Andrew Wallace's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Jonceski, Mr Ljupco (Luch) | Condolences | House debates
It's not very often that you get to rise in this place and on the passing of someone who works in this place, bringing all of us together, and that's what Luch has done. Ljupco Jonceski—I...
It's not very often that you get to rise in this place and on the passing of someone who works in this place, bringing all of us together, and that's what Luch has done. Ljupco Jonceski—I didn't know that was his full name. I used to call him 'Luciano', after Luciano Pavarotti, because I wanted to be different from everybody else who called him Luch. Luch was the kind of gentleman—and I use the term 'gentleman' in its truest sense—that had the ability to make everybody feel as though you were the only person in the room. When he was operating in a room as the attendant of 150 people, many of whom probably had pretty high opinions of themselves, Luch had the ability to make everybody feel special. It's really quite remarkable to stand here and listen to the minister and the member for Flinders and many other speakers, whether they've been here for five minutes or 25 years, and listen to their stories, because I thought I was the only one who had a really good relationship with Luch. And that was the nature of the man—that he had that kind of relationship with so many other people. I remember working very closely with Luch when I was the Speaker of the House. Listening to the current Speaker talking yesterday, he used the same jokes with me. But being the Speaker of the House of Reps is a very stressful job. Most people would have absolutely no concept of how stressful it was and is. But Luch, every single day, was a voice of reason, of calmness, of good humour and of good sense. It was his ability to be able to lighten the mood in what could sometimes be a very difficult working environment. I will always remember Luch for that. I don't know how it came to be, because, of course, we can't take photos in the House of Representatives, but somehow a photo was taken of Luch and me. We were the only ones in the chamber. The House wasn't sitting at the time. I think it was in between sitting weeks. It was after the election that we'd lost, and I think it was probably the on last day, or on the last day before I handed the baton over to the current Speaker. There's this great photo of me on the floor of the House of Reps, and Luch is standing in the seats looking over me, looking like he's giving me a lecture, and, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. But I'll cherish that photo because Luch was a true gentleman and an inspiration to me and clearly to everybody else that he touched in this place. It was really interesting to hear the Prime Minister talk about Luch yesterday. This was a gentleman who worked in the employ and service of our great democracy for more than 40 years. In fact, to be the longest serving employee in the Department of the House of Representatives is no small feat, but to have worked down the hill at Old Parliament House, then to have come up here to work as a labourer in the construction of this great, magnificent building and then, once again, to have worked in this building since 1988, serving democracy, serving us all—not just serving the people who have the privilege of being in here but serving the nation in the way that he did—as a former carpenter and joiner, really struck a note with me. That is what's great about this country—that a man from a Macedonian background can come here, whether working as an attendant or a labourer on a building site, and 40 years later have so many members of the House of Representatives stand up and talk about how great this man was. It is a testament not just to Luch, not just to his family, but to our country. They don't make them like Luch anymore. That's really sad to say. But Luch was a man of what I would regard as great integrity and good humour. He treated everybody the same, whether it was the Prime Minister or the newest backbencher. What the Prime Minister said yesterday was very true. He would often just bring you a glass of water and say, 'That's on the House, sir!' He had a terrific sense of humour and was a good man. I had the privilege of working very closely with his daughter Jess, who worked in this building. Jess served on the secretariat of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of in the last parliament and for a bit in this one. I know that he was immensely proud of you, Jess. I told you that yesterday. I know you've gone on to perhaps bigger and better things now, but he was incredibly proud of you for the work that you were doing and have done for this country. I just wanted to put that on the record because he and I would often talk about the great work that you'd do, that you did, for the committee. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. So, to Luch's family, to Jess, of course, and to his wife and kids: thank you for sharing Luch with the Australian people for so many years, for more than four decades. We are richer for having worked with Luch. The country is richer for it. Our democracy is richer for it. I want to thank you all for sharing him with us. This place will never be the same. When I heard that he'd died, I couldn't believe it. 'Not Luch. Seriously? No, not Luch. He's still a young man.' I think I was a bit shell shocked then. But his legacy will live on. For the attendants that are here, I would encourage you to take a leaf out of his book and use his phrase, 'That one's on the House, Mr Hastie!' Try and emulate that success, that spirit of Luch. I don't know what we'd do for him as an institution, but we should not just remember him in this sense, which is very important, but, I think, do something a little bit more as well, because I think he's a terrific example of what our democracy is all about, of what our country is all about. We're a migrant country, and we should continue to celebrate that, for all the riches that people bring to this country from their different cultures and faiths. I'm probably rambling now. Vale, Luch. You were a good man. You were a great man. Thank you for your service.
Fisher Electorate: Roads | Statements | House debates
I rise to talk about some of the listening posts that I've done in my electorate over the summer. I did the 'Tour de Fisher' for 2025, where I rode around in my electorate, speaking to my...
I rise to talk about some of the listening posts that I've done in my electorate over the summer. I did the 'Tour de Fisher' for 2025, where I rode around in my electorate, speaking to my community, taking my office to them. I also did a really very busy listening post just last week. What people were telling me is that they are hurting. They are feeling like they are being consistently and economically crushed by this government. One of the other things they talked to me about was the unbelievable squeeze that they are experiencing in relation to road construction on the Sunshine Coast. I listened yesterday to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government talk about all of the wonderful things this government is apparently doing on road construction. Let me tell the minister that that's not happening on the Sunshine Coast as a result of this federal government. What she didn't talk to the parliament about yesterday was the fact that she cut $180 million from the Mooloolah River Interchange project. She also cut funding to the Caloundra access road, which would have provided a second access road into what is now a very busy Caloundra. Without the Crisafulli government picking up the slack in building and funding these projects, they simply would not have happened.
Copyright Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a largely technical bill, the product of several years of consultation, roundtables and review work undertaken by the government in...
