Alex Hawke
Mitchell · Liberal Party · Australia
“I asked Telstra, and I do say to the government we need to start taking quite seriously the ongoing arrangements between NBN Co and Telstra—whether this is denying reasonable service to everyday Australians.”
“The reason why I'm raising it to the House's and the government's attention today is that, when the original NBN Co was created by the previous Labor government, there were these contractual clauses written into the legislation about denying Telstra the ability to offer the same services as NBN Co and, indeed, denying Telstra—and I spoke…”
“I rise today to take up the series of complaints in my electorate about the Telstra coverage and ongoing service-related issues in relation to mobile phone reception in the Hills District. I remind the House that my electorate is in a major metropolitan city, Sydney, in the middle of a really urbanised area.”
“Indeed, Telstra has been recommending to them—and I'm going to go through this specifically for one case in my electorate—the purchasing of an additional antenna at their own cost. It doesn't sound too unreasonable when you think about it for a moment.”
“As the Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Motor Neurone Disease, I rise to recognise Global MND Awareness Day, which just passed. It was a powerful symbol of hope for sufferers and their carers, who are showing the resilience of the blue cornflower every single day by caring for those with motor neurone disease.”
“This has helped draw attention to the national conversation about the realities of living with MND, the realities of the sufferers and their carers and the great urgent need for support.”
The complete record
Every one of 182 lines we hold for Alex Hawke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“It's the purpose of government and the purpose of ASIO to be available and ready to act to protect the lives and safety of law-abiding citizens at critical moments in time. So that's why we believe the evidence points in the other direction. These powers have been used only 20 times in more than 22 years. That's a reason for every member of this House to have confidence in ASIO. To us, that's not a sign of overreach. It's restraint, proportionality and the disciplined operational judgement of an agency dedicated to Australia's national security. They are in effect a last resort. Those numbers show that, and they've historically been used only where other intelligence gathering agencies and avenues of methods of interrogation have failed.”
“Some contributors to that inquiry argued compulsory questioning powers are inherently excessive and should not be broadened; other contributors suggested infrequent use demonstrates that they're unnecessary. Ultimately, while in a parliamentary democracy which is committed to the rule of law and freedom, we understand those arguments. We also understand that terrorism is a very thorny problem. Agencies require special powers to be able to tackle ideological based terrorism—not just after the episodes happen but in advance and while they are happening. The fact that these powers are rarely used should give us confidence as a parliament that our ASIO is doing the right thing. But they must have the power available.”
“When it comes to overreach, my colleague and the then shadow minister for home affairs, Mr Hastie, acknowledged that, in the second reading debate on the predecessor bill, there are people on both sides who approach powers with caution. The opposition has always been alive to these concerns. It's why we committed, in 2001 and after, to have these mechanisms sunsetted, to have them closely scrutinised and to go before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We've always believed in the proper construction and the proper oversight of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and inquiries into this bill. Over the course of that inquiry, including through detailed questioning of ASIO and other witnesses, the concerns have been tested and, I believe, met.”
“I have to say, while we're here today, I regard the program on Four Corners last night as an example of undermining our national security agency. We should be careful about the legislative constructs for overreach. But, when we hear the ASIO director-general make an unprecedented intervention in the public domain, we should also know that it is not the role of journalists to undermine national security agencies without absolutely certifiable and trusted information that is reliable, and I think we have to take the director-general's public message about the protection of ASIO seriously. It is, in my experience as a former minister and as a member of this House, one of our best agencies. It works reliably and diligently in the national interest. It's careful, it's lawful, it's methodical, and it does its job.”
“Arguably, since September 11, the intelligence framework has gotten even worse for agencies in the west. They are more difficult and more challenging. Intelligence threats are more diverse, more networked, more ideologically fragmented and more technologically enabled. In that context, it's essential that parliament give ASIO a lawful but carefully controlled capacity to compel information from individuals who are terrorists, who want to commit terrorist acts and who would otherwise withhold information for the purposes of terrorist acts—especially when we know that the acquisition of that information could prevent serious harm or danger to large amounts of Australians and Australia's national security. There are legitimate concerns about overreach.”
