Source:
We’ve reviewed our advice for Ethiopia and continue to advise reconsider your need to travel to Ethiopia overall due to the risk of civil unrest and the threat of armed conflict. We now advise do not travel to Tigray Regional State. We also advise do not travel to a number of other locations. Other levels apply in some areas.
Source:
We’ve reviewed our travel advice for France and continue to advise exercise a high degree of caution due to the threat of terrorism. France’s national terrorist alert warning remains at the highest level. Expect high-level security nationwide (see ‘Safety’). If you plan to travel to France to commemorate Anzac Day, understand the risks and plan ahead (see ‘Travel’).
Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)
The High Court has recently ruled, in Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors,1 that any actions taken by the Commonwealth before 1975 that extinguished or impaired native title, without providing just compensation, are invalid acquisitions of property under section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution.
As a result, these actions can be considered ‘compensable acts’ under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act), exposing the Commonwealth to potentially significant compensation claims by native title holders in the Northern Territory, and potentially other parts of Australia. We explain the implications, including the effect on private entities.
There were two key issues for the High Court to decide:
The Gumatj Clan initiated two claims in the Federal Court—one seeking a determination that they hold native title rights to an area of the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory; and a second one for compensation against the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory, challenging land acquisitions on the Gove Peninsula between the 1930s and 1960s.
The claim focused on a series of grants and appropriations made under ordinances issued by the Governor-General under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth), including relating to the vesting of minerals in the Crown, and the granting of special mineral leases under the ordinances and the Mining (Gove Peninsula Nabalco Agreement) Ordinance 1968 (NT).
The Gumatj Clan succeeded in their arguments that:
It has always been accepted that if native title rights were extinguished or impaired after 31 October 1975, when the Racial Discrimination Act commenced, native title holders are entitled to compensation from the government responsible.
Now, the High Court’s decision has opened the door for compensation claims against the Commonwealth under the Act for its historic actions that extinguished or impaired native title before 1975, when that was not done on ‘just terms’—which will likely have almost always been the case, given native title was not recognised until 1992, in the Mabo case. It will be particularly relevant to what acts the Commonwealth has taken in the territories, and the Northern Territory in particular.
This is primarily an issue for the Commonwealth and its liability exposure, and will have less relevance to the states. State government actions are primarily responsible for pre-1975 extinguishment of native title but, unlike the Commonwealth Constitution, there is no ‘just terms’ obligation in state constitutions. There could, though, be some limited application to states where the Commonwealth has taken action regarding land acquisitions in a particular one.
The decision does not have any direct impact on private entities currently using land and waters, or planning future projects. It does not invalidate their approvals or activities, and does not itself expose them to compensation claims. However, there would be an impact on private entities if they are exposed to an arrangement, through legislation or contract, where the Commonwealth has the right to pass on its native title liability.
Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)
The Federal Government’s recent changes to foreign investment policies released on 14 March 2025 introduce significant modifications.
In this Insight, we:
For many years, successive federal governments have maintained a policy setting that generally prohibits foreign persons from purchasing established dwellings. There were limited exceptions, the main one being that temporary residents could apply for approval to purchase and retain ownership of an established dwelling so long as it was their principal place of residence.
On 16 February 2025, the Government closed this exception by announcing a ban on foreign persons buying established homes for at least two years, from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2027. The stated objective was that ‘Australians will be able to buy homes that would have otherwise been bought by foreign investors’.
On 14 March 2025, Treasury released an updated Residential Land guidance note which notes the ban, removes the exception for temporary residents and sets out limited exceptions to the ban. These exceptions include the following.
A few observations:
The Government’s May 2024 Budget provided that foreign investment applicants would have 75% of their application fees refunded if they were unsuccessful in competitive bid processes. However, further details regarding this policy were only made available on 14 March 2025, with Treasury’s release of an updated Fees guidance note.
The key takeaways are as follows.
There are some scenarios that are not addressed by the guidance note, and would therefore need to be dealt with via submissions in individual cases. For instance, the guidance note contemplates that an entity can apply for a refund or credit of a fee paid by another entity in the same corporate group. However, the guidance note does not address whether the credit is transferable between funds managed by the same manager or where there is a bid by a consortium.