I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a largely technical bill, the product of several years of consultation, roundtables and review work undertaken by the government in 2023. It's also been the subject of examination by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. While the coalition will not oppose the bill in the House and is likely to support it in the Senate based on the outcome of that inquiry, it is important that this parliament understand what this bill does, what it does not do and why its reforms matter. Copyright is not an abstract legal concept. It is about protecting Australian creators, teachers, students, libraries, museums, small innovators and the cultural and economic value of the material that they both produce and preserve. It's about balance, clarity and fairness, and it's about making sure our laws keep pace with how Australians learn, teach, share and create today. Australia's Copyright Act 1968 is more than 50 years old. It has been amended often, but it has not always kept up with new technology, new learning environments or new cultural expectations. This bill makes two sets of reforms. Firstly, it establishes a statutory orphan works scheme to allow responsible use of materials where rights holders cannot be found. It clarifies education exceptions for remote learning, ensuring teachers and students are protected when classes are delivered online or in hybrid form. Finally, it makes a series of technical and administrative amendments to modernise appointments, tribunal processes, archival definitions and notification methods. These reforms are incremental, but they're sensible and widely supported by a broad range of stakeholders. These amendments do not alter the fundamental rights of creators. They do not diminish the value of copyright, and they do not introduce the highly contentious text and data mining exception that many artists and creators feared. Schedule 1 introduces a long-awaited statutory framework to deal with orphan works. Evidence suggests that as much as 70 per cent of library collections may include works where the copyright owner cannot be identified or located. Under the bill, a user is protected from infringement remedies in such a situation only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, if they have undertaken that search within a reasonable period before use and if they've maintained records of that search and provided clear and reasonably prominent notice that they are using the work under the orphan works scheme. If the owner later emerges, they are entitled to a reasonable payment or to negotiate terms for its continued use. If an agreement cannot be reached, a court may set terms or issue an injunction to prevent the ongoing use. These protections are set out in new division 2AAA of part V of the act, including sections 116AAD to 116AAF. This scheme unlocks enormous cultural value for galleries, libraries, archives and educational institutions. For too long, these institutions have been unable to digitise, preserve or make available materials simply because a rights holder from 60 years ago cannot be traced. This bill provides a lawful path forward. At the same time, the scheme safeguards the rights of creators. A diligent search must occur, records must be kept, notice must be given and any payment demanded by the rights holder must be reasonable and fair. However, the Senate inquiry heard stakeholders' concerns about lack of clarity in defining terms such as 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', particularly in commercial settings. These questions are not insignificant, and clarity will be essential to avoid unnecessary litigation. The opposition will keep a keen eye on how these terms are considered in practice. Schedule 2 clarifies one of the most important issues arising from the pandemic: the copyright status of remote education. Section 28 of the Copyright Act currently allows teachers to perform or communicate works in the presence of students. This language made sense in 1968; it makes very little sense in 2025. The amendments make it clear that the exception applies to educational instruction delivered in person, online, through hybrid teaching or through real-time digital platforms. These changes reflect the way modern classrooms operate. Teachers no longer stand in front of a blackboard with chalk. They teach via Zoom, Teams, interactive whiteboards, learning portals and live streams. Importantly, the bill also ensures that parents, guardians and community members assisting instruction are protected under the exception, provided they are not doing so for commercial gain. This is especially relevant for children learning from home, for students with disabilities, and for regional and remote families. However, the exception is not intended to apply to delayed viewing of pre-recorded classes. Copyright holders strongly opposed extending the exemption to recorded or delayed instruction. This issue was explored further by the Senate inquiry and remains a pressing concern. In their additional comments, coalition senators noted the need to balance copyright holders' rights with the needs of regional, remote and special-needs educators. The opposition will continue to monitor whether the contemporaneous instruction requirement strikes the right balance between providing educational access and protecting creators' rights. Schedule 3 is largely housekeeping, but it matters for the clarity of the law. The bill modernises appointment processes for the Copyright Tribunal, shifting some functions from the Governor-General to the minister or the Federal Court CEO. It updates the definition of 'archives' to align with current state and territory archival bodies. It replaces outdated references to the Gazette with modern notifiable instruments and clarifies the interaction between Crown copyright and part VII of the act. None of these measures are controversial. They streamline administration and they remove redundant provisions. It is also important to be very clear about what this bill does not do. The orphan work scheme cannot be used to justify large-scale AI training on copyrighted material. The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that this would be impractical and inconsistent with the requirement for an individual, diligent search for each work used. The Attorney-General ruled out a text and data mining exception in October 2024. The coalition strongly supports that position and, in fact, has been calling for such since the beginning of 2024. I should give a shout-out to my predecessor, the former shadow attorney-general the member for Berowra, for his good work in that space. Australian creators must not have their work scraped, copied or monetised by AI companies without permission and fair payment. This bill does not alter that principle in any way. Most stakeholders support the bill, but several have raised concerns that the reforms are too incremental. The education sector welcomes the remote-learning clarity but argues further reforms are needed. Independent and Catholic schools have called for broader fair-dealing exceptions and a modernised approach to digital content, technology and AI. The copyright and publishing sector largely supports the orphan work scheme but wants clearer guidance on diligence requirements so small institutions are not exposed to risk or inconsistency. These concerns are precisely why the opposition supported the Senate inquiry process. The Senate inquiry, which reported on 19 December last year, allowed stakeholders to provide detailed evidence regarding these concerns. Ultimately, the committee recommended that the bill be passed as drafted, reflecting the position of most stakeholders. Coalition senators supported the bill, noting it aligns with longstanding coalition support for modern copyright laws that balance access with protection for creators. In its additional comments, the coalition noted it would continue to monitor stakeholder issues throughout the bill's implementation. This includes concerns that ongoing use in exchange for court-determined compensation could weaken deterrence or bargaining power if not carefully managed. It also noted the need for clearer guidance on reasonably diligent search and compliance burdens for businesses and, as mentioned, the issues around recorded lessons, particularly for regional, remote and special-needs education. Copyright laws must support Australian creators, protect the value of their work and encourage innovation and learning. This bill broadly achieves those aims. The bill is measured and responsible. We will not oppose the bill in the House, and we are very likely to support the bill in the Senate based on the findings of the Senate inquiry. We will continue to push for clarity around key terms, including 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', and we will continue to defend the rights of Australian creators against any attempt to open the door to unauthorised AI training. These reforms are practical, incremental and beneficial. They do not alter the fundamentals of copyright. They do not diminish creators' rights, and they deliver long-sought clarity for teachers, students and cultural institutions. This is an uncontroversial bill, but it is an important one. It modernises our law in sensible ways. It supports the responsible use of cultural materials. It clarifies educational practice for the digital age, and it updates long-outdated administrative processes. The coalition will continue to approach these reforms with commonsense and respect for the rights of creators, educators and institutions and will continue to ensure that copyright law remains fit for purpose in a world where technology is evolving faster than ever before. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. I want to open by using that old Irish phrase 'if I wanted to get to Dublin, I wouldn't...
