- to 29-year-olds. This bill is not about cracking down on e-bikes. I love them, and I wish more people used them.”
“This small, legislatively simple change to the test is exactly the kind of low-hanging reform fruit that could turbocharge climate action and superannuation investments returns for millions of working Australians, today and into the future.”