Category: MIL-OSI

Source: Workplace Gender Equality Agency

RICHARD KING: I did mention I received a– hang on, where is it now. Yep, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in our neck of the woods this morning. It’s an announcement about funding for a new Cessnock bypass and Muswellbrook bypass. In fact, the Minister is on the line now. Good morning, Minister.

CATHERINE KING: Good morning Richard, how are you?

RICHARD KING: Good, thank you. We had a little bit of confusion there. We’ve had phone calls and text messages flying all over the place. But yeah, welcome back to our area. And look, I mentioned earlier when I said I was hopefully going to be speaking to you this morning. I get a lot of calls from people early in the morning heading up to the mines, et cetera, working in the Hunter Valley. I know– in fact, my son who’s an engineer is working on the Singleton bypass. But you’ve got some good news re a couple more bypasses that are going to be happening as well. Can you tell us about that?

CATHERINE KING: Yeah. It’s actually three weeks ago I was up having a look at the progress on the Singleton bypass, and it’s really coming along well. But today we’re announcing– because that work is going so well, it’s meant that we’ve been able to bring the funding forward for starting the work early on the Muswellbrook bypass. That’s a really important 9.3 kilometres of road. It’ll take about 13,000 to 20,000 cars per day out of the main streets of Muswellbrook. That early money that we’re bringing forward means they can start doing some of the early work to get the site all ready for construction.

So, that’s one of the announcements we’re making today. And of course, just making sure that we continue to plan for the future given the growth that we’re seeing throughout the Hunter, given people have discovered the secret of what a beautiful part of the world it is, and are wanting to move here. We’re seeing increasing numbers of housing development, and that’s also meant that for Cessnock, that has meant that trying to get some congestion out of there is going to be important. So, we’re putting in $5 million today to kick start the planning process to look at a future bypass for the town of Cessnock.

RICHARD KING: We keep hearing about major infrastructure projects. They’re a huge blowout. Just re: Singleton, is that on track sort of budget-wise and time scale-wise, Minister?

CATHERINE KING: Absolutely, as far as I understand it. Obviously, the people delivering the projects are the New South Wales Government. I was on site with Jenny Aitchison on the day three weeks ago, and that project is looking very good. As far as I’m aware, there haven’t been cost blow-outs on that project, which is great to hear. It was great to see some of the workers out there. Obviously, it’s a really important project for the region, and good to see that progress is being made.

RICHARD KING: And look, while we’re talking about infrastructure projects, the extension of the M1, I mean, every time we have holidays or long weekends and even Friday afternoons, the people heading south, either up to Port Stephens or further north, there’s always a bottleneck here. We’ve had the widening of– in fact, it’s right in front of where I am at Sandgate. That widening process has been going on for a long time. I believe that should be finished next year. But the M1 extension, I think that’s a couple of years away at this stage, am I…

CATHERINE KING: [Talks over] Yeah. Well one of one the issues we’ve obviously had– and you can see it all around, is there’s a huge amount of road construction happening at the moment, and that means that there’s been some capacity constraints in terms of these projects. So, trying to make sure we sequence them in a way that keeps fabulous construction workforce working, but also then doesn’t mean that we just don’t have the resources to be able to deliver these projects. So, you can see from whether it’s Hexham, Raymond Terrace, the Singleton bypass, now being able to bring forward the Muswellbrook bypass and start the work to plan the Cessnock bypass and then other projects that are on the schedule for delivery with New South Wales. Really, we’ve got to make sure that we keep that capacity and pipeline of projects going, but we also don’t stretch the system to such an extent that then costs flow out, or we have to import workers from elsewhere.

RICHARD KING: 8:09 on Tuesday, my guest, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – you’re wearing a number of hats here – Catherine King. Look, a hot topic at the moment, the financial situation of Newcastle Airport. I don’t know how much of this comes under your umbrella, but I know there was a fair amount of federal money that’s gone into the extension of the runway there. Under construction at the moment is the new international airport, but people are concerned about the liability for ratepayers of both Newcastle and Port Stephens, who jointly own the councils, jointly own those airports. How much oversight do you have on what’s happening at Newcastle Airport Minister?

CATHERINE KING: Well, I don’t have a great deal of oversight into the financials of the airport. Obviously, it is run and managed by the two local councils, and so I don’t have line of sight of the management of the airport. We’ve certainly put grant money in for upgrading the infrastructure, which then enables an expansion of the airport, which then also enables you to have more passengers coming in if you have international flights coming in, and that obviously increases the capacity of the airport for revenue. But they are questions that you’d really need to direct to the local government area.