I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. I want to open by using that old Irish phrase 'if I wanted to get to Dublin, I wouldn't have started here'. That sums up the government's handling of antisemitism since 7 October 2023. In the wake of the Bondi Beach tragedy, the coalition called for serious, collaborative, decisive and targeted action to confront antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism. What Australians were given instead was a rushed, sprawling and incoherent omnishambles of a bill. Stakeholders were given barely 48 hours to make submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS is an important committee of this parliament that was tasked by the PM to conduct what could only be described as a sham inquiry. The committee's report was only tabled this morning, making the committee's process an absolute farce. That approach was completely inappropriate for legislation of this scale and consequence, cutting across democratic principles and national security. Rather than protecting Jewish Australians, the original bill risked shielding radical Islamic extremists. Rather than stopping hate, it threatened to chill legitimate political and religious debate. Ultimately, the government was forced to abandon its approach. That collapse reflects a broader pattern. When it comes to antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism, this government either dithers or it bungles. This failure did not begin at Bondi. For more than two years, despite repeated warnings from the Jewish community, intelligence agencies and law enforcement and despite a clear and alarming rise in antisemitism, the government sat on its hands. Rather than confronting antisemitism when it mattered, the government appeased extremist protesters, abandoned the State of Israel, left Jewish Australians feeling isolated and then sat on the recommendations of its own Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism for almost six months without implementation. When legislative action finally came, it did not come from moral leadership; it came because the government was dragged into action under sustained pressure from the community, grieving families and this parliament. That is why we are here today, dealing not with a comprehensive or considered response but with a narrower bill salvaged from that failure. I now turn to the criminal law provisions that remain before the House and which we support, in principle—subject to the safeguards and amendments we've sought, to ensure these measures are targeted, proportionate and lawful. Schedule 1, part 1 introduces new aggravated offences for religious, spiritual or other leaders who provide religious instruction or pastoral care, applying to the existing offence of threatening force or violence under part 5.1 of the Criminal Code. Religious leaders occupy a position of trust and authority. With that influence comes a higher duty of care and a greater responsibility. This is a sensible and overdue deterrent, particularly against radical Islamic preachers and other figures who exploit religious settings to radicalise, groom and incite violence. The message must be unmistakable: abusing religious authority and using the pulpit to threaten force or violence will attract serious criminal consequences. Importantly, we ensured that this provision captures anyone who stands up in a religious setting and promotes extremist violence, whether or not they hold a formal religious title. Part 2 increases penalties from two to five years for using postal or similar services to menace or harass. It's another commonsense measure that recognises that hate does not always occur in person. Part 3 introduces a sentencing principle requiring courts to treat hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin as an aggravating factor. This sends a clear signal that crimes motivated by antisemitic hatred will be punished more severely. Part 5 introduces aggravated grooming offences, targeting adults who radicalise or recruit children, including through online platforms. Radical Islamic extremism does not emerge overnight; it is cultivated through grooming, indoctrination and manipulation. Addressing that reality requires a proportionate and necessary response to people who abuse their special position of authority as a religious or spiritual leader, or those who target minors. Part 6 strengthens hate-symbol offences by lowering the fault element to 'recklessness', extending prohibitions to symbols of prohibited hate groups and providing police with powers to seize symbols and order their removal online. These changes reflect reality. Hate symbols are not neutral expressions. Supporting these measures is entirely consistent with the coalition's longstanding position. But it should not have taken Bondi for the government to act. Part 4 establishes a new regime for listing prohibited hate groups who engage in, prepare for, assist or advocate hate crimes relating to race or national or ethnic origin. This regime is designed to address a real gap in Australia's national security framework. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir glorify terrorism and act as incubators for Islamic extremist radicalisation yet have not met the threshold required for terrorist listing. That gap has also been exploited by Neo-Nazi organisations, allowing them to operate openly, to recruit and fundraise and to radicalise supporters, while remaining technically lawful. The prohibited hate group regime is designed to close that gap. While Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to portray itself as a non-violent ideological movement, its record demonstrates a very different reality. That includes consistent promotion of antisemitic hatred, public praise for the October 7 attacks and a well-documented role in acting as a conveyor belt to terrorism worldwide, with former adherents or supporters progressing into terrorist organisations. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned or restricted in multiple jurisdictions, including being terrorist-listed in the UK. Following Bondi, there is a pressing need for Australia to act. These groups contributed to the climate of hatred and radicalisation that resulted in Bondi. The regime provides a practical and immediate mechanism to act, where inaction is no longer acceptable. In that context, it is a necessary response to the clear and present threat of radical Islamic extremism to the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. Turning to the migration amendments, schedule 2 makes amendments to the Migration Act to expand the character grounds on which the Minister for Home Affairs may refuse or cancel a visa. These new grounds relate to hate-motivated conduct and offences involving the spread of hatred and extremism where the minister is satisfied of the relevant considerations. Part 2 provides that a person whose visa is refused or cancelled on these grounds may also be subject to a permanent exclusion period unless the decision is revoked or the minister personally intervenes. These amendments are sensible in principle. They give the minister clearer authority to refuse visas to people who pose a genuine risk to public safety, including radical extremists. But there is a glaring omission. The provisions do not expressly refer to radical Islamic extremism or antisemitism, despite this being the stated focus of the bill. While these measures are an improvement, we cannot ignore the government's record. This is the same government that allowed individuals from Gaza to enter Australia without adequate vetting, while cancelling the visas of democratically elected Israeli members of parliament. That sent a deeply troubling signal about what conduct is tolerated and what views are punished. These powers must not become a political weapon used against our allies or against voices the government simply disagrees with. They must be confined to their stated purpose—dealing with radical Islamic extremists and those who promote antisemitism—not punishing lawful political expression. The measures before us today are ones that could and should have been taken after 7 October 2023. Instead, the government delayed, it dithered and it ultimately produced a failed omnishambles bill that had to be dismantled. There is much more to do if we are to stamp out antisemitism once and for all, and no-one in this place would suggest that what we are putting together today is a set-and-forget solution with nothing further to do. While it's prudent to await the royal commission's findings, that has never been an excuse for inaction, particularly when clear recommendations already exist. Within days of the Bondi attack, the coalition's Taskforce on Antisemitism, Extremism and Counter-Terrorism put forward targeted, practical measures, including implementing the special envoy's plan, strengthening counterterrorism laws, stripping citizenship from terrorists and hate preachers, and ending Labor's reckless policy of self-managed returns for ISIS brides. Taking those steps earlier would have reassured Jewish Australians and strengthened the safety of all Australians. It is time for the government to put politics aside and confront antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism with seriousness and resolve. The coalition will continue to fight for the safety of Jewish Australians, and all Australians, and I call on the government to finally do the same.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 on behalf of the opposition. May I begin my remarks by restating that the coalition...
