Tony Burke
Watson · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“People smugglers want there to be footage of Australian voices claiming that people smuggling will work, and those opposite are providing it. The second thing that people smugglers want is access to information.”
“I think it's fair to say that that sort of respect is ordinarily there regardless—it's nothing to do with the gravity of the issue. It's just an acknowledgement that each of us is one out of 150, to make sure that we are conscious that, if everybody acted the way we might want to act in a particular moment, the House could itself become u…”
“on indulgence—When the government seeks to have a debate management motion, there's always discussion in the House as to whether or not that is reasonable. In order for us to make sure that we can respect all 150 members of the parliament, there are a number of things that members ordinarily do.”
“Let me start with this: anyone who saw last night on the news that a number of people had tried to enter our country without a visa should know that, by the time they woke up this morning, every single one of them had been removed from Australia—every single one.”
“I thank the member for Leichhardt. I acknowledge the strong role that the member for Leichhardt has had in combating foreign fishing and, in particular, in calling for the work of Border Force that's up there now in Operation BROADSTAFF.”
“This is an amendment about who the deputy chair should be and whether they should be a member of the opposition. The deputy chair of the committee is a member of the opposition; it's Senator Dean Smith.”
The complete record
Every one of 659 lines we hold for Tony Burke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“The owners of the Lewis Continental Kitchen and all their customers were harmed. The local communities around were harmed, the Jewish community was harmed and we as a nation were harmed. There is antisemitism in Australia. It is real. It is ugly. It is debilitating. While this particular attack commenced with antisemitism originating in Iran, nothing changes the fact that these were antisemitic attacks and the impact was identical—the impact on our communities and the impact on our nation. Some antisemitic elements in Australia, as a result of these attacks, felt emboldened. But any antisemitic attack—in fact, any attack that relies on any form of dehumanising bigotry—is an attack on Australia. This extraordinary attack which occurred on our soil means we have to adapt our response to a changing threat.”
“I thank the member for Robertson for the question. I want to pay tribute to the work, first of all, of ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and all the state and territory police forces. In particular, all members of parliament are thinking of the Victorian state police force today as well. I know the significant amount of work and the analytical rigour that goes into ASIO assessments. They do not reach these conclusions lightly. This is an unprecedented attack on our society. It is aimed at creating fear. It's stoking internal divisions and eroding our social cohesion. While, after the attack, it was described in the media that no-one was injured—and that's true—people were harmed. The people who are part of that community at the Adass Israel synagogue were harmed.”
“I move: That all words in paragraph (d) of standing order 215 be omitted and the following words substituted: (d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of 10 members (six government Members, three opposition Members and one crossbench Member), with the exception of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, and the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability, which shall consist of six government Members, two opposition Members and two crossbench Members. Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or crossbench Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote. Question agreed to.”
“Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or crossbench Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote. For the information of members, I understand that there was an agreement made between the opposition and members of the crossbench to alternate some of the structure of committees in terms of who might be eligible for deputy chair and how many crossbenchers would be eligible to be on different committees. This change is to give effect to what the opposition and crossbench have asked the parliament to do. Question agreed to.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving the following motion immediately: That all words in paragraph (d) of standing order 215 be omitted and the following words substituted: (d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of 10 members (six government Members, three opposition Members and one crossbench Member), with the exception of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, and the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability, which shall consist of six government Members, two opposition Members and two crossbench Members.”
“For the information of members, we did what we normally do with every committee, which is to use the same resolution as was used during the last parliament, but most committees have been around for some time, so they automatically have the clause contained within them about the committee being able to use the work of previous parliaments. Because this is a new committee, that wasn't included in the original resolution, and this is to correct that. Question agreed to.”
“I move: That: (1) the resolution of appointment for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission be amended to replace subparagraph 1(l) with the following: "(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission appointed during previous Parliaments;"; and (2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.”
“All individuals affected by these decisions will have already had full access to visa application processes, merits review, judicial review and ministerial intervention opportunities. The Australian community rightly expects that our immigration laws are upheld and that those with no legal right to remain in Australia will depart or be removed as soon as possible. This bill is an important step in ensuring that this expectation is met without unnecessary and avoidable delay. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned.”
“This decision has created legal uncertainty for a range of decisions made by the minister, the minister's delegates and the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the decision maker relied on the Al-Kateb understanding of the law. The provisions in this bill will validate relevant visa decisions so they are taken for all purposes to have always been valid—as if they had been made in accordance with the current law established by NZYQ. These amendments do not seek to alter the current law on immigration detention, following the High Court's decision in NZYQ. They ensure that past decisions—that is, relevant visa decisions made on or before 8 November 2023—are not invalidated on the narrow procedural ground identified in AJN23.”