On 10 December 2023, the Government announced that FIRB application fees for BTR projects would be subject to commercial land fee tiers, rather than the significantly higher residential land fee tiers. However, further details regarding this concessional fee treatment were only made available on 14 March 2025, with Treasury’s release of an updated Fees guidance note.
However, the guidance note does not (but ought to) extend the concessional fee treatment to other types of land that are used for commercial-scale housing dwellings, such as retirement villages, assisted living, aged care facilities and student accommodation. We are aware that certain acquisitions of such types of land have, in the past, had the benefit of concessional fee treatment, so we encourage Treasury to reflect this in the guidance note.
On 14 March 2025, Treasury released an updated Tax conditions guidance note. It reflects the Government’s increasing scrutiny of tax arrangements, being that the impact of tax risks in foreign investment proposals on Australian tax revenues is a key consideration of the national interest. The release of the updated tax guidance note was first foreshadowed in a 1 May 2024 announcement.
The updated guidance note largely codifies the tax risks that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has been focusing on over the past 12 or so months in the course of its review of foreign investment applications.
It also sets out more examples of tax conditions than in prior versions of the guidance note. These conditions largely reflect those that have been imposed in various no objection notifications over the past 12 months or so and may be imposed on a case-by-case basis. The guidance note no longer sets out ‘standard tax conditions’ relating to compliance with Australia’s tax laws. It may be that the ATO no longer proposes to impose these types of conditions, given they merely replicate obligations already covered by Australia’s extensive tax legislation.
Also of note is a revised Tax checklist containing the tax-related information that the ATO expects to be included in a FIRB application, in response to a list of questions set out in the checklist. Where such information is not included, the application must state when the information will be made available. The questions largely reflect those that are commonly put to applicants post-lodgement of an application. Given the foregoing, foreign investors will need to move away from the common practice of not including tax submissions in the application, and of waiting to see if the ATO asks the questions. It is expected that the new application Portal (discussed below) will contain tax-related questions which must be answered upfront in order to submit a FIRB application.
In Australia, there is a long-standing practice for the Government to enter into ‘caretaker mode’ once the Prime Minister advises the Governor-General to call an election (technically when the House of Representatives is dissolved). The caretaker period continues until the election result is clear or, if there is a change of government, until the new government is appointed.1 Normally, the caretaker period lasts for about four to six weeks, but it will depend on how long in advance of an election it is called and how long it will take for a new government to be formed.
Key points to note regarding the caretaker period.
On 5 March 2025, the Federal Opposition announced that, if elected, it would design a ‘white list’ process for trusted investors from Quad, Five Eyes and AUKUS countries (ie US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, India and Japan).
The Federal Opposition stated that the goal of the proposed white list process is to ‘reduce the volume of paperwork’, ‘increase the pace of decisions’ and reduce ‘the number of times trusted partners need to go through the process, and pay the fees which are increasingly being used as a revenue source rather than genuine cost recovery’. The Federal Opposition also stated that ‘rigorous national security checks will stay in place’.
The proposal is a welcome one, though by no means a new idea. It is similar to the ‘fast-track’ path that many foreign investors from Five Eyes countries have requested be put in place. The Federal Opposition has yet to release details on how the ‘white list’ process will operate, including what types of investors are eligible (eg whether investors need to have a minimum level of ultimate ownership by persons from those countries). It will be interesting to see how such a process might operate differently to the current Government’s policy of streamlining low-risk investments as reflected in the current Foreign Investment Policy document.
Treasury released the first stage of the new Foreign Investment Portal on 24 February 2025. Since then, all compliance reports under non-residential no objection notifications and exemption certificates must be submitted via the Portal. Such reports can no longer be made via email to Treasury, despite what is stated in a no objection notification or exemption certificate. This is the effect of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers (Manner of Notification and Application) Approvals 2025 instrument.
