National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Campbell supported the bills, stating they delivered on a commitment to establish a permanent, independent national commissioner to address systemic issues affecting Indigenous children. Campbell highlighted that Indigenous children are significantly overrepresented in out-of-home care and youth detention, arguing the commission would provide strong oversight and coordination across government agencies. Campbell noted the legislation builds on the work of the acting commissioner and empowers the role to conduct inquiries and report to parliament, ensuring authentic advice reaches decision-makers.

Wilson opposed the bills, arguing they imposed another layer of centralised bureaucracy on communities that require ground-level empowerment. Wilson contended that existing commissioners at the Human Rights Commission were already performing relevant duties and that the new body duplicated their functions. Wilson criticised the government's record on Indigenous welfare, specifically referencing the removal of the cashless debit card, and argued that community-based solutions were more effective than Canberra-imposed structures.

Coffey supported the legislation, emphasising the urgent need for a dedicated national focus on the rights and wellbeing of Indigenous children. Coffey cited stark statistics regarding overrepresentation in child protection and youth justice systems, arguing the commission would strengthen accountability and support Closing the Gap targets. Coffey highlighted broad stakeholder support, including from SNAICC and the Australian Human Rights Commission, and noted the bill provides the necessary powers for inquiries and research to drive systemic reform.

McCormack expressed doubt about the bill's effectiveness, arguing it duplicated the work of existing Commonwealth and state bodies and eroded ministerial responsibility. McCormack suggested the funding would be better spent on direct community needs in remote areas rather than on a new Canberra-based agency. McCormack referenced the success of community organisations like Clontarf and argued that ministers, not unelected commissioners, should bear the primary accountability for policy outcomes.

Berry supported the bills, noting they fulfilled a long-standing commitment to establish an independent, Indigenous-led national commission. Berry detailed the commissioner's functions, including promoting rights, identifying systemic barriers, and driving accountability across government policies. Berry linked the legislation to broader government actions, such as the national plan to end family violence, and emphasised that the commission would ensure Indigenous children's voices are reflected in advice to government.

Spender supported the bills, welcoming the establishment of the commission as a statutory agency with clear powers and funding. Spender highlighted worsening Closing the Gap targets, particularly regarding out-of-home care and early childhood development, and argued the commission was essential for driving accountability. Spender urged the government to commit to responding to the commission's reports in a timely manner, noting a history of delayed responses to other parliamentary inquiries.

Cook supported the legislation, describing it as a landmark reform that centres the voices of Indigenous children and families. Cook criticised previous speakers for sanitising historical exploitation and emphasised the bill's role in ensuring long-term, independent oversight of systemic failures. Cook connected the commission to broader government investments in housing, economic empowerment, and remote community services, arguing these combined efforts would improve outcomes for Indigenous youth.

Chaney welcomed the bills, praising the establishment of an independent statutory officer with powers to compel information and table reports directly to parliament. Chaney argued that independence was essential for holding government to account and addressing systemic issues that had persisted for decades. Chaney cautioned that the commission's success depended on the government acting on its recommendations, noting a track record of unresponded parliamentary reports.

Scrymgour argued that the commission provides essential independent advice to address structural failures affecting First Nations youth, contrasting this with past punitive interventions. Scrymgour emphasised the need for community-led solutions and linked the bill to broader Closing the Gap initiatives and the new national plan to end family violence. Scrymgour stated that the legislation elevates marginalised voices and ensures frank advice reaches government.

Katter criticised the creation of new bodies as ineffective, citing historical failures of previous inquiries and the widening gap in early Closing the Gap reports. Katter highlighted severe statistics regarding crime, suicide, and life expectancy in remote communities, arguing that systemic issues like land rights and pastoral leases remain unresolved. Katter suggested that practical solutions and local empowerment are needed rather than further bureaucratic structures.

Jarrett supported the bill, noting that First Nations people face significant disadvantage in health, housing, and justice systems despite comprising only three per cent of the population. Jarrett highlighted that the commission responds to decades of advocacy by over 70 organisations and provides a dedicated national focus for children's rights. Jarrett stated the government is funding the commission with $33.5 million over four years to drive systemic change.

Price opposed the bill, arguing it adds bureaucratic duplication to existing roles such as the National Children's Commissioner and fails to deliver practical results. Price noted that several Closing the Gap targets are worsening, including youth detention and school readiness, and questioned the commission's independence and specific powers. Price stated the Coalition prefers practical actions like improving school attendance and ending welfare dependency over symbolic measures.

Claydon strongly supported the legislation, describing it as a necessary accountability mechanism to address systemic inequalities and protect First Nations children. Claydon argued that the commission fills a gap by providing a permanent, independent advocate with the authority to drive change and report on progress. Claydon emphasised that the bill reflects a commitment to partnership and self-determination, responding to calls from frontline organisations.

Joyce criticised the bill as another Canberra-driven program that lacks efficacy and fails to address local realities. Joyce argued that money is often wasted on bureaucratic processes rather than practical interventions like role modelling and structured work programs. Joyce suggested that targeted successes, such as specific boarding schools, should be replicated rather than creating new national bodies.

Kearney supported the bill, highlighting that it delivers on commitments made after extensive consultation with First Nations advocates and organisations. Kearney noted the commission will have powers to inquire into systemic issues and publicly advocate for children's rights, addressing failures in child protection and justice systems. Kearney linked the commission to the new national plan to end violence against women and children, funded with $218.3 million.

Steggall welcomed the bill as a constructive reform that establishes a statutory independent champion for Indigenous children's rights. Steggall noted the significant overrepresentation of First Nations youth in the justice system and argued the commission must be paired with reforms to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14. Steggall stated that while the bill is a positive step, broader national rights frameworks are needed to fully protect children.

lead

Witty backed the bill, drawing on her background as a foster carer and the need for systems that put cultural connection and safety before crisis management. Witty stated that the law creates a lasting statutory entity empowered to investigate, promote, and report to parliament, tackling long-standing fragmentation in child protection. Witty highlighted that the commissioner would hold information-gathering powers and the capacity to engage directly with children in culturally appropriate ways. Witty observed that the bill aligns with Closing the Gap targets and reflects extensive consultation with First Nations advocates and organisations.

Gee supported the legislation, noting that nearly eight per cent of his electorate is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Gee referenced historical discrimination and current statistics, including the high detention rates for Indigenous youth, to argue that the commission is necessary to drive change. Gee criticised the opposition for failing to offer alternative policies and expressed disappointment in their negative response to the bill.

Ambihaipahar spoke in strong support of the bill, framing it as a matter of responsibility to children and communities. The member argued that previous policies had been reactive and fragmented, whereas this legislation creates a permanent body focused on systemic improvement. The speech was interrupted before the member could conclude their remarks.