“Validation of d ecisions This bill also responds to a recent decision of the full Federal Court in AJN23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. In AJN23, the full Federal Court set aside a decision of the minister to refuse the appellant's protection visa application on the basis that the decision had been made on the understanding that refusal of the protection visa would result in the appellant remaining in detention indefinitely. That was the law as stated in Al-Kateb v Godwin, which the High Court overturned by its orders in NZYQ made on 8 November 2023. Although the minister's decision, the subject of AJN23, was made before NZYQ and reflected the law at the time the minister's decision was made, the court found that the minister's decision was materially affected by an incorrect understanding of the law.”
“The amendments in this bill merely put that legal position beyond doubt, to reflect the intention when the third-country reception arrangement provisions were introduced into the Migration Act in late 2024. These amendments will support the government's efforts to resettle members of the NZYQ cohort. Let me be clear—these amendments do not remove procedural fairness from the processes that support decisions whether to cancel or refuse the grant of a visa. Neither do they affect merits review. These amendments are largely directed to the final steps in the removal process, where noncitizens who are on a removal pathway have had all claims to remain in Australia considered and rejected.”
“Importantly, this bill will make clear that any actions or things done in relation to third-country reception arrangements are not conditioned on an obligation to afford procedural fairness to an affected person. The amendments in the bill, and the associated validation provisions, reflect the law as it was declared by the Federal Court to be in TCXM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 540—a case that the government won. In that case, the Federal Court held that entry into a third-country reception arrangement and doing things for the purposes of that arrangement were not conditioned by the requirement to afford procedural fairness.”
“The bill makes targeted amendments of the Migration Act to expressly exclude procedural fairness from applying to the exercise of specific powers that deal with: the taking of action in relation to third-country reception arrangements; the disclosure of information about removal pathway noncitizens or certain former removal pathway noncitizens to foreign governments; and the issuing of removal pathway directions to removal pathway noncitizens to require them to take certain steps to facilitate their lawful removal from Australia. These provisions are primarily directed to noncitizens who have exhausted all legitimate avenues to remain in Australia—and for whom removal is the only remaining outcome under Australian law. In such cases, the purpose of the law should be clear: to give effect to removal as swiftly and effectively as possible.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government is committed to maintaining a migration system that is robust, effective and in the national interest. Among other things, this means ensuring that where a person has no lawful basis to remain in Australia, our laws operate to facilitate their timely and lawful removal. Procedural fairness Procedural fairness is a fundamental principle in many areas of decision-making. However, these provisions can and are being used by noncitizens to delay and frustrate their removal, at cost to the Commonwealth in circumstances where it is neither necessary nor appropriate for it to continue to apply. The amendments in this bill are largely directed at noncitizens who have come to the end of any visa processes, and who are on a removal pathway.”
“In February the following year, the coalition and the Greens in this chamber voted against it, but it was passed. In September of that year, nearly a year after it was introduced, the coalition and the Greens again voted to delay 40,000 homes, and only in November of last year was it finally passed, with the coalition still voting no. But then build to rent comes up—80,000 homes. Maybe they'll be interested in the silver bullet now. In July of last year, the coalition and the Greens voted in the Senate to split the bill and delay it. In November of last year, it finally passed, the coalition still voting against. But you think: 'Oh, maybe that was last term. Maybe now they're doing a reset.' There is in the Senate today a disallowance on build to rent, the very scheme to provide 80,000 homes.”
“When it was introduced in February 2023, the coalition voted against it and the Greens ran out of the room. In May of that year, the coalition and the Greens teamed up in the Senate to delay it. In June, the coalition and the Greens again teamed up in the Senate to delay it. In September of that year, it finally passed, with the coalition still opposed to 30,000 homes. But that wasn't the only measure to come before parliament. Help to Buy was another that came before parliament. For that, it wasn't 30,000 homes; 40,000 homes were at stake. Maybe then those opposite would be interested in the silver bullet. What did they do in November 2023? When it was introduced, the coalition and the Greens teamed up in the Senate to delay it by two months.”