“ASIO's compulsory questioning powers were created in the aftermath of September 11—that horrible terrorist attack where the global threat environment fundamentally changed forever—and were designed to address critical operational gaps in, namely, ASIO's inability to question individuals who refuse to cooperate voluntarily even where those individuals had intelligence of profound national security significance, and terrorism has always proved resistant to our standard mechanisms of justice. Regrettably, the gap hasn't disappeared in the years since. If anything, it has widened, and, in the aftermath of Bondi, I endorsed the government's approach and ASIO's request for these powers to be made permanent. As we stand here, in 2026, Australia faces a much more complex, volatile and contested security environment than it did two decades ago.”
“In addition to espionage, politically motivated violence or foreign interference, the framework would now also cover sabotage, the promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity. The bill would also strengthen oversight, reporting and administrative safeguards, in particular, by tightening the eligibility and termination rules for prescribed authorities, increasing reporting obligations to the Attorney-General and requiring post-charge questioning to be conducted before a retired judge. These are not cosmetic changes. They go directly to the independence, impartiality and accountability of ASIO.”
“At its core, the compulsory questioning warrant regime allows ASIO, with the approval of the Attorney-General and a prescribed authority, to compel a person to appear for questioning and provide information relevant to serious national security threats. In practice, these powers are used only where voluntary cooperation is insufficient and only where the intelligence at issue is of real consequence to the safety of Australians. If passed, this bill would give expression to three key changes. It would make ASIO's compulsory questioning powers permanent rather than subject to repeated sunset extensions—as has occurred in 2006, in 2014, in 2018, in 2019, in 2020 and again in 2025. Additionally, it would expand the definition of 'adult questioning matters' to reflect contemporary threats.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, which represents the next stage in the parliament's consideration of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers. This legislation follows the passage of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025, which temporarily extended the compulsory questioning warrant framework under the ASIO Act for a further 18 months until 7 March 2027. The content of this bill adds further weight to that change. It is aimed at providing greater long-term certainty for Australia's intelligence agencies while strengthening safeguards and modernising the framework in light of the many national security challenges that confront us both here at home and around the world today.”
“In 1977, the Fraser government provided an additional $200,000 to expand interpreting services, extended the telephone interpreter service beyond capital cities to regional centres, starting with Wollongong, and introduced measures such as identifying bilingual Public Service staff and displaying multilingual signage. In 1977 in Wollongong, I was born, Deputy Speaker. I just note that, while this interpreting service was rolled out in that same town—”
“The opposition supports the Translating and Interpreting Services Bill 2025. This legislation is technical and administrative. The legislation provides a statutory basis for the provision of important translating and interpreting services. It addresses an issue raised in the Auditor-General's report No. 28 of 2014-15 with respect to authorisation for the charging of fees. Translating and interpreting services in Australia have a long history. The first Commonwealth translating service was established in 1947, and the idea of a national telephone interpreter service was developed and announced under the government of William McMahon. Subsequent governments have continued to invest in and expand language services.”
“So, while the manager of government business laughs and enjoys his political day, he is actually, under the cover of the problems we are having, reducing the parliament's ability to do its job. The truth of it is that the crossbench, the National Party and the Liberal Party agreed on a different order of business for question time, and the government rejected the fact that we could agree. That's the revealing truth about this situation. The government will not allow the parliament to agree if it isn't in the government's interests. We cannot decide the non-government order of questions, and the Leader of the House knows this. He's going to try and make sure that we fight amongst ourselves. This is deliberate. It's the agenda. Government members interjecting— It is. No, no, it is!”