RICHARD KING: Yeah, it’s a very hot topic. The Lord Mayor of Newcastle, who I spoke to yesterday, has requested an inquiry into that. So, we’ll then no doubt hear more from the New South Wales Government on that particular one.

Another hot issue is obviously the budget which will be out next week. Jim Chalmers, our Treasurer, announced it will be a deficit budget next week after we’ve had a number of surpluses, and deficit budgets, I think, are predicted for the next decade. Will that have much of an impact on all these major infrastructure projects, Minister?

CATHERINE KING: Well, we’ve got a $125 billion infrastructure pipeline that is built into the budget over the next decade. And so when projects come off, new projects come on. So that’s sort of sat and is pretty stable. We’ve increased in fact the budget from the Commonwealth for infrastructure funding. So I don’t anticipate that we’ll see– we’ll see some good news– we will see good news for new infrastructure projects in the budget. But let’s wait till budget night to see what all of the broader figures are. Obviously, I think what the Treasurer, Jim, was indicating that, you know, it would be no surprise to people that we have an event like Cyclone Alfred, that there is some impact on the budget in relation to that, whether it be in terms of claims for fixing roads, rail and but also the significant economic loss many of the businesses and individuals have experienced up there as well. That will, of course, have an impact, as every single disaster does each time on the budget, and he was just reporting that.

RICHARD KING: Peter Dutton yesterday has called for the deregistration of the CFMEU following these fresh allegations of violence, particularly directed at women and the influence of organised crime and corruption within the CFMEU. And he’s calling for legislation changes, et cetera. I know Murray Watt said it’s reckless. Do you have a view on this?

CATHERINE KING: Yeah, I do. I mean, a couple of things. I mean, the first thing, none of us tolerate this sort of activity in any workplace. It’s criminal activity. And we need to make sure that every– you know, from an infrastructure point of view, I want to make sure every assurance that every single dollar of taxpayer money is going to pay workers properly to make sure we actually deliver that infrastructure. And so, I’ve sought assurances from the states and territories that they’ve got the right processes in place to check that all the time.

But in terms of the call from Peter Dutton yesterday, I mean, this is a bloke who has failed to clean up, you know, this– deal with these issues when they were last in government. Now thinks that deregistration– which basically means the union will still operate, they just won’t be registered and they won’t have any oversight. So, what we’ve done is put it into administration so that the people who we were concerned about have no part in running the organisation. You’ll see with deregistration, they will be back in pretty quickly. It means the union still can go to Fair Work Australia, the unions still exist. It just won’t be registered and it won’t have that regulatory oversight. So I’m not sure how that’s actually going to clean up or fix it.

And then secondly, you know, we have already very strong laws in place that allow the sorts of things– you know, again, we’ve gone and looked to America to see what the Americans can tell us. We’re Australia and we know pretty much what our laws say. We’ve already got really strong laws that allow us to go after– you know, the criminal syndicates that are behind some of these activities. The issue is we’ve got to back in the administrator to actually do the job properly. Some of this stuff has come to light because it is in administration. And there is– you know, thorough audits and investigations being undertaken. And, you know, I welcome that the Victorian Government’s now, you know, increased money for the taskforce or increased the focus of the taskforce to try and deal with these issues. But you know, let’s be clear, none of us have any tolerance for this. We’re working our way through how we actually fix this and that will take some time.

RICHARD KING: Appreciate your time this morning, Minister, and enjoy your time in the Hunter Valley I’m sure you will.

CATHERINE KING: [Laughs] I always do. Thank you so much.

RICHARD KING: Good on you. Thank you. Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, that’s a mouthful. Catherine King on 2HD.

Source:

We’ve reviewed our advice and continue to advise exercise a high degree of caution for Egypt due to the threat of terrorism. We also advise do not travel or reconsider your need to travel to several areas of Egypt due to threats including higher risks of terrorism or serious crime – read our advice carefully. Terrorist attacks could occur anywhere in Egypt. Potential targets include religious sites and tourist locations.

Demonstrations and protest activity may also occur, and local security situations could deteriorate with little notice. Avoid all demonstrations and protests (See ‘Safety’).