I rise to speak on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 on behalf of the opposition. May I begin my remarks by restating that the coalition unequivocally condemns antisemitism, hate motivated violence and radical Islamist terrorism. We have always been dedicated to the enactment of strong, effective and proportionate measures to protect Australians and uphold national security. What was previously known as schedule 4 of the original omnibus exposure draft proposed significant changes to Australia's firearms laws, including a so-called national firearms buyback scheme and expanded importation restrictions. Evidence before the PJCIS inquiry demonstrated that these measures are poorly constructed, inadequately justified and unlikely to achieve their stated objectives. Instead, they impose disproportionate burdens on lawful firearm owners, importers, wholesalers and retailers, as well as primary producers and state and territory governments. To the detriment of the bill, the government has chosen a reactive, politically driven approach to the preparation of these proposed laws, rather than the careful, judicious, evidence based process Australians would legitimately expect in such a highly regulated policy area. The presentation of this bill has also been marked by a distinct lack of meaningful consultation undertaken prior to its introduction, a view almost universally presented by witnesses before the PJCIS inquiry. There was little or no prior consultation with farming groups, sporting shooters, industry representatives or technical experts. As coalition members of the PJCIS point out, the truncated nature of the inquiry compounded these failures, an approach utterly inconsistent with best practice lawmaking. This bill reveals the contempt the government has for the million gun owners of Australia. The Prime Minister has failed to recognise that guns are tools of trade for so many Australians, including for so many people on the land and for many Australians as part of legitimate sporting pursuits. There may be a number of reasonable measures in this bill, such as the schedule 1 customs amendments, but these amendments have nothing to do with guns and specifically relate to violent extremist materials and prohibited symbols. The Leader of the Opposition requested that the government transfer this schedule to its other bill for this reason, but the Prime Minister refused to do so. Equally, the gun bill's firearms AusCheck scheme has legitimate merit in the interests of national security. However, taken as a whole, these measures are completely overwhelmed by the deficiencies in the bill. This proposed gun legislation is fundamentally flawed. As was revealed in the PJCIS inquiry, there has been no genuine evidence-based examination applied to this bill by the government or the parliament. There has been insufficient time for the committee to properly examine the matter and the share of the 7,000 submissions to the inquiry that relate to the bill—7,000 submissions. After making repeated protestations that there would be no separation of the omnibus hate speech and gun control bill, the Prime Minister completely capitulated, when he revealed on Saturday his deal with the Greens to ensure passage of his gun legislation. The Prime Minister on Saturday made the outlandish statement, which has incensed those involved in the shooting community, that he is introducing a John Howard gun-buyback scheme. This could not be further from the truth. John Howard's 1996 national gun buyback was widely supported across the country. This buyback faces criticism from the governments of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. Firearms regulation in Australia operates through a process of cooperative federalism, and the buyback proposed in this bill has been advanced without securing such cooperation. The 1996 buyback was properly funded. This buyback calls on the states and territories to foot half the bill, irrespective of their capacity to pay. The 1996 buyback was based on the surrender of weapons at fair market value. States and territories have been told that this buyback will be based on price schedules at well under market values, providing little to no incentive for owners to hand in their guns. The 1996 buyback covered ammunition and pieces of equipment, such as scopes and spare parts, rendered unusable by virtue of the handing in of individual guns. Under this buyback, states are told these items are explicitly excluded from compensation. The 1996 buyback compensated legitimate businesses involved in the firearms industry who had suffered due to the buyback arrangements. States under this legislation have been told that these businesses will receive nothing—zip, nada. The 1996 buyback involved buyouts for those businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. This government couldn't care less about the fate of legitimate gun sellers, who will be run out of business. The coalition agrees with the statement of the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia that the only way to have a John Howard gun buyback is to legislate one. That is why the opposition has gone to the Prime Minister and asked that he be true to his word and amend his bill to make this a John Howard buyback. He has failed to make such a commitment. It's little wonder why we will be opposing this bill in this House. In the Senate, we will seek a referral of this bill to an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee with a reporting date of 2 March 2026. In the Senate we will also make a series of amendments to give effect to a John Howard buyback, including fair-market-value compensation for firearms, firearms parts, firearms accessories, ammunition, ammunition components and equipment. Our amendments will seek compensation for loss of business and hardship, including the buyout of businesses deemed unviable due to the buyback. The coalition will also move amendments seeking clarity from the states and territories by 28 February this year as to their intention to participate in buyback schemes. Coalition members of the PJCIS are concerned that this bill will unfairly burden lawful firearm owners, particularly farmers and primary producers who rely on firearms for legitimate purposes such as pest control, animal welfare and land management. It is the view of the coalition committee members that recreational and sporting shooters, whether they be competitive shooters or hunters, enjoy the expertise and skill of using different types of firearms and appreciate the nuances of ammunition reloading and variations of accessories. They argue that these elements of the bill would make even the most mundane of those activities illegal through either restrictions on imports or prohibitions on sharing online manuals and discussions. Coalition committee members of the PJCIS indicate that witnesses raised credible concerns that essential firearms may be captured by the buyback or import restrictions, with limited replacement options. Restrictions on importing firearms and accessories such as straight-pull rifles will directly affect lawful users who already operate under some of the strictest laws in the world. For the reasons outlined, particularly in relation to the unacceptable levels and breadth of buyback compensation and importation restrictions on assisted repeated action, the coalition will be opposing— (Time expired)
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
In the 13th century, St Francis of Assisi said, 'All the darkness in the world can never extinguish the light of a single candle'. The act of what happened at Bondi on 14 December was an act of...
In the 13th century, St Francis of Assisi said, 'All the darkness in the world can never extinguish the light of a single candle'. The act of what happened at Bondi on 14 December was an act of profound violence and hatred. It stole innocent lives, shattered families and traumatised a community. It shocked Australians from every corner of our country. I extend my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who were murdered, to our brave first responders, to those who were injured and to all who continue to live with the consequences of that day. No words spoken in this place can ease the pain of parents who have lost children or families whose lives have been changed forever. But it is right that this parliament finally pauses, reflects and speaks with one voice, in sorrow, respect and solidarity. Bondi is more than a location. It is part of Australia's identity—a place of openness, freedom and community. That such a place became the scene of Australia's worst act of terrorism makes this tragedy all the more confronting for our nation. This attack was not random, it did not occur in isolation and it did not happen without warning. It came after more than two years of escalating, unaddressed antisemitism in this country, after repeated concerns raised by Jewish community leaders, security experts and law enforcement professionals, after hatred was allowed to become louder, more visible and more normalised. That context matters, not to politicise grief but to honour it with honesty, head on. History teaches us a difficult lesson: antisemitism never ends with Jews alone. Shortly after the attack, I reflected on words attributed to Martin Niemoller—words that bear repeating today: Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out … … … Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out … … … Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out … … … Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me These words are a confession, not a slogan. They are a warning about the cost of silence and inaction. Condolence motions are about mourning, but they are also about resolve. They are about saying that the lives lost mattered and that their loss demands more than words. For the families of the victims, sympathy alone is not enough. They deserve answers, they deserve accountability and they deserve to know that everything possible will be done to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. I want to acknowledge the dignity shown by the families, in the face of their unimaginable pain. Their calls for truth and transparency are not partisan; they are human, they are reasonable and they must be respected. To the Jewish community in Australia, many of whom are grieving, while also living with fear, and some of whom are here today: you are not alone. You have every right to live openly, to worship freely and to feel safe in your very own communities. Antisemitism is an attack on Jewish Australians, but it's also an attack on Australia and 27 million Australians. It is an attack on our values and our pluralism and on the idea that people of different backgrounds can live together with mutual respect. We must be unambiguous about that together. Today this parliament respectfully remembers the 15 people whose lives were ruthlessly, needlessly cut short: Matilda, the youngest, at only 10; Rabbi Eli Schlanger; Boris Tetleroyd; Boris and Sofia Gurman; Reuven Morrison; Edith Brutman; Marika Pogany; Rabbi Yaakov Levitan; Peter Meagher; Tibor Weitzen; Alexander Kleytman; Dan Elkayam; Adam Smyth; and Tania Tretiak. Moments like this test us as a nation. They test whether we are prepared to speak plainly about hatred, whether we are willing to learn from history and whether we have the moral courage to act before tragedy, not just after it. The victims of the Bondi attack deserved better; their families deserve better. Australia must do better, and that means all of us. As we honour their memory today, let us commit ourselves to vigilance, to honesty and to the principle that silence in the face of hatred is never neutral. May the memory of those lost at Bondi be a blessing to their families and to all 27 million Australians.