“When you couple this with the freedom-of-information changes the government is proposing that are friendless in our polity, friendless amongst the media, friendless amongst the crossbench, the National Party, the Liberal Party and anybody elected to this parliament, friendless in academia—they are friendless because they reduce transparency and scrutiny over government. This agenda the Albanese government are pursuing is deliberately against what they told the Australian people to get this supermajority they have got. Every opportunity they get, regardless of what it is, they will reduce transparency and reduce scrutiny. Over time, this erodes the whole parliament's ability to do its job.”
“'In retrospect, it was a brilliant government' is what you were saying to us. At the time you didn't realise it, but now you see how good it was. One day you will see that about other governments. The Howard government allowed more questions in question time than you're allowing, more than the Prime Minister is allowing—and he's deliberately doing so. These changes mean less scrutiny over the executive of the government—a vital function of this parliament, regardless of what side you sit on. Therefore, we don't agree with the ongoing process of the Albanese government to reduce transparency.”
“The government has done that because, in its hubris and arrogance, it's decided to weaken the transparency of this House over time by various measures. We have seen the time allowed for the actual asking of a question reduced to a very simple 30 seconds, in a desperate, long-term measure to say, 'You have less and less time to get a question out to a minister.' We've seen a prime minister who, over time, has let fewer and fewer questions be asked each question time the longer he has been in office. Why do we think that is? Regardless of who's asking them, the Prime Minister has been cutting question time shorter and shorter. If the Leader of the House admires the Howard government, he'll note that the Howard government— Well, I think you said you're a big fan of the Howard government; I think that's what you were trying to say.”
“They are their own party and they sit together as their own political party. We don't accept the government's definition that they're part of the crossbench; the crossbench includes people elected as Independents and individuals to this place and people who have decided to sit independently. They meet the definition of 'party' in this House, by this House's rules, and they have an elected leader, by this House's rules; those are the facts. Regardless of any disagreement we have with them, or decision to sit separately as Liberal and National parties, they have the right to be treated as their own political party. They have the right to be given their own respect. They are not the crossbench. We reject that definition, absolutely.”
“We were subjected to that unedifying display from the government, who have a right to change the sessional orders and the standing orders of this parliament—the right given to them by the Australian people to have 93 seats and do what they like. But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. I say to the government the following about these standing and sessional orders: it's reasonable for them to propose them under the circumstances, but the National Party is a defined political party under this parliament's rules and is sitting proudly as its own individual party separate from the Liberal Party—and the government knows that. It's purely a government trick to define them as crossbenchers. It's purely a government decision to say that the Nationals aren't sitting as their own party room.”
“I move an amendment to the motion moved by the minister: (1) After "sessional order 65a", insert "and standing order 97". (2) At the end of the motion, insert: 97 Daily Question Time (a) Question Time shall begin at 2 pm on each sitting day, at which time the Speaker shall interrupt any business before the House and call on questions without notice. (b) The business interrupted shall be dealt with in the following manner: (i) if a division is in progress at the time, the division shall be completed and the result announced; or (ii) the Speaker shall set the time for resumption of debate. (c) Question Time shall not conclude until at least eight questions have been asked by opposition Members.”
“The police didn't know, as I didn't know, that this was the Parramatta synagogue. That was my introduction to antisemitism as a young person in Australia. For most of us in Australia, security and safety is our birthright. Today, for Jewish Australians, it is not. When I returned to that same Parramatta synagogue, 25 years after that incident but a few weeks ago, their community was only there because of the armed guards, because of the fences and because of the cameras. They do not enjoy the birthright that we do as Australians. We should be ashamed, and we must be ashamed, but we must act on this shame so that the tragedy of Bondi never happens to any Australian again and so that every Australian enjoys their birthright of freedom, safety and security.”
“Has brought the greatest shame to our nation. The greatest stain on our nation must occasion the greatest effort by us, by our parliament and by our governments to right the wrongs of the past by taking the action that we must to eliminate the scourge of antisemitism. There are Nazis parading on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne openly. When I was a young man, I was returning to my home in Parramatta. I'd grown up there, and I'd been to public schools there, but I had never known that there was a synagogue just down the road, on Victoria Road, from where I lived. On that night, I witnessed two figures throw a lit object into a nondescript building, and I rang the police, as any law-abiding citizen would, as I watched the fire start and the perpetrators run away.”