Source: Government of Victoria 3

19 March 2025

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ, HOST:    Well, if you are really struggling to pay for some of the basics, maybe your fridge has stopped working or you need a new one, or you’re struggling to pay medical bills. A new no interest loan program has been launched by the Federal Government. It’ll be run by Good Shepherd Australia, giving interest free loans, loans of up to $2,000. Amanda Rishworth is the Minister for Social Services and is with us this afternoon. Minister, thank you for your time.

AMANDA RISHWORTH, MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND THE NDIS:    Great to be with you. 

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    What does it say about our community that a service like this is needed and seems to be facing a lot of demand?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    This program has been going on for some time. In fact, the partnership between Good Shepherd and the NAB has been around for 20 years or so. But what the Federal Government’s saying is we think have a role to play as well. Of course, for a whole lot of unexpected reasons, people might find that their car breaks down or their fridge stops working. And rather than turn to typically buy now and pay later, which can get people into a bit of financial trouble or indeed payday loans, this is a really important alternative that is available to people. But more importantly than just the no interest loan, it also connects people up with financial counselling and other support they might need as well.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    So, why do you feel like the Government has needed to step in? What hasn’t been working if this scheme’s been going along for 20 years?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    Well, we’ve supported this scheme since 2009. We’ve been trialling first the NILS scheme and now we also trialled NILS for Vehicles, which is no interest loans for vehicles. And really the funding agreements were coming up for reassessment. We see a huge benefit in this and that’s why we have committed for five years of funding this program. So, what our funding goes to is supporting Good Shepherd do the casework that they need to do to support a person, whereas the NAB provides the loan directly. But people do need support and it was wonderful to hear some stories today. But what we’re committing to is $50 million to this program over the next five years to give it some certainty.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    And so it’s open to individuals who earn less than $70,000 a year. $100,000 for a couple or person with dependants is part of the challenge that, you know, maybe not that long ago $100,000 used to be seen as a liveable household wage, but wages have not been rising anywhere near inflation.

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    Firstly, I’d say what the funding is for is to help with those unexpected items. People do have to demonstrate that they can pay this back, but rather than go and, for example, get a loan from a payday lender. I heard one example today where the car loan was going to have 36 per cent interest on it. So, that obviously would put the individual into a real crisis point. So, that’s where these loans come in. So, it really is looking for people that might need this extra support for the loans, the ordinary loans for sort of household goods, the maximum is $3,000. For vehicles, it’s $5,000. So, we’re talking about a small loan. The impact it’s had on some of the people I spoke to today has been life changing.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    How many people are in crisis? 

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    In terms of how many people have applied for these loans, there’s about, in total, 37,000 people in the last financial year that applied for these loans. So, these people are looking for extra support. Of course, there’s other people in crisis that are not looking for loans. They might be looking for emergency relief. We’ve obviously got a range of different other supports. For example, if someone’s leaving a violent relationship, this may not be the option for them. It might actually be the Escaping Violence Payment, which gives people $5,000 to set up a new home. So, there are different programs for different people, but this one in particular provides approximately 35,000 loans in a year.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    It is 28 past five. 891. ABC Radio, Adelaide. Nikolai Beilharz’s with you for Drive. Also with you, Amanda Rishworth, the Minister for Social Services, is also the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Yesterday we were talking about some articles that have been published online, including in the Australian Financial Review, which said that National Cabinet was going to move support services for children with mild autism and early developmental challenges back to the state and territory level and that services would be provided through schools, childcare centres and other government settings. Just quickly, a couple of issues there, starting with the shift of responsibility to schools, early childhood centres and the like. Can you confirm that responsibility is shifting?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    No, that’s not correct. I need to dispel that myth completely. What was agreed to at National Cabinet was making sure, and this was recommended in the NDIS Review, that there would be extra supports for people that may not need an individualised NDIS plan but still have needed some support in terms of their developmental trajectory. They were what the NDIS Review called foundational supports and they were disability specific supports. The locations of where they would be delivered are still being negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. There was a commitment of 50/50 funding from both the Commonwealth and the states and territories, but it was not about taking people and reducing access to the scheme. What it was is identifying that there are a group of children that are not getting the support now. And we needed to build that support up, but it is not being foisted onto schools or other places. The concept of foundational supports is being still worked up with states and territories to identify the best locations, deliver them.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    Is the reality though that schools’ early childhood care centres will need to put on some extra additional form of support though if responsibility is moved to them?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    Well, the responsibility is not going to be moved to them. What it was identified that these could be locations in which perhaps allied health could deliver support. So, I need to be clear, the responsibility is not being put onto schools or childcare centres. What we were talking about when it came to foundational support was making sure that perhaps they were the right settings to deliver these supports in. Now that doesn’t say that schools and other early childhood settings shouldn’t be looking at how they move to more inclusive education. That’s something that is in Australia’s Disability Strategy and something that we continue to work towards. But certainly it was never envisaged that schools and early childhood settings would have to take on this responsibility. The delivery of foundational support is being currently worked on between the states and territories about how best to deliver. But there is still access through the NDIS for those with developmental delay or that need early intervention. That they are the early intervention and developmental delay pathway. Where we were talking about foundational supports is where those supports might be better delivered outside the NDIS or indeed for children that are not being able to access those supports at the moment.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    OK, and just very quickly, the use of the term mild autism, should that have been included?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:   Look, I’m not using that term. Everyone is individually assessed. But what we know is, for example, and I’ll give an example here, is that with putting the right support around a child very early on can actually, and this has been demonstrated through the Inklings program which we are jointly funding with the South Australian Government, putting the right parenting supports in place for a child might mean they don’t get a diagnosis of autism later on because they are on a strong developmental trajectory. So, for me it is about making sure that people are getting the right supports where they need it, when they need it. For some children, individualised clinical supports might not be the right answer. It might be another type of supports.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    OK Minister, just before you go back to the cost of living side of things, we heard from Linda who rang into Rory McLaren on 891 Mornings. This morning, here’s a bit of what she had to say.

