Parliamentary Updates

8 October 2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026

Consideration in Detail

Ms STEGGALL: The Home Affairs portfolio is responsible for the National Emergency Management Agency, NEMA. They are, in essence, our domestic security when it comes to escalating climate risks. Many talk of defending and keeping Australians safe, but there is certainly a side of politics that doesn't want to acknowledge this very increasing and real risk. While the costs of disaster recovery climbs, we are still failing to invest adequately in adaptation and resilience, and that was visible in the appropriation bill.

In Warringah, we see firsthand the impact of extreme weather events. From coastal erosion along our beaches and rising home insurance costs, extreme weather losses are up 67 per cent from the previous five years. The Northern Beaches is now one of the most climate risk exposed areas in the country, carrying the highest emergency services levy, through the LGA, in New South Wales. Australia is now one of the most exposed continents in the world to natural disasters. Since 2022, there have been 166 declared natural disasters, impacting more than half of our local government areas. Cyclone Alfred alone is estimated to have cost $13.5 billion for about a week of disruption.

Each year, natural disasters are costing Australians around $38 billion. Communities are being devastated again and again, and insurance is becoming unaffordable. If we want to protect lives and livelihoods, as the Home Affairs portfolio is tasked to do, we need to be ambitious and accountable in investing in adaptation and resilience, and that is what NEMA is for.

In 2022, the government created the National Emergency Management Agency to bring together disaster response, recovery and resilience into one agency. NEMA leads the Commonwealth crisis management efforts, coordinates emergency responses, funds disaster recovery and community support, and overseas resilience initiatives such as the Disaster Ready Fund. It was intended to be the Commonwealth centre of excellence for disaster resilience and management, yet the funding does not match the scale of the challenge.

In the 2025-26 budget, NEMA received $188 million over four years for operations. The Disaster Ready Fund will provide $200 million per year for resilience projects—totalling $1 billion over five years. Think about that: $200 million per year to address the costs of some $38 billion in damages per year. The contrast is stark. The budget also includes $1.2 billion just for disaster payments following Cyclone Alfred, with overall recovery costs expected to reach $13.5 billion. The imbalance is just so stark. We're spending billions after disasters occur but only a fraction on preparation and risk reduction. Less than 13 per cent of NEMA's budget is in fact directed towards preparedness, yet CSIRO research shows that every $1 spent on disaster preparation will save $11 on recovery costs. This would be good economic management. Without scaling up NEMA's resilience funding, we are condemning communities to relive the same trauma, disaster after disaster.

My question to the minister is: given the escalating costs of disasters, which are now $38 billion a year, can you clarify the government's decision-making process in allocating funding to NEMA, and will you commit to increasing the proportion of funding directed to disaster preparedness and resilience so that we invest in adaptation upfront rather than paying many times over in recovery?

Secondly, in my time remaining, I'd like to address immigration. There is much scaremongering done in this place around immigration. The reality is that it is too often a political attack line or a scapegoat for economic challenges that are due to poor management over the years. The reality is that immigration is a driver for growth, innovation and community strength. We need migration systems to be fair, efficient and focused on supporting Australian businesses and communities. I've met with many local businesses that are struggling under the cost, the delay and the lack of timeliness when it comes to sponsored visas and having an immigration system that will work to address skill shortages. So I urge the government to really address that. The high operating costs, critical labour shortages and long visa-processing times for small businesses that need immediate relief when it comes to staff are simply untenable. We have complex visa rules and we have slow processing, so I urge the government to assist with that and I ask the minister, given the importance of migration, what the government will do to improve the system.