It is expected that the final stage of the Portal will be launched by the end of April 2025, after which the entire FIRB application process will be facilitated via the Portal. This includes the submission of applications, payment of application fees and communications with Treasury. Foreign investors seeking to submit FIRB applications via the new Portal will need to set up a Portal account or have the applications submitted by an adviser’s Portal account.
A key objective of the new Portal is to streamline the assessment process for applicants. However, the new Portal will result in some significant practical changes.
On 25 February 2025, Treasury released its latest Quarterly Report on Foreign Investment for the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 September 2024.
Some points of interest from the report.
If you wish to discuss how these developments could affect you, please contact any of the people below.
Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)
ASIC has announced it has commenced civil penalty proceedings against FIIG Securities Limited (FIIG) for allegedly failing over four years to protect itself and its clients from cybersecurity risks. Specifically, ASIC claims FIIG failed to:
in contravention of sections 912A(1)(a), (d), and (h), and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
ASIC’s enforcement action against FIIG is consistent with its current enforcement priorities, namely, to ensure licensees have in place adequate cybersecurity protections. ASIC Chair Joe Longo has also emphasised the importance of ‘proactively and regularly’ checking the adequacy of cybersecurity measures and following the advice of the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC).
FIIG holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) and specialises in fixed-income products and services. It collects and maintains personal information on clients and held significant assets on their behalf.
ASIC claims that, due to the nature of FIIG’s business and the data it held, FIIG was at ‘real risk’ of cyber intrusion, which could lead to data breaches, financial loss and an inability to access data, provide services or operate its network or systems.
ASIC alleges that, despite this risk, FIIG failed to have adequate cybersecurity measures in place and failed to implement the controls identified in its risk management system to mitigate cybersecurity risks. This culminated in a cyber intrusion in May 2023 where 385GB of data is alleged to have been stolen (affecting approximately 18,000 individual customers), some of which was published on the dark web. ASIC alleges FIIG became aware of this intrusion when the ACSC alerted FIIG that its systems may have been compromised on 2 June 2023. It is alleged that FIIG was not aware the intrusion had occurred before this alert.
ASIC alleges FIIG did not investigate and respond to the incident until 8 June, almost a week after it had been notified of the potential malicious activity by the ACSC.
ASIC has published its Concise statement and Originating process. The likely next steps in the proceeding will involve a detailed statement of claim filed by ASIC and a defence filed by FIIG, unless the parties are able to agree on a statement of agreed facts and admissions.
This is the second time ASIC has commenced proceedings for a failure to have adequate cybersecurity systems in place—the first being in relation to RI Advice in August 2020. These new proceedings demonstrate ASIC’s evolving approach to cyber risk management since it brought proceedings against RI Advice. ASIC’s articulation of expected technical security measures in the FIIG proceedings is more prescriptive than its expectations around ‘adequate cybersecurity documentation and controls’ presented in the RI Advice proceedings. Whilst director compliance in relation to cybersecurity remains a priority for ASIC, no proceedings have yet been commenced against FIIG directors or other officers.
The cybersecurity measures ASIC suggests should have been implemented are consistent with many of those identified by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in recent civil penalty proceedings brought against Australian Clinical Labs and Medibank, as well as in class action proceedings brought against Optus and Medibank.
A comparison of security measures class action plaintiffs and regulators have alleged are required in these proceedings is available here.
The fact FIIG was allegedly alerted to the issue by the ACSC (ie it was not detected internally) was likely compounded by the alleged six-day delay between the ACSC’s alert (2 June 2023) and FIIG’s investigation of the potential malicious activity (8 June 2023). ASIC claims that if FIIG had had adequate cybersecurity measures in place, it would have detected suspicious activity well before the ACSC notified it. ASIC suggests FIIG should have had in place:
ASIC alleges FIIG’s risk management systems were inadequate because they failed to implement and maintain necessary cybersecurity measures. Even though FIIG had a risk management system (which included an IT Information Security Policy and Cyber and Information Security Policy), ASIC claims FIIG failed to implement measures identified in those policies. Regulators have repeatedly emphasised the importance of ensuring the operating effectiveness of risk management systems (ie that they are adhered to, and that compliance is monitored and enforced), in addition to design effectiveness.