Audio of interview: 

Linda: I’ve never been so insulted by a government giving a pensioner $4.60 a fortnight pay increase, saying it will give us a boost. And I am beyond anger, frustration, being insulted. How dare they think that $4.60 a fortnight is going to change my life? It’s appalling.

Rory McLaren: Are you by yourself, Linda?

Linda: I am. I live alone and I’m in a retirement village which I put all the money I had in the world in and it was great and I love it. My motor insurance has gone up 30 per cent. My health insurance gone up about 15 per cent. Everything I go, I ring around, I use a spreadsheet. I’m the best budgeter that you will ever know with what I do with that pension. And then I get the biggest insult and kick in the teeth by a government thinks that $4.60 a fortnight is going to help just beyond anger. There’s so many people I’ve spoken to who are in the same boat, they are devastated. I want to look at Albanese in the eyes and tell, ask him, what am I going to do with that $4.60, Anthony, what am I going to do with it?

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    Amanda Rishworth, what would you say to Linda?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:    I understand that a lot of people are doing it tough. What I would also say is the way that the indexation is applied to the pension has not changed. There’s a formula that gets applied twice a year and over the last, since we were elected, that formula has delivered about a 16 per cent increase in the pension. It’s based on basically a better off over all three tests. So, there’s three different measures and the best one is applied. So, this has been the same way that indexation has been applied since 2000 and 2009.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    Does that need to change, though?

AMANDA RISHWORTH:   Well, it has been set in a way twice a year, it takes the best of three tests. But I would say what our Government has also been doing is looking at other ways we can help pensioners. For example, the cost of the PBS for concession cardholders has been frozen for three years. Sorry, for five years at $7.70. There’s been energy bill relief of $300 for households over the last two years. So, we’ve been looking at ways we can help, particularly pensioners. Rent Assistance has had, for example, a 45 per cent increase in the maximum rate. So, we’ve been looking at how we can best support people and support pensioners. Of course, it is tough, but back in 2009, it used to be only set by CPI. It was actually a Labor Government that changed these settings. Now, I would say also Peter Dutton has said that this type of indexation is wasteful and that he would review whether indexation is actually applied. He’s called it wasteful spending. So, while I understand it is difficult for people, it is the settings and the way it’s been set back since 2018, where it was changed to be a more generous indexation. And we’ve looked at other ways we can support pensioners with cost of living support as well.

NIKOLAI BEILHARZ:    Minister, thank you for your time this afternoon. Amanda Rishworth, the Minister for Social Services.

Source: Government of Victoria 3

19 March 2025

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

Topics: No Interest Loan Scheme, Good Shepherd, National Australia Bank, financial counselling, emergency relief, financial wellbeing, community partners, financial crisis, social safety net, dental on Medicare.