Firman, Brother William (Bill), Leavers, Mr Ian, APM | Constituency Statements | House debates
Today I rise to pay tribute to the life and service of Brother William Firman. Brother Bill, as he was known to all, passed away in Launceston on 15 November 2025 after a short illness. He was 82...
Today I rise to pay tribute to the life and service of Brother William Firman. Brother Bill, as he was known to all, passed away in Launceston on 15 November 2025 after a short illness. He was 82 years old. Brother Bill joined the De La Salle Brothers on 13 January 1962 at the age of just 18. For more than 60 years, he dedicated his life to faith, education and service. Brother Bill embodied the Lasallian charism, placing the dignity of every young person at the heart of his work. His vocation was not simply a profession. It was a calling with humility and unwavering commitment. I had the privilege of knowing Brother Bill during his time as my headmaster of St Bede's College in Mentone. He was a truly remarkable man. Brother Bill was a man of deep integrity and quiet strength, and he enjoyed the profound respect of both students and staff. His leadership was marked by fairness, compassion and a genuine concern for the wellbeing of every boy in his care. Those of us who knew him saw firsthand the way he inspired excellence not only in academics and sport but most importantly in character. Brother Bill's passing is a great loss to the Lasallian family and to Catholic education in Australia, yet his legacy endures in the countless lives he shaped and the values he championed. I, and thousands of Australian men, am who I am today in large part due to the influence of Brother William Firman. Brother Bill impressed upon us the importance of our school motto, and it is something I continue to try and live my life by—'Per vias rectus', by right paths. On behalf of this house, I extend our deepest condolences to his fellow brothers, his family and the communities he served. May he rest in peace. Vale, Brother William Firman. I also want to acknowledge the passing of Ian Leavers APM. Ian was a frontline officer, a union leader and a steadfast advocate for the Queensland Police Service. His leadership was marked by conviction and an unshakeable commitment to those who wear our uniform. He brought that same passion to his roles as Queensland's first cross-border commissioner, working to address the real challenges facing border communities and improving the lives of countless officers and their families. I also want to recognise the toll that service can take. As someone who works closely with mental health advocates in my own community, I know how important it is that we talk openly about men's mental health and support those who carry heavy burdens on behalf of others. To Ian's family, friends and the Queensland Police Service: I extend my sincere condolences on behalf of this place. His passing leaves a real void, and he will be deeply missed. Vale, Ian Leavers.
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. BokaBites is a fish-and-chip shop in my electorate of Fisher. Since June this year, BokaBites has seen its power bills surge by 23...
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. BokaBites is a fish-and-chip shop in my electorate of Fisher. Since June this year, BokaBites has seen its power bills surge by 23 per cent. The owner, Bec, has told me it's simply 'untenable' to run a business under these conditions. Minister, when will power prices come down?
Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The decisions that the Attorney-General makes about parole are not administrative conveniences; they are moral and legal responsibilities that demand accountability. Ministerial accountability is...
The decisions that the Attorney-General makes about parole are not administrative conveniences; they are moral and legal responsibilities that demand accountability. Ministerial accountability is not a political inconvenience; it is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is how the public knows that, when something goes wrong, there is someone in government who is responsible and there is someone in government who should be accountable. These bills sever that link. The bills transfer responsibility from a minister accountable to the parliament to a statutory authority accountable to no-one but itself. That undermines confidence in both the system and the democratic principle that those who wield power must also bear its consequences. Federal offenders are not ordinary offenders; they include some of the most dangerous individuals in our country—terrorists, child sex offenders, people smugglers, cybercriminals, drug kingpins and foreign agents who seek to do us harm. These are offenders whose cases often involve classified intelligence, complex diplomatic implications and serious risks to national security. Such cases cannot and should not be determined by a board removed from the oversight of government. Only the Attorney-General, supported by the agencies of the Commonwealth, is equipped to consider all relevant factors, from intelligence assessments to foreign policy and even defence considerations. These bills strip all of that away. These bills hand that power to a board that, while it may be made up of experts, will never have the full picture, as the Commonwealth Attorney-General should. These bills also impose a significant financial cost on taxpayers for no appreciable benefit. The establishment of the Commonwealth Parole Board will cost taxpayers $28.3 million over the forward estimates and $7.3 million per year ongoing. That is $28 million to remove responsibility from the Attorney-General and give it to a new bureaucracy. It is $28 million to do something that the government already does at no additional cost. This is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Australians are paying record prices for food, fuel and energy, yet this government finds millions of dollars to create new boards and commissions that do nothing to make Australians safer. It is more red tape, more layers and less accountability. Another major concern is the proposed composition of the board. Clause 29(4)(b) of the bill requires that the board's membership must reflect 'as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community at large'. In other words, demographic representation is to be considered alongside qualifications and experience. I ask this question: why should that matter more than professional competence or law enforcement experience? This is not a focus group; it is a body that will make decisions affecting public safety. The coalition believes this provision should be removed. Appointments to the board must be based on merit, experience and integrity, not on identity politics. The coalition has always stood up for victims of crime, and this bill fails them. Nowhere does the bill guarantee that victims or their families will be consulted before parole is granted. There is no mandatory requirement for victim input, no guarantee of notification and no explicit rights for victims to be heard. That is unacceptable. Victims and their families live with the consequences of these crimes long after the sentence is served. Their voices must be at the centre of the parole process, not sidelined by bureaucratic procedure. This bill pays lip service to victims, but it gives them no real power. The coalition will continue to fight for a system that puts victims first. These bills are part of a familiar pattern. When faced with hard decisions, Labor's instinct is always the same—to outsource responsibility. Whether it's immigration, energy, infrastructure or law enforcement, Labor creates a board, a committee or an inquiry to avoid accountability. This is not good governance. It is buck-passing dressed up as reform. We saw it with the NZYQ cohort, where ministers claimed they could not act because the courts had ruled. We saw it with the NDIS, where bureaucratic reform replaced personal accountability. And now we see it here with the government creating a parole board so that when the next tragic failure occurs they can say, 'Well, it wasn't our decision.' Australians deserve better. The coalition's position could not be clearer. We oppose the creation of a Commonwealth parole board, lock, stock and barrel, because it removes ministerial accountability and democratic oversight, it increases risk to community safety, it adds unnecessary cost and bureaucracy, it ignores victims of crime and it hands power to unelected appointees instead of elected officials. The issue of unnecessary cost is a factor that should weigh upon this place. It's a cost that is already being met by the Commonwealth because the decision is already made by the Attorney-General. The existing system works. It provides transparency, accountability and coordination across national security, immigration and foreign affairs. It ensures that, when life-changing decisions are made, they are made by someone who is answerable to the parliament and to the Australian people. That is how democracy works—or it's how it should work. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and its consequential amendment bill are not about safety. This is not about transparency. It is about the Albanese government walking away from responsibility yet again. It removes accountability from the highest law officer in the land, spends millions of dollars on a new bureaucracy and puts community safety at risk. The coalition will not support it. We will always stand for a justice system that is strong, accountable and victim focused. The coalition believes in ministerial responsibility, not bureaucratic delegation. The coalition believes in leadership, not avoidance. Above all, we believe in keeping Australians safe. That is our duty in this place. That is why we oppose this bill. Only a coalition government will back our police, strengthen our laws and restore safety and security to the Australian community. Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the associated Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills go to the heart of one...