“Indeed, more Muslims have been killed by the Islamic State than any other group. Can we truly comprehend the evil that could overcome a person to look down the sights of a high-powered rifle and fire it at a 10-year-old child? What can we do against such reckless hate? We can fight it and work to eradicate it from our society and to not be reticent with those that reject our rights-respecting society. We cannot be naive about this ancient hatred and prejudice. We must understand and believe people that, when they say things on the steps of our own opera house, this is what they mean. We must take the necessary steps to apply the law to them, to protect the law-abiding from this criminal behaviour. As Josh Frydenberg said at Bondi on 17 December last year: This massacre at Bondi is the greatest stain on this nation.”
“When a 10-year-old girl—Matilda, named after one of our most iconic Australian cultural odes—is gunned down weeks after receiving an award for her excellent citizenship to others, every Australian parent does and should feel in their bones that something is inherently wrong and dangerous in our midst. Jewish Australians have done so much for this nation—names like Monash, Isaacs, Lowy, Gonski, Finkel, Solomon Lew, Triguboff, Pratt, Geraldine Brooks, Harry Seidler, Jessica Fox, Torah Bright and Jemima Montag, so many proud men and women who've made an indelible contribution to our Australian way of life. These are Australians like any other, and they deserve their basic rights. The Islamic State, and its ideology, is an enemy of humanity. It kills Muslims. It kills Jews. It kills Christians. It kills Yazidis.”
“Today we can also remember the 10 Australians who died in the 9/11 attacks, the 88 Australians murdered in the Bali bombings, the two people killed at the Lindt Cafe, the police civilian officer gunned down in my home town on the steps at Parramatta, more incidents than I can remember on our streets, and now 15 beautiful and peaceful Australians slaughtered at Bondi Beach while practising their own culture, traditions and religion—citizens that should have been able to do so in safety. Australia and its people have been under attack by a radicalised and perverted form of Islam since 9/11, a threat that affects all of us and, again, must be taken most seriously.”
“Fifteen of our bright, law-abiding, peaceful and rights-respecting citizens lie dead, shot on our beach at Bondi, and we the parliament, we the government and we the people, owe their memory and our Jewish Australian community everything we can do to restore their basic safety. This irrational, ancient prejudice of antisemitism has made its way to our shores. This enemy is not external now. This ancient prejudice, this enemy, walks amongst us, and we must do something about it.”
“The most important responsibility of any nation state and its government is the safety and protection of its own citizens. In a rights-respecting democracy in a Western country like Australia, the whole purpose of government is to administer the law and to have the exclusive monopoly on the right to use force to protect law-abiding citizens. And yet, in the Australia of 2026, we now know that the government and all its agencies have been unable to provide some of our most vulnerable citizens—Jewish Australians—with their birthrights of essential safety, life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness, and we must be open about this.”
“The government should be held to account on the broader suite of the reforms it has promised. There are serious flaws in this legislation, and, accordingly, the coalition will vote against the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025.”
“The purpose of the register is to assist workers and authorities to verify lawful sponsorship status, not to create a list that could be used by any activist groups to single out individual employers. As with any measure that relies upon delegated legislation, the coalition expects the government to publish draft regulations in a timely manner and to ensure that parliament has the opportunity to review what specific data will be included on the register. Clarity and consistency in these regulations will be important. We also observe that the bill is only one part of the government's wider agenda on migrant worker protections, much of which remains delayed. Commitments regarding criminal sanctions, whistleblower visa protections and repeat offender bans have still not been delivered.”
“Accountability can indeed help to expose unscrupulous employers and encourage a culture of compliance, but the coalition believes that the current framework already supports this goal adequately. While we share the goal of deterring exploitation, serious design flaws compel us to oppose the bill outright. The bill, through its regulation-making power, would allow for publication of the number of sponsored workers at each business. We are concerned, especially given the many recent examples of union thuggery uncovered by investigations into the CFMEU, that publishing headcount information could expose good and proper individual employees and their employers to be targeted in xenophobic campaigns. Our view is that this information is not necessary for the transparency objective of the bill and carries an avoidable risk of misuse.”