“I thank the member for Brisbane for the question. It's good to know that we now have a member for Brisbane who will always support the building of more homes for Australians. When that importance of supply is talked about, there are claims across the chamber that we agree on supply. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for industry, skills and training, in the previous term, actually, said that supply was the key. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said only last week, 'Boosting housing supply is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet'—'a silver bullet'. So it's worth having a look at, when that silver bullet has been in front of the House, how people have dealt with it, as to whether they've actually tried to boost supply. When the Housing Australia Future Fund was introduced, there were 30,000 homes at stake.”
“At the commemorative service I noticed a sign beside me that said thank you to Australia, from the Vietnamese community. I say to the community: never underestimate how much Australia says thank you to you. We're a stronger nation because you are here, we are capable of more because you are here and we are grateful because you are here.”
“Others made part of the journey and then got stuck somewhere in the world. Those who made it to Australia arrived with very little physically but brought with them resilience, courage and a deep commitment to building a better future. It's been a long journey, but, speaking as Australia's immigration minister, I hope that so much of the pain has, over time, become more a moment of reflection and a moment where some of that hope that was there as those vessels embarked has been realised here in Australia. A candlelight vigil and prayer service was held at the Vietnamese Boat People Monument, in Bankstown—a moving tribute to those lost at sea. When you look at the monument, no-one's looking back; they're all on a tiny vessel, looking ahead as democracy fell behind.”
“In my first term, when I was first elected, I went to the Philippines—this was back in 2005—on a visit that had been organised by members of the local Vietnamese community. Back then, there were still stateless Vietnamese in the Philippines. They had failed in their refugee claim because of the speed of processing at the time, even though they were in identical situations to those who had successfully gone through their refugee processing. That was 30 years after the fall of Saigon. Thirty years after they started their journey, they were still trying to find refuge. I'm pleased that, in the years to follow, Australia, together with Canada and a couple of other countries, continued to take the remainder of those stateless Vietnamese. We know that as their journey started on those vessels, so many people didn't make it.”
“Thank you very much, Acting Deputy Speaker, and can I congratulate you on your reappointment to the Speaker's panel. This year, Australia marks one of the most significant moments in the immigration history of Australia: 50 years since the arrival of Vietnamese refugees. The anniversary holds a particular meaning in my part of Sydney. When I talk to families who made that journey, I find it unimaginable to think of that moment 50 years ago when they had to make the decision to flee, seeing democracy fall behind them and not knowing what was ahead. For most families, like mine, you just presume you'll be in the country of your birth your life, and those Vietnamese families had all started with the same view.”
“by leave—I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 , Mr Hastie, Mr Taylor and Mr Wallace be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Question agreed to.”
“So in country after country we were losing access to trade, which meant we were losing access to business, which meant we were losing Australian jobs. And yet they choose that as the better path. We are proud of the fact that there are more jobs in Australia because we've improved trade. We are proud of the fact that people have more job security because we've improved trade. We are proud of the fact that people are earning more and have more job security.”
“He didn't say a word about income tax, did he? He did not say a word about income tax. Every single Australian taxpayer was being told that, if they were on this side of the House, income tax was going to be more, whereas the government's position was really simple: people should earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those opposite opposed both. They opposed people earning more, and they opposed people keeping more of what they earn. Let's go through the economic stats. One of the most concerning things he just said is that Australia is becoming too reliant on other countries. That was one of his comments. He could only be referring to the fact that, under them, their concept of being less reliant on other countries was to shut down trade.”
“Even when he quibbles with the numbers and picks his preferred lower figure, it is still the most expensive election commitment that has ever been taken to a federal election. They managed to be offering cuts. We know all the things they oppose. They oppose free TAFE, free medicines and urgent care clinics. They wanted to sack workers left, right and centre. We know all the things they oppose, and, even with their long list of cuts, they still managed to increase debt. They still managed to go to the election delivering increased debt. At the same time, and full credit for their honesty, they were the first opposition to actually go to an election promising that people should pay more income tax. He went through a whole lot of different tax areas that he wanted to talk about in his speech there.”
“Every day the MPI comes around, and I get asked which frontbencher I will flick it across to. I saw the one today, and I just refused to share. I refused to share, because of what the shadow Treasurer has put forward. Here are the words: the government's addiction to higher taxes and higher spending. His objection, if you look at what they've been standing for, is because they want taxes to be even higher and spending to be even higher. That is exactly what they have just spent and gone completely to the Australian people on. They managed, and the now shadow Treasurer managed, the most expensive election commitment to be taken to any election in the history of Federation.”