I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the associated Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills go to the heart of one of our most serious responsibilities as legislators and that is protecting the Australian people. They ask a simple but profound question: who should have the authority and the accountability for deciding when convicted criminals are released back into the community? The Albanese government's answer is to hand that responsibility to an unelected board of so-called independent experts. Our answer on this side of the House is clear: those decisions must remain the responsibility of the Attorney-General, an elected minister who is directly accountable to the Australian people. The coalition will oppose these bills because they weaken ministerial accountability, they increase risk to community safety and they create another costly and unnecessary bureaucracy. At present the Attorney-General is the decision-maker for parole in relation to federal offenders. That arrangement has served Australia well. It provides ministerial oversight, democratic accountability and clear responsibility for decisions that have life-and-death consequences for the Australian community. But now Labor wants to change that. This bill seeks to create a new statutory body, the Commonwealth Parole Board, which will take over those responsibilities from the Attorney-General. The government argues this change is necessary to depoliticise parole and to bring the Commonwealth into line with the states and territories, which already have their own independent parole boards. Let's be clear about what this bill really does. It removes accountability from an elected minister who answers to the public and gives it to a group of appointed officials who answer to no-one. That is not independence; that is avoidance. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 establishes an independent statutory authority called the Commonwealth Parole Board. The board will be made up of a chair, a deputy chair and at least three sessional members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General for terms of up to five years. Its stated purpose is to make independent, risk-informed decisions about the conditional release and management of federal offenders and other detainees. It will replace the Attorney-General as the primary decision-maker for parole. The bill gives the board the power to grant, refuse, amend or revoke parole orders, to interview offenders and victims and to obtain information from relevant agencies. It also allows the board to share information with law enforcement, national security agencies and other jurisdictions as required. The government claims this will bring transparency, consistency and expertise to parole decisions, but what it actually brings is confusion cost and a loss of ministerial control. There's an associated bill in relation to the substantive bill. As I referred to earlier, it's called the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill. It makes consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 to support the establishment and operation of the new board. It transfers existing powers and responsibilities from the Attorney-General and the Commonwealth Parole Office to the new body and sets out procedural changes for making, amending and rescinding parole orders. It also includes transitional provisions to manage the handover of existing cases. While the coalition acknowledges the administrative intent of the companion bill, we cannot support the legislation that implements a deeply flawed model. The problem is not the mechanics of transition; it is the fundamental shift in accountability that the main bill represents. The coalition opposes the substantive bill because it removes accountability from the executive and weakens community confidence in the justice system. Under this legislation, if the parole board makes a catastrophic error, if a convicted terrorist, child sex offender or organised crime figure is released and reoffends, the Attorney-General will simply point to the board and say, 'It was their decision.' That, to the coalition, is unacceptable. Public safety is too important to be delegated away. The coalition believes that with power must come responsibility, and with responsibility must come accountability. These bills fail that basic test. The government has included in this bill a statement that public safety will be the board's paramount consideration. But we've all seen how those words can be meaningless when bureaucracy replaces responsibility. We know from experience that parole boards get it wrong, and they get it wrong often. Every Australian jurisdiction has seen tragic cases where offenders released on parole have gone on to commit violent crimes. Each time, the public is left asking the same question: how could this happen? Under this bill, when that happens at the federal level, there will be no clear answer as to accountability. There will be no minister standing in this place to explain. There will be no transparency or accountability to the Australian people. It's just another arms-length body, another annual report, another government shifting the blame. That is not leadership. The Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, has a unique responsibility for safeguarding the rule of law and protecting the Australian public. I acknowledge my good friend the member for Berowra for his efforts when he held the portfolio before I did and for the outstanding job he did as well.
Energy | Statements by Members | House debates
Do we all remember when the Prime Minister promised $275 power cuts—on 97 occasions, no less! After three years of Labor, families and small businesses are being hit with some of the...
Do we all remember when the Prime Minister promised $275 power cuts—on 97 occasions, no less! After three years of Labor, families and small businesses are being hit with some of the highest electricity prices that we have ever seen. In Fisher, the stories are starting to pile up. Craig from Miles Plastics told me his bills have risen so sharply that he's had into increase prices just to stay afloat—all while struggling to find workers. Dave from BokaBites, just near my office, said his electricity tariff has jumped from 22c to more than 27c per kilowatt hour. That's a 20 per cent increase in just five months. And Howard, who runs a convenience store in Aroona, is paying 62 per cent more for power than he was a year ago. That is not sustainable for any business. This is the real cost of a Prime Minister who made a promise he never intended to keep and a part-time energy minister who's more focused on politics than policy. The coalition backs responsible emissions reduction, but we will never support a path to net zero that punishes families or shuts down local businesses. Our plan puts reliability, affordability and Australian jobs first.
Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise today to speak on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. The coalition will support this bill. Australia currently faces real, emerging and serious...