AMANDA RISHWORTH, MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES: I’m really pleased to be here at Uniting Care, Wesley Bowden for a very important announcement. The announcement today is that the Federal Government will lock in funding for five years to continue our contribution to the No Interest Loan Scheme. This is a really important Scheme administered by Good Shepherd, and supported by NAB. This program provides for up to $3,000 of no interest loans, free from interest, free from administration fees, to help people on low incomes purchase important goods that they may need. Things like washing machines, things like computers or iPads. Today, we’re also announcing the extension of the No Interest Loans for Vehicles program. This provides up to $5,000 for loans for people to get either repairs, pay for registration or make a contribution to a vehicle.

Today, it was wonderful to hear from participants about the life changing impact that these no interest loans have made, whether that is staying connected to the world through having a laptop, whether that is being able to stay connected to employment or volunteering opportunities by having a road-worthy vehicle. These are really life changing things. For some people, it may seem small, but for the participants we heard today, this is really important. This investment by the Federal Government gives certainty to both Good Shepherd and the National Australia Bank that we are serious about this program and that this program has our support.

Of course, this is a partnership, while the Australian Government funds for Good Shepherd to do the support and administration of this program, NAB actually provides those loans, and really it is a partnership, not just between the three organisations, the Federal Government, Good Shepherd and, of course, the National Australia Bank, but the many community partners that are on the ground delivering this program. Places like Uniting Care, Wesley Bowden, that not only support people with these no interest loans, but are funded to provide wraparound financial counselling and other support that’s so critical to getting people back on their feet if they have been in financial crisis, or importantly, stopping them from being in more financial crisis.

This complements the Federal Government’s investment in Financial Wellbeing and Capability. We’ve recently announced extensions to our funding for financial counselling, for the Saver Plus program, and increased our funding for Emergency Relief as well. In addition, we have funded, of course, the Leaving Violence Payment, providing critical support for women leaving a violent circumstance where they may need to set up and invest in setting up a new home. As just one example, we continue to strengthen our social safety net across the Commonwealth, and really pleased today to be making this announcement, but it does, as I said, rely on partnership, and I’d like to really thank all those involved who make a contribution to this program that’s been a very long-standing program. I’m very pleased we’re able to announce our commitment for the next five years.

STELLA AVRAMOPOULOS, GOOD SHEPHERD CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Similarly, Good Shepherd is very pleased on behalf of our community providers and NAB to get this funding for the next five years. It means that every year, more than 30,000 households will have access to affordable, safe and supported loans that can prevent people who are vulnerable and suffering financial stress from entering into hardship. And for that to be provided through communities that are in their local community that they know trust and can access as well. So thank you to the Federal Government and NAB our partners for the support. And the fact that only when we activate a coalition of sectors on issues like financial wellbeing and hardship, can we start to break the cycle. Thank you.

JESSICA FORREST, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK: Good morning. My name is Jessica. I’m representing the National Australia Bank, and NAB is extraordinarily proud of this partnership, which has really been helping a generation of Australians have dignity when they experience financial difficulties. We know that financial difficulty can happen to anyone, and when it does that, it’s our role as a bank to provide support. There are some circumstances where people need extra support, and the NILS program is a fantastic initiative that’s given more than a million Australians a fridge, a washing machine, a car when they need it, and access to dignity. We’re so proud to work together with Good Shepherd and pleased to welcome the Government’s additional support for the program. Thank you.

HELEN SHEPPARD, UNITING CARE WESLEY BOWDEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE: The No Interest Loan Scheme changes lives. It makes sure that children can get to school, that people can go to work, and that people can access sport and medical services that they need. Uniting Care, Wesley Bowden is delighted to be part of the partnership between the Australian Government, Good Shepherd, and NAB, to deliver NILS and NILS4Vehicles within Adelaide.

AMANDA RISHWORTH: So we might go to questions on NILS, and then I can quickly go to other questions, if you would like.

JOURNALIST: There’s been a 200% increase in demand. Is that concerning to hear that? But obviously also good that we have a program like this can help those people.

AMANDA RISHWORTH: I think it is really encouraging that people are reaching out for help for this program. It demonstrates just how important a program like this is, if you think of what the alternative might be, and I heard one of those alternatives just before, the alternative might be to get a car loan that has, say, a 36% interest rate now that, if you think about could put someone into significantly more financial crisis. So, while I recognise there is a demand, I think there is a significantly important program, and that’s what this is responding to.