ASIC expects that: (i) AFSL holders will employ or outsource to people with the skills, knowledge and experience in IT security to ensure adequate cybersecurity measures are implemented; (ii) one or more persons will be assigned the responsibility for doing so; and (iii) that those responsible are given sufficient time to properly discharge their responsibility. In this case, ASIC alleges FIIG overly relied on its Chief Operating Officer and IT infrastructure team, which had competing responsibilities.
ASIC’s concise statement is instructive as to the regularity with which it currently expects organisations (at least those of similar circumstances to FIIG) to implement certain technical controls:
|
Activity |
Regularity / timeframes |
|---|---|
|
Testing of cyber incident response plan |
Annually. |
|
Monitoring of Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) software |
Daily. |
|
Application of patches and software updates |
Within one month of release of patch or update for critical or high importance patches. Within three months of release of patch or update for all other patches. |
|
Storage of logs |
Online for at least 90 days. In an electronic archive for at least 12 months. |
|
Mandatory security awareness training |
At onboarding, and then annually. |
|
Review and evaluation of effectiveness of technical cybersecurity controls |
Quarterly. |
|
Review of event logs by Security Administrator |
Every 90 days. |
ASIC is seeking:
in contravention of sections 912A(1)(a), (d), and (h), and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act.
Source: Lance Franklin teams up with NAB to celebrate unifying power of footy
National Children’s Commissioner Anne Hollonds is urging a national response to revelations about dangerous practices and regulatory failings across Australia’s childcare sector.
An ABC Four Corners investigation aired last night has exposed an ineffective regulatory system for Australia’s childcare providers which is failing to protect the safety, health and wellbeing of infants and young children.
Commissioner Hollonds: “The safety and wellbeing of our youngest and most vulnerable children should be of paramount concern for governments across Australia.
“There’s been a lot of commentary about ‘childcare deserts’ being a barrier to women seeking employment, and so governments have been focussed on increasing supply and improving affordability as well as increasing pay for childcare workers and early childhood educators.
“However, there has clearly been insufficient focus on the safety of infants and preschool age children in some of these centres.
“Australia has had a childcare quality framework in place since 2012, and the majority of childcare centres do prioritise child wellbeing.
“However, the ‘quality’ of early childhood education needs to start with the basics, and that means ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our youngest and most vulnerable children, without exception.
“We must urgently address any serious gaps in the regulatory scaffolding and child safeguarding framework that allows physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children in early childhood centres to continue unnoticed or unaddressed.
“Putting babies, toddlers and young kids at risk because of regulatory failings is unacceptable and we need urgent government action across our federation to address these dangerous gaps in how we protect children in this country.
“By not making child safety and wellbeing a priority for National Cabinet, we’re allowing our youngest citizens to fall into these gaps created by jurisdictional boundaries as well as fragmentation and complexity in the childcare industry.
“As I have consistently said, our whole approach to child safety and wellbeing in this country is in desperate need of systemic reform, and this includes our childcare sector.
“Governments need to stop tinkering around the edges and make the safety and wellbeing of children a priority for National Cabinet so we have accountability and evidence-based approaches at the heart of how we protect our kids and provide opportunities for them to thrive.”
ENDS | Media contact: media@humanrights.gov.au or +61 457 281 897
Source: Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science
The Albanese Labor Government is locking in no interest loans for the next five years with an additional $48.7 million to support Australians with the cost of living.
The funding boost to the No Interest Loans program (NILs) will allow Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand in partnership with National Australia Bank (NAB) to continue providing no-fee, no-interest loans for essentials to eligible people.
More than one million Australians have already benefited from NILs.
Good Shepherd administers the scheme, with NAB providing the loan capital. The loans can be used for urgent, critical household purchases and for vehicles for transport to work and essential day-to-day use.
Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, said the Government’s investment will help ease cost of living pressures for many Australians who need support.
“We’re proud to support Good Shepherd and NAB to deliver no-interest loans as an alternative to other high risk, high interest products such as Buy Now Pay Later products and payday loans,” Minister Rishworth said.