I rise today to speak on the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025. The coalition will support this bill. Australia currently faces real, emerging and serious threats to its national security. That fact was borne out in the recent despicable attacks on places linked to our Jewish community—the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne and the kosher Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Sydney. The director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, recently attributed at least two of those attacks to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. This parliament has separately taken action, long called for by the coalition, to address state sponsored terrorism targeted at Australia by the ability to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism, with associated criminal offences and penalties. The coalition understands and believes that, to meet these real and ongoing national security threats, intelligence and security agencies must have the powers and resources necessary to protect Australian citizens and our national interests. By way of overview, the national intelligence community comprises 10 agencies: the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the ACIC; the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the AGO; the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS; the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO; the Australian Signals Directorate, ASD; the Defence Intelligence Organisation, DIO; the Office of National Intelligence, ONI; the Australian Federal Police; the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC; and the Department of Home Affairs. Given the importance of our democracy, the parliament must ensure that we deliver these agencies with the right tools to protect Australia's essential security and national interests while also safeguarding our essential rights and freedoms. An important way in which to do so is to ensure that we have strong and effective oversight of our national intelligence community. We know that public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies can only continue to be assured through rigorous, effective oversight and, to the greatest extent possible, public accountability. I turn now to an overview of the bill before the House. The Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025, commonly referred to in the intelligence community as the SONIC, amends the Intelligence Services Act, the IS Act, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the IGIS Act. It does so to ensure comprehensive oversight of all 10 agencies in Australia's national intelligence community. This improved oversight will occur through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, on which I've had the great honour of serving, and via the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS. The bill expands the jurisdictions of the IGIS and the PJCIS to include oversight of four additional agencies under their remit: the ACIC, and only the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police, AUSTRAC and Home Affairs. This is an appropriate recognition of the significant national security powers exercised by these agencies, as well as their regular, integral role in joint intelligence operations. The coalition considers this to be a prudent measure that would bring the oversight of these agencies in line with their national intelligence community counterparts. The limited intelligence functions of the Department of Home Affairs pertain to the collection and analysis of intelligence for the purposes of immigration operations—namely, those of the Australian Border Force—some domestic cyber operations, and activities concerning countering foreign interference. Home Affairs also exercises coordination roles concerning counterterrorism operations, counter-foreign-interference operations and cyber incident responses that require access to and sharing of classified intelligence. The department's intelligence-collection functions and its use of intelligence for operational purposes has placed it within the NIC, the national intelligence community. It is also the basis for its work being subject to oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The bill also strengthens the relationship between the PJCIS, the IGIS and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, and provides the PJCIS with a power to request the IGIS to conduct an inquiry, complementing the committee's existing ability to request that the INSLM undertake a review. The coalition welcomes the granting of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor with the power to initiate reviews into the full suite of contemporary counterterrorism or national security legislation at the Commonwealth level rather than the current defined list of legislation. The bill, importantly, provides an own-motion power to the PJCIS to review certain legislation and a requirement that the IGIS and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence provide briefings to the committee. These are critical and measured reforms to ensure that the parliament, through the PJCIS, has oversight of intelligence and security matters across all the national intelligence community. Turning to other specific aspects of the bill, schedule 1 would also require the inspector-general and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence to provide annual briefings to the PJCIS. It will also make a number of technical amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to modernise and clarify the provisions to ensure the PJCIS's enabling legislation is adapted to contemporary circumstances. It will remove the ACIC from the oversight jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, the PJCLE, noting that the ACIC will be oversighted by the PJCIS in its entirety—I apologise for the acronyms in this speech! Schedule 1 will also make consequential amendments to ensure that information protected by secrecy offences under relevant legislation can be disclosed to IGIS officials performing duties or functions or exercising powers as IGIS officials. These amendments would allow for the transfer of complaints regarding AUSTRAC and Home Affairs between the IGIS and other integrity bodies to facilitate effective consideration of those complaints by the appropriate body. It will also make consequential amendments to address overlap in jurisdiction between the IGIS and other relevant oversight bodies. Schedule 2 of the bill would amend the review and access of ACIC criminal intelligence assessment records under the archives law. Schedule 3 of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to introduce an exemption from civil and criminal liability for Defence officials and others for certain computer related conduct connected to an effect outside Australia. Schedule 4 of the bill would amend the meaning of 'counterterrorism and national security legislation' for the purposes of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, the INSLM Act, to ensure the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is able to review any Commonwealth legislation relating to counterterrorism or national security. Schedule 4 will also make a number of minor amendments to streamline and modernise provisions in the INSLM Act to ensure the INSLM's enabling legislation is adapted to contemporary circumstances. Finally, schedule 5 of the bill contains application and transitional provisions. Turning now to the issue of ongoing oversight: as with the ever-present requirement to consider how best to protect and safeguard our national security, an ongoing obligation for this parliament and its successors will be to ensure that Australia's intelligence oversight legislation remains fit for purpose for how technology is likely to disrupt intelligence practices. In particular, the use of artificial intelligence will expand the capability and lower the barrier to entry for those departments and agencies, including those outside the NIC, wishing to undertake so-called open source intelligence collection—and that is information that is freely accessible. Open source intelligence, OSIT, activities are increasingly being used by a wide range of government departments and agencies. The information that can be collected, as well as the analysis that can be performed on such information, can rival covert collection methods in some instances. The question of proper oversight of OSIT practices should be an ongoing consideration for the PJCIS, including whether it is the appropriate remit of the IGIS or whether other bodies should fulfil this function. Lawmakers should regularly consider if new intelligence oversight legislation is suitably future proofed in the face of how emerging technologies may interact with intelligence practices. On the topic of proper oversight by the PJCIS, I am obliged to observe that we do have significant concerns about how the Albanese Labor government has handled consideration of a number of national security bills, with disregard for the proper work of the PJCIS. This is regrettably emblematic of this government's approach to national security matters in this parliament. The important oversight of intelligence and security matters performed by the PJCIS has been restricted and impeded by this government, including through truncated and rushed consideration of legislation. That must stop. The imposition of unrealistic timeframes places an unnecessary burden on stakeholders, secretariat staff and members of the PJCIS and, ultimately, more importantly, potentially leads to unintended consequences and/or poorer legislative outcomes for our national security. The coalition will continue to call out this government's perfunctory approach to parliament's vital oversight role and to national security matters. I also want to acknowledge the work of the PJCIS in its inquiry into this bill. The committee's report recommended the bill be passed and set out 11 further recommendations to strengthen oversight of the national intelligence community. The government has advised that it will adopt several of these recommendations and move amendments accordingly. I have been provided just this morning with a number of those amendments, which I am still trying to get my head around. When those amendments are moved in this House, I will be speaking to them more closely. The coalition will be constructive where we can, especially on important reforms to improve our national intelligence architecture. We recognise that this bill is an important strengthening of the oversight of our national intelligence community but we will continue to hold the government to account in relation to how it develops and implements these measures. The Australian people deserve transparency wherever possible in relation to intelligence legislation. They deserve accountability and confidence that their parliament is doing its job. While we will support this bill as outlined, the coalition has misgivings about how the Albanese government approaches the parliament's oversight of national security matters, including in relation to this bill. We will continue to insist that the government allows proper legislative and parliamentary processes to run their course before seeking to ram legislation through this parliament so as to ensure we deliver the best national security legislation to protect the Australian people, their institutions and assets. As is my want to do in this place when I am talking all things national security, I do acknowledge the efforts of all of those men and women in our national intelligence community. I am joined at the table by my good friend the shadow veterans' affairs minister and also the veterans' affairs minister. In this place we rightly acknowledge our men and women who serve this country in uniform, but not often enough do we acknowledge the efforts of our men and women of our national intelligence community, who often are placed in harm's way and often 27 million Australians will never know about it. These are men and women who serve this country with great pride, loyalty and passion across this country and across the world in what can be very difficult and dangerous circumstances. I want to use this opportunity at the dispatch box to encourage and ask all of the directors-general and secretaries of our national intelligence agencies to pass on the thanks of a grateful nation to those men and women who serve this country in our national intelligence community. Australians expect nothing less of this place than to ensure that we uphold appropriate scrutiny of our national intelligence community and the intelligence legislation that comes before this House. I commend this bill to the House.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Report from Federation Chamber | Bills | House debates
Yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise this to your attention, and this goes to the neutrality of the chair, which is a fundamental principle of this place. The member for Wentworth stood...
Yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise this to your attention, and this goes to the neutrality of the chair, which is a fundamental principle of this place. The member for Wentworth stood in her place trying to speak on the amendments moved by the member for Indi. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, who was in the chair at the time, did not give the member for Wentworth the call. The members on this side of the House were alerting the Deputy Speaker to the member for Wentworth being on her feet. This is not the first time this has happened, and I would ask that you inquire into the issue. Every single member in—
I won't delay the House long. I just want to make it clear and make the point that this is why we tried to have the debate in the House the other day. Rather than going backwards and forwards...
I won't delay the House long. I just want to make it clear and make the point that this is why we tried to have the debate in the House the other day. Rather than going backwards and forwards between here and the Fed Chamber, these matters could have been dealt with in their entirety here. I won't take it any further—
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is reviewing the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. My question to the minister is this: Will the minister commit to amending or...
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is reviewing the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. My question to the minister is this: Will the minister commit to amending or withdrawing the bill if the Senate committee finds that it undermines the public's right to know? The government must respect the findings of independent scrutiny. I urge the minister to act on the committee's recommendations. Finally, as I have previously indicated, this bill does not have a friend in the world apart from the Public Service. And, quite frankly, I would have thought that the Public Service would have welcomed the changes that the Attorney has finally made today around anonymity. But the amendment that the Attorney has moved today does not, in and of itself, correct a bill with all the many faults and problems that so many of my colleagues have spoken of for such a long period of time. This government is allergic to transparency. It continues day in, day out, particularly as we get closer to the Christmas break, to be jamming legislation through this place. Every Australian should be very concerned when they hear that their government is looking to create efficiencies in everyday Australians' access to information. Democracy is a very precarious thing but it is something that should be cherished, and I think is cherished—mostly—by 27 million Australians. But the downward slide in democracy can happen very easily. In the lead-up to the '22 election, this government prided itself on making it a fundamental election principle. 'Vote for us,' they said. 'We'll restore,' they said, 'integrity to the parliament. We'll restore integrity to government.' And what we have seen, particularly over the last four to six weeks, is this government continuing to ram legislation through this place. This bill should send a shock wave through the hearts of 27 million Australians. I have just spoken about a few of the stakeholders who have raised concerns about this bill—just a few. The media, in particular, relies heavily upon access to freedom of information, and it relies heavily on the ability to be able to access information to hold the government to account. That is their job. Whether they do it particularly well or not is of course up for debate, but what this government shouldn't be doing is nobbling the ability of the media to do its job. But that's exactly what this bill will do. You might say, 'How is it doing that?' The reality is that the media is much more than just your News Corps and large media organisations. It also involves small, independent newspapers, like the Glasshouse Country & Maleny News in my electorate. They should be able to request information from this government on important issues like funding for hospitals and childcare centres. It's vitally important that Australians across our country have the ability to ask questions of their government, who are there to serve them. The bureaucracy are not there to serve themselves; the bureaucracy is there to serve the Australian public. I urge this minister to pause this bill.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has criticised the lack of consultation with media organisations. My question to the minister is this: What consultation was undertaken with media...
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has criticised the lack of consultation with media organisations. My question to the minister is this: What consultation was undertaken with media organisations, civil society and legal experts before drafting these amendments? Transparency reforms must be developed transparently. I urge the minister to engage with stakeholders before legislating.
Some lawyers have warned that the changes to the FOI Act could increase litigation and legal costs. My question to the minister is this: Does the minister acknowledge that these reforms could...
Some lawyers have warned that the changes to the FOI Act could increase litigation and legal costs. My question to the minister is this: Does the minister acknowledge that these reforms could lead to increased litigation and legal costs rather than reducing inefficiencies? This bill may create more problems than it solves. Has the minister performed a cost-benefit analysis of these reforms, and, if not, will she commit to doing so before proceeding with the bill?
Schedule 5 alters review procedures, placing additional burdens on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. My question to the minister is this: has the government considered the...
Schedule 5 alters review procedures, placing additional burdens on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. My question to the minister is this: has the government considered the operational burden these changes will place on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner? This bill risks overwhelming the OAIC and delaying transparency and justice. I call on the minister to consult with the commissioner and revise these provisions.
The Centre for Public Integrity has warned that the new fee structure under schedule 6 could deter legitimate public interest inquiries. My question to the minister is this: what measures are in...
The Centre for Public Integrity has warned that the new fee structure under schedule 6 could deter legitimate public interest inquiries. My question to the minister is this: what measures are in place to ensure that the new fee structure does not become a barrier to legitimate public interest inquiries? This bill risks pricing out transparency. I call on the minister to exempt public interest requests from fees.
Schedule 6 introduces application fees for FOI requests. The Australian Council of Social Service warns that this will disproportionately affect low-income Australians. My question to the...
Schedule 6 introduces application fees for FOI requests. The Australian Council of Social Service warns that this will disproportionately affect low-income Australians. My question to the minister is this: how will the introduction of application fees not disproportionately affect low-income Australians seeking information about their rights or entitlements? Attorney, access to information should not depend on one's ability to pay. I call on the Attorney to remove this financial barrier.