“The former coalition government consistently condemned these abuses, and it was the coalition government that strengthened civil penalties for sponsor noncompliance, tightened sponsor obligations and supported inquiries aimed at improving protections for migrant workers. The integrity of the skilled visa framework is something the coalition has upheld for many years. Notwithstanding that this measure seeks to impose additional reporting requirements on employers who, especially in the regions, generate prosperity for Australian and overseas workers alike, visa holders are already able to check whether a prospective employer is properly approved, with the assistance of registered migration agents. We agree with the government's stated goal to deter noncompliance.”
“The coalition will not support the passage of the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. This bill represents the government's response to the longstanding and well-documented problem of the exploitation of temporary migrant workers in Australia. It sits within the broader package of measures first announced in the government's December 2023 Migration Strategy. The issue of migrant worker exploitation is not new. Successive reviews, audits and parliamentary inquiries have identified troubling behaviour by a minority of employers who have used their position to underpay, coerce or otherwise mistreat vulnerable temporary visa workers. These findings have attracted considerable public attention and, rightly, prompted calls for stronger oversight.”
“It is such a low amount that he should be present on those 66 days to answer the questions that we have, and, yes, we have a lot of questions. I recommend this motion to you. You want the minister to be here. We want the minister to be here. Who here would not like the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to be here? The member for Parramatta is not here, and it's unfair to ask this question when the member for Parramatta is not here, but I move my amendment. I encourage the leader to support this particular motion as amended.”
“I've got a constructive solution to this issue. The question we all want to know, and the parliament and the people of Australia are asking is: will the part-time Minister for Climate Change and Energy be around to attend any of these sitting days at all? So I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House, something that all members in this House can support because we all want it: That the Minister for Climate Change and Energy be required to attend each of the parliamentary sitting days in the House of Representatives during 2026. A government member interjecting — There are only 66 of them—to that interjection—therefore, this is not an onerous requirement on the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.”
“With the exception of 2024, when we sat for 64 days only, you'd have to go back to 2020 to find another time when we sat for fewer days. That was during a once-in-a-century pandemic. To put it another way, the last time we sat for fewer than 66 days in the House of Representatives for a full year after an election was in 2011. If you went back to the future—if you got in that DeLorean, and you went back to 2011—who was the Leader of the House in 2011? Oh dear, it was the Leader of the House. He doesn't seem to like parliamentary sittings or scrutiny of the House of Representatives. There is a question that I think this House needs to address. I've got a solution, being a constructive opposition member. Taking the Leader of the Opposition's instructions to all of us to be more constructive, we are going be more constructive.”
“Firstly, I want to acknowledge the way the government has handled the presentation of the sitting calendar this year. My office received a copy of the proposed sitting calendar at 1.43 pm today. That was 13 minutes before question time, so I thank them for those 13 minutes to consider the sitting calendar and what it entails. It's disappointing that it couldn't be provided with more notice, but there you have it. With all those extra staff, they were unable to get us that notice earlier. Now I go to the substantive issues. The Leader of the House has brushed over a few things in the sitting timetable that he proposes for the House. The government is proposing that we sit 66 days next year, or just 18 weeks.”
“on indulgence—The Minister is to be commended on his swift and urgent action in relation to this. We stand ready to assist the government—especially to get to the bottom of exactly how a movement like the Nazi movement can officially apply for and have a protest outside New South Wales parliament—to make sure that these extremists are tackled in every way possible.”