“NILs provides support that is usually unavailable to low-income earners through mainstream providers, meaning tens of thousands of vulnerable Australians can purchase the essential things they need.
“These loans also really help people achieve independence and financial recovery in escaping family, domestic, and sexual violence. And having access to a vehicle gives many Australians the ability and independence to work, study, provide care or seek medical care.”
The NILs program is a great example of successful partnerships with industry. The Government has provided funding to Good Shepherd for the administration of NILs since 2009. Around 25,000 general NILs loans are provided each year while nearly 10,000 NILs for Vehicles loans have been provided since this program started in 2021.
Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand CEO Stella Avramopoulos said: “Through powerful partnerships and expanded reach, including into the Northern Territory and First Nations communities, NILs is breaking down barriers, empowering women, sole parents and families, especially those escaping domestic violence, to achieve lasting financial independence and wellbeing.
“With 25 per cent of recipients being sole parents and 18 per cent survivors of family and domestic violence, this support isn’t just about financial assistance — it’s about providing dignity, stability, and a pathway to a better future.
“This work is only possible because of the strength of collaboration between not-for-profits, corporates such NAB, and government. Together, we’re creating meaningful, lasting change — removing credit barriers, preventing predatory lending, and ensuring vulnerable Australians, particularly those in regional and remote communities, have access to the resources they need to recover and rebuild.”
NAB Executive Sustainability Jessica Forrest said: “NILs is NAB’s longest-standing community partnership, with more than $560 million in zero-interest capital provided over 21 years. Together, we are helping more Australians access credit for life’s essentials.
“NAB is proud to provide the loan capital that supports the Good Shepherd NILs program, and pleased to keep working with Government on backing this longstanding program. This funding will ensure more people continue to get the support they need.
“Too often, people in financial stress turn to high-interest payday loans. No interest loans offer a safer alternative, helping Australians borrow money without having to pay any fees or interest.”
NILs assists vulnerable Australians to access affordable loans up to $3,000 for household goods, such as fridges, washing machines and furniture, as well as education and medical expenses.
NILs for Vehicles loans up to $5,000 can be used to purchase cars, mobility scooters and related costs such as registration or maintenance expenses.
Individuals can apply for NILs at over 600 locations across Australia. They are available to individuals and families who can service the loan and who:
More information about NILs is available on the Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand website.
Source:
PAUL CULLIVER: Catherine King is the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and is visiting the region today. Let’s find out why. Minister, good morning to you.
CATHERINE KING: Hi, Paul. How are you?
PAUL CULLIVER: I’m very well. What brings you to the region?
CATHERINE KING: Well, today– I was actually here three weeks ago inspecting the Singleton Bypass, which is going along well. It’s a really important part of infrastructure here for the region. But we’re also announcing today that because of the great work they’ve done on Singleton, it means that we can now bring money forward to get the Muswellbrook Bypass started. There was always an issue between the two projects, just making sure we had the workforce and capacity to do that work. So today we’re announcing that we’re going to bring that Muswellbrook Bypass money forward. We’ll start to see some early works and activities, movement of services and things like that through the course of the next few months so that we can start work to get that really– next important project underway.
And then we’re also starting– we’re putting some money in to do the planning work to actually start thinking about how do we then build a bypass for Cessnock. And again, this is about making sure we can get the huge volumes of traffic that we’re now seeing through what largely were really small country towns originally, but have seen such growth, to get the traffic out, get people to work more quickly, but give people back their main streets.
PAUL CULLIVER: All right. On the Muswellbrook Bypass – so how much money is sort of being put into this early start?
CATHERINE KING: Yeah. So the total Australian Government commitment is $304 million. And the amount of money we’re bringing forward is really just– is to do that early work. So making sure that we’ve got the services movement, that’s often the biggest part of the preparation work that needs to be done. So, moving– whether it’s sewerage works, water, utilities, power utilities, those sorts of things. So quite a bit of the money, is being brought forward to do that.
PAUL CULLIVER: Okay. And– sorry, when you say brought forward, how much sooner is all of this beginning?
CATHERINE KING: Well, it was not due to start– early works were not due to start until next year, but they’ll start this year. So it’s a year early.