JOURANLIST: Do you think since this is the second round it’s being offered – If we continue, do you think that the Commonwealth will put more money in if more people are needing help?

AMANDA RISHWORTH: This funding locks in the Commonwealth contribution for the next five years. The funding for this program was terminating, and it’s very clear that our Government has seen the value of this program and has made a commitment for the next five years so that NAB and Good Shepherd have the certainty that the Federal Government is backing this program.

JOURANLIST: I’ve just got some questions from Seven just in regards to Medicare and dental. Will the Government consider adding dental to Medicare? And why not?

AMANDA RISHWORTH: We understand as a Government that there has long been an aspiration for dental to be on Medicare. The Health Minister has been very clear, though, that the short-term challenge that our Government has been addressing getting general practice back on a sustainable footing. When we came to Government, Medicare and bulk billing was in dire straits as a result of cuts made by the Liberal Government. So our focus has been about ensuring that Medicare is funded properly we have, over subsequent budgets, made investments into bulk billing, and the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of more than $8 billion to be extending the bulk billing incentive to everyone in this country is a really critical investment. While we understand there’s a long term aspiration for dental to be put on Medicare. Our first priority is getting Medicare and general practice, in particular, bulk billing and the investment in primary health back in actually delivering the health care that people need.

JOURNALIST: The Dental Association had a proposal to provide a capped maximum of around $1,100 of free dental treatment to eligible seniors every two years. Will you guys look at that?

AMANDA RISHWORTH: I would say our first priority is about delivering a general, sustainable, general practice network. We know that general practice is facing many difficulties as a result of the freezes put in place by Peter Dutton himself when he was Health Minister. So quite frankly, our focus is on supporting first and foremost general practice. We continue to invest in dental through the child dental scheme, along with partnerships with states and territories for their dental program. But at the moment, our focus is making sure that we are getting our general practice GPs back on a sustainable footing so we can have a good primary health care in this country.

JOURNALIST: And just lastly, in regards to the dental proposal, has that been costed? Has that been looked at by anyone in the Government?

AMANDA RISHWORTH: I understand that there is aspiration for dental to be included in Medicare. We make our investment through the child dental scheme, and, of course, also supporting states and territories provide their public dental scheme as well.

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)

Commonwealth exposed to compensation claims for pre-1975 native title extinguishments 3 min read

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.

The key questions and decisions

There were two key issues for the High Court to decide:

1. whether the Commonwealth’s power to make laws under the territories power in s122 of the Constitution empowered it to enact laws allowing the acquisition of property but without the requirement to provide ‘just terms’ under s51(xxxi)—the court ruled it did not, and that the ‘just terms’ requirement must apply to any such acquisition; and
2. whether the extinguishment or impairment of native title by the Commonwealth constitutes an ‘acquisition of property’ under s51(xxxi) —the court said it does.

Background

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:

• if these acts extinguished native title, they were constitutionally invalid due to the absence of just terms compensation, as required by s51(xxxi); and
• if that was so, the acts could be categorised as ‘compensable acts’ under the Act, triggering a right to compensation.

What is the significance of the case?

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.

What’s next?

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)

What you need to know 13 min read

The Federal Government’s recent changes to foreign investment policies released on 14 March 2025 introduce significant modifications.

In this Insight, we:

• examine the Government’s latest foreign investment policy changes in respect of the acquisition by foreign persons of established dwellings, application fees in competitive bid processes, concessional fee treatment for build to rent investments and scrutiny of tax arrangements, each as reflected in updated guidance notes released on 14 March 2025;
• explain how, and to what extent, the upcoming federal election is expected to impact FIRB applications;
• consider the Federal Opposition’s proposal to establish a ‘white list’ for trusted investors from Quad, Five Eyes, and AUKUS countries;
• comment on Treasury’s new Foreign Investment Portal for applications and compliance reporting; and
• identify some points of interest from Treasury’s latest quarterly report on foreign investment.

