Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (17:08): I want to raise a number of issues that are within the Attorney-General's portfolio and require urgent attention. The first is child sexual abuse material. Last year I introduced a private member's bill to make it an offence to download AI tools designed specifically to generate child sexual abuse material.
These tools are available on websites, app stores and the dark web. Intelligence company Graphika reported in late 2023 that they had moved from niche internet forums into a scaled, monetised business, with more than 24 million unique visits recorded to 34 of those websites in a single month. Possessing a single image is already illegal, but these tools let perpetrators generate, delete and regenerate material endlessly, evading existing laws.
Every AI generated abuse image starts with photos of a real child. They normalise abuse, overwhelm law enforcement and make it harder to identify actual victims. The government acknowledged in 2023 that existing laws likely do not adequately prevent AI facilitated harms.
My bill offers a ready solution. Minister, will the government commit to legislating against AI child sexual abuse material generators before the end of the year? Governments are increasingly using automated systems to make decisions that affect people's lives—welfare payments, visa applications, tax assessments, child protection and the NDIS.
Robodebt showed us exactly what can go wrong when automated decisions are made at scale, and the robodebt royal commission recommended a mandatory legislative framework for government decision-making. The problem isn't automation itself; the problem is automation without transparency, proper human oversight or meaningful avenues for people to challenge the decisions made about them.
People have a right to know when an automated system has made a decision about them and a right to have a real person review it. The Attorney-General's Department has a central role in ensuring our legal frameworks keep pace with these emerging risks. Minister, will you legislate mandatory safeguards for automated government decisions?
Australia urgently needs whistleblowing law reform that delivers accessible, consistent and comprehensive protections across both public and private sectors. The announcement yesterday of a review into Australia's private sector whistleblower regime is welcome and is something I've urged the government to progress, but while that review begins there's still silence on promised reforms to public sector protections.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act has applied to Commonwealth whistleblowers since 2013. It's outdated and overdue for reform. Public consultation on draft legislation, including a proposal for a new whistleblower ombudsman, concluded on 1 October 2025.
That was eight months ago, with no bill, no timeline and no explanation since. People who speak up about wrongdoing in the public sector deserve better than a government that consults and then goes quiet. Minister, when can parliament expect for the bill to protect Commonwealth public sector whistleblowers to be introduced?
Freedom of information is one of the few everyday tools citizens, journalists and civil society have to scrutinise government power, and the system is broken—not in my words but from the findings of every major review over the past decade: Hawke in 2013, Shergold in 2015, Thodey in 2019 and the Senate inquiry in 2023. All four reviews reached the same conclusion: the system is not fit for purpose and needs a comprehensive, independent review.
None of them actually conducted one. The government's recent attempt at reform proposed reducing disclosure, expanding exemptions and introducing fees. It did not address collapsing rates of full disclosure, serious processing delays or what advocates describe as administrative torture.
Reform that only moves towards less transparency is not neutral; it's a political choice. Minister, will the government commit to a comprehensive, independent review of the FOI Act led by independent experts with genuine public participation? The NACC was established to investigate corruption and restore public trust in government.
Australians are watching closely, and what they're seeing is concerning. No public hearings have been held, and not one case has met the exceptional circumstances test. The workings of the NACC have occurred almost entirely behind closed doors, and now there's a vacuum of leadership, with vacancies for both the commissioner and the deputy commissioner.
This is a critical moment. The appointments you make, Minister, and how you make them will either rebuild or further erode public confidence in this institution. Minister, will you commit to an open, merit based appointment process by advertising the roles, publishing the selection criteria and disclosing the assessment process?