PAUL CULLIVER: Okay, actual 12 months early.
CATHERINE KING: Yeah, which is good.
PAUL CULLIVER: Understood. Just explain when you say that– what, things went so well on the Singleton Bypass that that’s allowed this to happen? Just explain what that actually means.
CATHERINE KING: Yeah, so there was always what we had to do when we looked at the pipeline of projects. And as people are driving around, you can see there’s a lot of work going on at the moment, whether it’s from Hexham, Raymond Terrace, obviously Singleton, that there just were some issues in terms of making sure we had the workforce to be able to deliver these projects, that Transport for New South Wales also could manage those projects as well. So we were waiting to see– get Singleton started first. That’s really now well and truly underway and looking very good, so that’s allowed us then to bring Muswellbrook a bit forward so that we can actually start work on that and have that continuous pipeline of work for people in the district.
PAUL CULLIVER: Yeah, right. So it’s not so much that the people working on Singleton will be the people working on the Muswellbrook Bypass.
CATHERINE KING: Well, obviously that will need to go out to tender. New South Wales will manage all of that project. But generally people move from work site to work site. Generally, that’s what happens in a region rather than importing people in.
PAUL CULLIVER: [Talks over] Yeah, sure. What is the timeline for the Muswellbrook Bypass now?
CATHERINE KING: Yeah, again, that will be managed by the New South Wales government. But as I said, early works which are all of the earthworks, the movement of services, that will happen this year with the major construction to start early 2026.
PAUL CULLIVER: Okay. Well let’s talk about the Cessnock Bypass then. So, what’s the plan there?
CATHERINE KING: Yeah, so really this is planning money. So it’s to plan to work out what to do. Like, where would you put the bypass? How do you make sure you get the efficient movement of traffic? What’s the landscape like? How do you actually move people around? We know that there are significant housing developments slated for Cessnock. Again, people are discovering what a great place it is to live, but that brings challenges when it comes to infrastructure. So really this is planning money for New South Wales to then start the planning work to look at how do you actually plan for a bypass, where does it go, what does it look like? There’ll be a lot of community consultation along the process, a lot of engineers having a look at it. But really that’s the money that we’re announcing today.
There’s a number of key routes that lead right into Wollombi Road in the middle of Cessnock, and that population boom with surrounding suburbs and more traffic is making it pretty difficult for people. So really it’s looking to identify what were the alternate routes connecting those new housing developments in Bellbird and Cessnock South to those in the north, and then onward onto the Hunter Expressway – so what’s the best route for that, and how do you do that? That’s really what the money is for, to plan that.
PAUL CULLIVER: So obviously with population in the Hunter growing and growing and growing, getting people around is a pretty high priority. So I understand the need for more road infrastructure – although I’m sure there’s many that would say, why aren’t we also doing more to improve public transport links, rail links? Why is there not more money being spent on that aspect of getting people around the Hunter?
CATHERINE KING: Yeah, well, certainly in terms of the money that we are investing, a large proportion of it, you are right, is on that road infrastructure. Most people are still pretty reliant on their cars to get to work and to get to and from their homes to work. But certainly over time, those big public transport links, they are something that New South Wales Government obviously has looked at. We’re taking responsibility for trying to really get high speed rail up and running. We’ve invested substantially in that, and you’ll see some further work now that we’ve got the business case for that. You’ll see some further work now in the development stage of high speed rail. But really that is obviously Newcastle– from Newcastle, Central Coast into Sydney. But that is again looking at can people work from home more, how do we get bigger industries and bigger businesses into Newcastle and into the Hunter itself. So really there the investments that we make and then looking at further transport movements is really something we do in partnership with the New South Wales Government.
PAUL CULLIVER: Speaking of rail, of course, the business case for the high speed rail between Sydney to Newcastle, I understand, was given to the Government just before the end of last year, still waiting for an investment decision. What can you tell me about that?