“With the military campaigns that followed, there was controversy and difficulty with them of course, but it was good to have sound people in place at the head of America at such critical times understanding what needed to be done and why freedom needed today be defended. On a personal note, I had the opportunity to work in the Bush administration— (Time expired)”
“In line with that, he was seen most clearly in effect in Kuwait where, as secretary of defense, former vice president Cheney organised the US-led coalition, which, alongside Australia, liberated Kuwait from the evils of Saddam Hussein's regime. Recognising his talent for foreign affairs and national defence, George W. Bush would go on to ask Cheney to serve as vice president in his administration, something that came to the fore at the most defining event of our time, the 9/11 attacks, which attacked America, attacked Australia and the attacked west. This was a great time to have serious figures that administration who understood the score and knew what to do about it.”
“I rise today to note the very sad passing of former US vice president Dick Cheney from complications relating to pneumonia and cardiovascular disease at age 84. A staunch supporter of the Australian-US alliance, I do so as perhaps one of the few who will mark his passing in this place, but I had a high opinion of the George W. Bush administration and his service to America and indeed the world. Former vice president Cheney enjoyed a meteoric rise within the notoriously burdensome US political staffing system. From a congressional internship to White House chief of staff and long-time supporter of presidents Forde, Rumsfeld and the George W. Bush administration's vice president.”
“That's the way capital works. So the government simply can't afford to underwrite all these facilities for much longer. Their $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia fund is fast running out. The future bailed out in Australia is here with us, and the money will run out very quickly. The one thing this Labor government will not do is lower the cost of doing business in Australia. Lower the input costs for business. Make the products and the manufacturing cheaper. Why not, and why is this government pursuing an endlessly increasing set of input costs and energy costs, driving industry and manufacturing offshore?”
“When you think about what the government's agenda is, their productivity summit, their roundtable, completely squibbed the issue of productivity. We can't grow our way out of something when we don't acknowledge that productivity is the fundamental problem facing the economy. Government spending is growing at four times the rate of the economy. We can't spend our way into a productive situation for industry. But Labor's response has been to throw more government money at the problem. When you think about the $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money for Whyalla, $135 million for Nyrstar's smelters and $600 million for the Mount Isa copper smelter, how long can this sustainably go on? Even on the public purse, it can't go on. Every dollar that is taxed and raised and spent by the government takes private capital out of the economy.”
“Under Labor we know electricity prices are now up 40 per cent, never mind this cheaper energy we hear about from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy every day—the free energy that we're going to get for an hour if we turn on the washing machine. Electricity prices are up 40 per cent. Australian industry is paying $10.30 a gigajoule for gas. Competitors in the US pay only $3. It's three times as much. In Qatar, it's $2.20. When you couple that with the highest corporate tax rates for Australian businesses and people doing business in Australia—not just in the region, but one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world—there are no competitive advantages in Australia. This government is living in fantasy land if we think the taxpayer can then subsidise or bail out people when we've made the input costs the highest in the world.”
“If Labor can't understand that its Future Made in Australia program is now heavily in danger of becoming a future bailed out in Australia, then they're not paying attention. The bailouts are in the billions. There have been four major bailouts this year. We had historic Whyalla bailed out, Glencore's facilities, Nyrstar and recently Tomago, which is now saying it will wind up in Australia. This was what the Labor Party said would not happen under its clean energy transition. It is happening. Australians know it's happening. They are losing their jobs. Communities know, when they see the means of production shutting down, it's serious for Australians.”
“We have to ask: why are so many businesses collapsing in manufacturing and industry in Australia today? A combination of high energy prices—the vital necessity of all manufacturing, energy; taxation; regulation; and our industrial relations environment in Australia. In Australia we can't compete on wages. We have the world's highest wages. You wouldn't hear about that from the government sometimes, but they are the world's highest wages. They will never be competed on. We also have the world's highest costs in regulation and doing business. We have very high costs now, the only competitive advantage that manufacturing used to have, for energy. In many cases, they're doubling—when these contracts come off—in cost. It's an input cost sometimes with heavy industry, with 40 per cent of the input cost doubling in price in one hit.”