Key takeaways

• Foreign persons are banned from buying established dwellings from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2027, subject to limited exceptions in relation to certain redevelopments, commercial scale developments and build-to-rent (BTR) projects.
• The Government has now published its policy on fee refunds and fee credits where a bidder is unsuccessful in a competitive bid process. While further clarity is helpful, there are prescriptive criteria which must be met. Decisions will still be made on a case-by-case basis.
• Application fees for investments in BTR projects are now subject to lower commercial land fee tiers.
• The Government’s scrutiny of tax arrangements continues to increase. There are additional tax conditions (which we have seen imposed over the past 12 months or so) which may be imposed on a case-by-case basis.
• Once a federal election is called, the Government will enter into caretaker mode. During the caretaker period, Treasury officials still have delegated authority to determine certain applications. However, expect deferred decisions in respect of sensitive applications as they will need to be decided directly by the Treasurer.
• The Federal Opposition’s ‘white list’ process is a welcome proposal, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, differences there are with the Government’s existing policy of streamlining low-risk investments.
• Treasury’s new Foreign Investment Portal is now live. Non-residential land compliance reports must now be submitted through the Portal. Once the final stage of the Portal is launched, the entire FIRB application process will be facilitated through the Portal.

Two-year ban on foreign persons buying established dwellings

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.

• Redevelopment into at least 20 additional dwellings: approval may be granted to a foreign person who proposes to redevelop an established dwelling into at least 20 additional dwellings, with no sales permitted prior to completion of construction. The previous exception only required a redevelopment to result in one additional dwelling.
• Commercial scale established dwellings: approval may be granted to a foreign person for an acquisition that supports the availability of housing on a commercial scale. For example, multi-unit developments such as retirement villages, assisted living or aged care facilities and student accommodation. This is a new exception in the guidance note, however it more or less reflects current practice.
• Build-to-rent developments: approval may be granted to a foreign person for acquisition of established BTR developments, provided certain conditions are met. The exception applies not only to direct acquisitions, but also to indirect acquisitions such as those of equity securities in entities that own BTR developments. The conditions include that the BTR development consists of at least 50 dwellings where each dwelling is offered for lease terms of at least five years, at least 10% of the dwellings are ‘affordable dwellings’, and that the foregoing remain satisfied during the shorter of the period in which the foreign person holds the interest and 15 years after the completion of the development.

A few observations:

• The ‘exception’ regarding BTR developments was first announced by the Government on 1 May 2024, but it is only now that further details have been made available.
• The guidance note does not allow for situations where a foreign person may have difficulty in procuring compliance with the conditions. For example, an acquirer of a minority interest would not normally have control over how the BTR development is managed. Unless a minority investor is able to obtain appropriate contractual protections regarding compliance with the conditions – such as a veto right to block any changes that could cause the development to cease to comply with the conditions – then the investor could in the future be forced to dispose of their interest so as to avoid breaching the conditions.
• Not all BTR developments will necessarily be characterised as ‘residential land’ under the FIRB regime. It is common for BTR developers to acquire vacant commercial land with the aim of developing BTR apartments, and for investors to provide funding at a time when the land has yet to become residential. Such a scenario is not caught by the recently announced ban.

Refund or credit of application fees in competitive bid processes

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.

A choice between a 75% refund or a 100% credit

• Options for a refund or credit: bidders can choose between a 75% refund (which must be applied for within six months after being informed of an unsuccessful bid) or a 100% credit for a subsequent FIRB application that is made within 24 months of the failed bid.
• Fee credit use: if a fee credit is issued, it can only be used once, even if the full value of the credit is not used for the first subsequent application where the credit is claimed.

Eligibility

• Criteria for a competitive bid process: there must be a competitive bid process where two or more parties place bids for an asset, and where the outcome is uncertain at the time the bids are made.
• No refund for a bid withdrawal: bidders cannot withdraw from the process before being notified that their bid was unsuccessful. Refunds or credits are not available if a bidder changes their mind or if the investment does not proceed for any other reason.
• Residential land not covered: bidders for residential land (such as bidders at public auctions) are not eligible for fee refunds or credits.
• Case-by-case decisions: decisions regarding fee refunds or credits are not automatic and will be made on a case-by-case basis. Supporting documentation will need to be provided to justify the refund or credit request.
• Supporting documentation: bidders should state in their FIRB application that they are participating in a competitive bid process. When applying for a fee refund or credit, a bidder should provide supporting documentation, preferably a statement from the vendor that the bidder participated in a competitive bid process and was genuinely unsuccessful. This will need to be built into sale processes if vendors require bidders to lodge FIRB applications upfront before the successful bidder is chosen.

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.

Concessional fee treatment for BTR investments

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.