CATHERINE KING: Yeah, well it’s with Infrastructure Australia at the moment. So, they will provide advice to government via Cabinet, via the budget process for when it’s ready for further investment. It will still need a development phase. That’s the next phase of work that will be recommended to us, which is again looking at that land acquisition, the finalising all of the geotechnical work and getting it ready for an investment decision. But we’ll make some announcements about that in due course, but Infrastructure Australia is looking at the business case at the moment.
PAUL CULLIVER: Okay, so Infrastructure Australia haven’t said to the Government yet– you haven’t been provided advice as to whether it’s a goer or not?
CATHERINE KING: They haven’t. That advice has not been provided to me yet, no.
PAUL CULLIVER: Okay. We’re one week away from the Federal Budget. Might we see something in that?
CATHERINE KING: Again, we’ll make investment decisions when we’ve got that advice. I’m not going to push Infrastructure Australia to how– the timeline of their job. They will– it’s a big piece of work, so they’ll be doing their analysis of it. They’ll provide advice to the Government, and then we’ll make our decisions about what the next phase of it will be. But really, it’s gone through the sort of exploratory stage. It will then have to go into the development stage, which again, is getting all of the planning approvals to do the work. And we’ll have some further announcements to make about that in due course.
PAUL CULLIVER: All right. We’re not too far away from a federal election. You’re not going to turn up in the Hunter during a federal election with the Prime Minister and say, we’re building high speed rail?
CATHERINE KING: Nice try, nice try. We’re very committed to high speed rail. And the Prime Minister has been talking about it for a long period of time. We’re serious about getting it done properly, making sure that we’ve got all of the information we need to be able to make those investment decisions. But also, if anything I’ve learnt from this job in the last three years in Inland Rail in particular, when you look at the report into Inland Rail, is don’t start making investment decisions when you don’t know how much it’s going to cost and you haven’t got that planning work done. So actually getting planning approvals will really be the next most important phase for high speed rail.
PAUL CULLIVER: All right, if I can just ask you about an idea that’s come from the Coalition – Peter Dutton has been talking about proposing a referendum to change the Constitution to allow the Government to deport dual citizens convicted of serious crimes. What do you think of this idea?
CATHERINE KING: I think it’s just yet another thought bubble from him. I don’t think he’s thought it through. When he wants to take the country to a referendum on decisions that– like, really? It just seems madness to me. I think it’s a thought bubble, and I reckon you’ll see him walk away– crab walk away from it in the next few days or so. It’s been a bit of a pattern from him. I think we’re supposed to also be having another referendum on indigenous representation as well, according to him, but he hasn’t said much about that. He’s promised we were going to do that as well. So let’s see, let’s see.
PAUL CULLIVER: You don’t think it’s a power that the Australian Government should have?
CATHERINE KING: I think it’s a thought bubble from Peter Dutton. I think that’s what it is.
PAUL CULLIVER: All right, Minister, thanks for your time today.
CATHERINE KING: Thanks very much.
PAUL CULLIVER: Catherine King, the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in the region today to announce that the Muswellbrook Bypass is getting brought forward by about 12 months.
Source:
The Australian Government is Building Australia’s Future by investing in crucial infrastructure to boost housing supply across the country.
Critical sewer infrastructure upgrades for a new urban precinct in Brighton, Tasmania are now complete.
Located near the new Brighton High School, Brighton’s sewerage infrastructure has been enhanced to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding community.
New residential and commercial developments are benefitting from improved services, supporting economic growth and liveability in the region.
TasWater’s work included the construction of a new sewage pumping station, a gravity sewer main, and a rising sewer main. The expanded system is designed to service 73 hectares of residential and commercial land.
Delivered in collaboration with Brighton Council and supported by $10.1 million from the Australian Government, the completion of TasWater’s work on the project marks a significant milestone in ensuring the region’s future growth and sustainability.
Brighton Council are continuing to deliver upgrades to 2,040 metres of Brighton Road, Dylan Street and William Street, including new footpaths, kerb, gutter and landscaping.
It will also include 1,090 metres of 2.5 metre wide separated shared path to connect to the existing shared path at the Brighton Industrial Hub. These works are expected to be completed in early 2026.