“Australians can still make many things, and it's vital that we do have a manufacturing future in this country, but we have to note in this House that manufacturing's share of our economy has collapsed to just 5.4 per cent, the lowest in our entire history. In the 1970s, it was 15 per cent. Every month brings another shocking closure of the means of production in this country that are vital to sustaining any society. Alcoa's Kwinana refinery, 220 jobs, is gone, as well as all the business that goes on. Price Plastics, after 40 years of operation, is gone. Oceania Glass, Australia's only architectural glassmaker, after 169 years in business, is gone. Our battery pioneers, Redflow and Energy Renaissance, are all gone, all under Labor's watch.”
“The coalition supports working on cup day—good idea, a very Australian principle. We'll all share the productivity gains we can make here in parliament. However, the government has constructed this motion with the cognate debate, which we do not support. We think inherently that the 1,500-page bill, or the five bills, should be debated separately for good reason—policy reasons—and, for a proper consideration in detail process, we will oppose this motion on that point only. But the rest of the arrangements are agreed to.”
“We oppose the government sending this to a secondary chamber. This is not a clearing-house issue. This is not a debate that should be sent somewhere to just ram it through or have no scrutiny. In fact, ironically, this is the bill about scrutiny of government! It should be scrutinised by this House. It should be watched by everybody here and everyone that wants to be here. Let's have this debate in this House. Let's have a fulsome debate. We want to hear arguments. We want to hear why the Prime Minister was wrong when he said, 'We want more transparency and more scrutiny,' and why whoever designed this bill got it wrong in restricting citizens' rights, restricting the media's rights, and restricting what has been a well-functioning system, for all governments, of access to information.”
“Frankly speaking, on the serious point here, all governments need this discipline. This will weaken the quality of your government. So I say to any of the backbenchers that are wavering—I can see their faces, frowning in concern at what I'm saying—your executive will be weaker. Ironically, that may help you get to the front! I'm just saying: you want to run a good government; I'm sure you do—and I'm sure every member here wants to run a good government—but your executive will be weaker; your discipline will be less. More importantly, in an era of big government—with more public servants than ever and bigger and more bloated bureaucracies—citizens need to access the information they need. They need rights against their own government. And the freedom of information regimes are fundamental rights. They belong in the hands of our citizenry.”
“You can see, just from my own contribution, how important this matter is. We can't let this go to the Federation Chamber. I know the Leader of the House is considering it. He's weighing up the matter very carefully. I think, on the customs amendment, we agreed—that was something that could go to Federation Chamber. The customs amendment is a straightforward matter for the government. But on freedom of information—not for us, as an opposition, not for the member for Hume, not for the member for Lindsay, but for each individual citizen who has come to the gallery today to access information from their own government, their rights will be restricted under this proposed bill from the government. So we want to stand up for them today. We want to stand up for our friends in the media, who also deserve access.”
“It just got a massive majority, but this wasn't on the platform—there was no mandate to reduce transparency or to reduce integrity. In fact, the Prime Minister promised the exact opposite from his government. So this is not the mandate the Australian people gave the government—to restrict freedom of information and to take a step backwards in relation to transparency. They have said, clearly, that they believed the Prime Minister when he said: 'We need the full light of day over government operations. We need the full light of day and scrutiny. Let the sunshine in.' Well, let the sunshine in. We can't charge people to let the sunshine in; that's just not going to work. In fact, we know what that means—a regime to increase the cost means, effectively, that people won't be able to afford access to freedom of information.”
“They're the extra chamber. But they should be here to witness it. They can't all fit in the Federation Chamber. There's another important argument. They want to be here. They didn't know this was on the agenda. I'm sure we're going to tell them very shortly and say: 'Get in here and help us defeat this government on freedom of information.' And we know they're going to turn up in numbers, en masse. So that's another reason why we need to have this debate in this House, in the full glare of the media. I welcome it, because there are not many times where we can all be in alignment. But the crossbench, I know, have concerns about this. The media have grave concerns about it. Individual transparency and freedom organisations have already raised that this is a massive overreach from the government.”