Greater scrutiny of tax arrangements

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.

The impact of the upcoming federal election on FIRB applications

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.

• Deferral of decisions on sensitive applications: during the caretaker period, the Government traditionally avoids making major policy decisions that are likely to commit an incoming government.² Given this, applications that relate to particularly sensitive investment proposals and which are to be decided directly by the Treasurer will likely be delayed until after the end of the caretaker period. If the election results in a change of government, expect that the new Treasurer will take at least a few weeks after formation of the new government to start making decisions on delayed applications.
• Continued decision-making under delegations: many applications can be decided by Treasury officials under delegated authority. For example, under a Treasury delegations instrument, Treasury and ATO officials generally have authority to make decisions on applications involving acquisition consideration of not more than A$100 million. Such applications will generally continue to be decided under delegation during the caretaker period.
• Continued assessment by government agencies: the review of FIRB applications by Treasury and government agencies continues during the caretaker period. However, there can be delays in reviews by government agencies if, as part of their review, they consult with government ministers on policy matters.

Federal Opposition’s ‘white list’ proposal

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’s new Foreign Investment Portal

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.

• Application cover letters will not be permitted under the new Portal. Rather, the Portal will contain fields for insertion of information. This will mean foreign investors and their advisers need to reconsider how they present complex or detailed information or information that is not fixed. For example, it is unlikely that the new Portal will accommodate information in tables, nor footnotes, nor diagrams that appear next to text to facilitate understanding of the relevant information, and it may be that the insertion of investor ownership percentage ranges are not permitted.
• The need to complete information fields will likely mean foreign investors will no longer be able to submit an application without providing all required information (eg information on the investors who have interests in the applicant).
• Applicants will no longer be allocated a case officer or case team. In fact, applicants will not know who at Treasury is looking after their application. Further, all communications in the Portal will be in writing, and Treasury has indicated that only in exceptional circumstances would there be calls or meetings between applicants and Treasury. For the more complex and sensitive investment proposals, we consider it important that Treasury continue its current practice of meeting with applicants or their advisers during an application assessment period.

Treasury’s latest quarterly report on foreign investment

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.

• There was a median processing time of 34 days for approved commercial investment proposals for the quarter, compared to 41 days for the previous quarter. Note that this is a ‘median’, not ‘average’. Given the lengthy processing times of many sensitive applications, the ‘average’ processing time would be significantly longer.
• During the quarter, 17 out of 20 mandatory national security investment proposals were approved without conditions, compared to 17 out of 25 for the previous quarter. It would be interesting to know whether any proposals were withdrawn due to high prospects of a rejection. The report discloses that 32 commercial investment proposals in total were withdrawn during the quarter.
• There were no commercial investment proposals prohibited during the quarter, compared to one for the previous quarter. Again, it would be interesting to know whether any proposals were withdrawn due to high prospects of a rejection.
• During the quarter, there were numerous approved residential investment proposals for applicants from Asian countries. We expect this figure will fall dramatically once the established dwellings ban described above takes effect on 1 April 2025.

If you wish to discuss how these developments could affect you, please contact any of the people below.

Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

Failing to protect against cybersecurity risks 6 min read

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:

• provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly;
• have adequate resources (financial, technological and human) to ensure appropriate cybersecurity measures and comply with its legal obligations; and
• have adequate risk management systems,

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).

Background

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.

Takeaways

Declarations and orders

ASIC is seeking:

• declarations: that FIIG failed to: 
  1. have adequate resources (financial, technological and human) to ensure appropriate cybersecurity measures and comply with its legal obligations;
  2. have adequate risk management systems; and
  3. as a consequence of the failures above, failed to do all things necessary to ensure the financial services covered by FIIG’s licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly,

  in contravention of sections 912A(1)(a), (d), and (h), and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act.

• a pecuniary penalty: in respect of each of FIIG’s alleged contraventions of the Corporations Act (and where, for each contravention, the maximum civil penalty for companies is the greater of (i) 50,000 penalty units ($13.75 million at the time), (ii) three times the benefit obtained and detriment avoided, and (iii) 10% of annual turnover, capped at 2.5 million penalty units ($687.5 million at the time)).
• a compliance order: that FIIG complete a compliance program involving review of its cybersecurity measures and commission an independent expert to report on those measures to ASIC, in such form as the court thinks fit.
• that FIIG pay ASIC’s costs.

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