The $10.1 million in Australian Government funding is being provided through the Community Enabling Infrastructure Stream of the Housing Support Program, which is designed to fast track the delivery of increased housing supply by funding projects that seek to deliver enabling infrastructure to support new housing development.
Quotes attributable to Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King:
“We’re turbocharging housing supply in Tasmania by delivering vital enabling infrastructure such as this project in Brighton.
“A place to call home is not a luxury or a nice-to-have, but a fundamental need, and our Government is making this a reality for more Australians.”
Quotes attributable to TasWater General Manager Project Delivery Tony Willmott:
“The completion of the work highlights TasWater’s commitment to delivering essential services that support Tasmania’s growing communities.
“This upgrade will be a game-changer for Brighton.
“This infrastructure will provide essential services to the new Brighton High School, up to 600 new homes, including 110 housing lots created through Homes Tasmania – accelerating much-needed housing supply for Greater Hobart.
“We have delivered a future-proofed water and sewerage network that will support the region’s development for years to come. We are grateful for the Australian Government’s support and for the strong collaboration with Brighton Council, which made this project possible.”
Quotes attributable to Brighton Council Mayor Leigh Gray:
“This urban growth collaboration between Brighton Council and TasWater has been a gamechanger for progressing the development of the South Brighton area. It will facilitate a range of residential and commercial developments for our rapidly growing community and create the outcomes we had always envisaged for this precinct.
“Council has been extremely pleased to partner with TasWater to deliver these positive outcomes, with considerable interest from developers to add more housing lots. Due to this effective partnership with TasWater, we can see Brighton Council’s long-term planning coming to fruition.”
Quotes attributable to Federal Minister for Social Services and NDIS Amanda Rishworth:
“The Albanese Government has an ambitious agenda to boost housing supply across Australia and it’s fantastic to be in Tasmania to see this work underway. This new infrastructure in Brighton will be a game-changer for the growing community.”
Source:
The Albanese Labor Government has appointed Dr Kevin Fewster AM and Dr Bülent (Hass) Dellal AO as members to the Council for the Australian National Maritime Museum for three-year terms.
Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, said the appointees’ industry knowledge would contribute greatly to the boards.
“Kevin has many years of experience working within cultural institutions as well as a deep passion for maritime history which will be a great asset to the council.”
“Bülent is an accomplished academic and who has a keen interest in exploring Australia’s multicultural stories which is something our incredible cultural instutions do with pride.”
The Australian National Maritime Museum is dedicated to exploring Australia’s maritime history through topics of migration, archaeology, ocean science, commerce, culture and lifestyle, and honours the stories of First Nations peoples’ living cultural connection to ancestral waters.
Dr Kevin Fewster AM has held a number of senior maritime heritage sector positions since 1984, particularly in Australia and the United Kingdom. He was previously Director of the Royal Museums Greenwich (2007-2019), the Powerhouse Museum (2000-2007), Australian National Maritime Museum (1989-2000) and South Australian Maritime Museum (1984-1988). He is currently a Patron of the Melbourne Maritime Heritage Network and The Friends of Gallipoli Inc, and a Board member of The Mariners’ Museum in Newport, Virginia. Dr Fewster was previously the President of the International Congress of Maritime Museums, the world peak body for maritime museums, as well as a former Chairman of the Council of Australasian Museum Directors. Dr Fewster was awarded a British CBE and was made a Member of the Order of Australia for service to museum administration and the preservation of maritime history.
Dr Bülent (Hass) Dellal AO is Chair of the Australian Multicultural Foundation, and Adjunct Professor at Deakin University’s Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation. Dr Dellal’s other board memberships include: Chair of Alfred Deakin Institute of Citizenship and Globalisation’s Advisory Board, Board of Directors of the Scanlon Foundation, Board of Directors of The Huddle, and Board of Directors of the Penington Institute. Dr Dellal has given decades of service to multicultural organisations, the arts and the community, promoting a multicultural Australia. In 2015, Dr Dellal was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the multicultural community He has extensive board and council experience, contributing 10 years of service on the Board of Directors of SBS Television and Radio. In 2024, Dr Dellal served as Panel Chair for the Commonwealth’s Multicultural Framework Review.