“Public servants are just that—Australians who have devoted their professional lives to serving the public. A life of service should be honoured. It should never be scorned. It should never be ridiculed, and it should never be unsafe simply to go to work. Every Australian worker deserves to feel safe and to be safe. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“This penalty will act as a deterrent for noncompliance with conditions, while protecting workers from any future threatening behaviour. The bill also requires a review three years after commencement. The introduction of the bill sends a strong message that the government values the contributions made by Commonwealth workers and that violence and aggression towards those workers and workplaces is unacceptable. The bill creates a whole new act and is a serious reform on worker safety. The bill is a further step towards creating safer workplaces for Commonwealth workers, and allowing the Australian community safe access to Commonwealth government benefits and services. The bill offers new protections to all Commonwealth workers, like Joeanne Cassar, who has dedicated her professional life to helping others.”
“The court would be able to vary the conditions in the order and/or period for which the order is in force. This would allow flexibility where the circumstances of either the Commonwealth entity or the respondent change. The bill also provides that either party would be able to appeal a decision of the court relating to the making, varying or revoking of a final order. The bill would allow information-sharing between the Commonwealth and enforcement agencies to ensure identified risks posed to other Commonwealth workers or workplaces can be managed, as a proactive approach in preventing further harm and to enforce workplace protection orders. Breaching a condition of an order will be a criminal offence punishable by two years' imprisonment or 120 penalty units or both.”
“The bill ensures that, if proposing conditions that would limit the respondent's ability to access Commonwealth benefits or services, or contact their electoral representatives, the applicant is to be required to provide the court with information about alternative procedures or arrangements for how the respondent may access or obtain those benefits or services. The court would also be required to consider the personal circumstances of the respondent when determining the conditions attached to an order, and ensure that the person still has the ability to access essential public services and retain the ability to engage in political communication. The bill would allow either party to a workplace protection order to apply to the court to vary or revoke an order.”
“In circumstances where urgent protection is required, the Commonwealth entity would be able to apply to a court for an urgent interim order to ensure protections are in place as quickly as possible, ahead of a future court date to consider a final order. A court would also be able to issue a workplace protection order by consent of the parties. Where a court considers a party to an order proceeding to have impaired decision-making ability, the bill provides that the court must not make a consent order unless it's satisfied that the person has appropriate representation. The safety of Commonwealth workers comes first, but we also want to ensure individuals can continue to access necessary government services.”
“Conditions could include prohibiting or restricting contact with a Commonwealth worker, prohibiting or restricting attendance at a particular Commonwealth workplace, or a restricted servicing arrangement—such as phone-only appointments—to allow ongoing service delivery as required. These orders would be available for all Commonwealth workplaces, extending to anywhere a Commonwealth worker is conducting official Commonwealth work. This would include mobile servicing such as 'pop-up' shops in shopping centres, Commonwealth vehicles, or a Commonwealth worker's residence when working from home. This protects workers who are working on behalf of the Commonwealth, regardless of where they are.”
“Before issuing a workplace protection order, the court has to be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence in relation to a Commonwealth worker or the workplace, and that there is a real risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence if the order is not made. Personal violence means conduct that causes or threatens to cause harm or a reasonable fear of harm. A court would be able to apply any conditions or restrictions it determined necessary to prevent any future risk of personal violence to a Commonwealth worker or workplace.”
“The Services Australia Security Risk Management Review was commissioned after Joeanne's assault. After a comprehensive review, former Victoria Police commissioner Mr Graham Ashton AM APM made 44 recommendations to increase the safety of Commonwealth workers. The government has committed to implementing all 44 of those recommendations, and this bill implements recommendation No. 17 of the Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth workplace protection order scheme. The bill establishes a framework to enable a Commonwealth entity to apply to a court to issue a Commonwealth workplace protection order to protect a Commonwealth worker or workplace from threats of harm and actual harm. A Commonwealth worker would include Commonwealth employees and contractors, such as security guards, apprentices and volunteers.”
“Joeanne's story is unfortunately not an isolated incident. Between July 2023 and July of last year, Services Australia staff faced almost 1,700 serious incidents. These types of attacks are unacceptable. Violence and aggression have devastating impacts on workers and their families. No-one who works on the frontline for our public service should ever be concerned for their personal safety. They all have a right to go to work and to go home safely. This bill was previously introduced in parliament in 2024, but it lapsed when the parliament was dissolved for the 2025 federal election. I want to acknowledge the work of the former Attorney-General the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP and the former government services minister the Hon. Bill Shorten in progressing the previous bill.”
“Joeanne had stepped in to cover for a security guard who was on his lunch break. When this man returned, he lunged at her, chasing her into the office. He punched her in the face and stabbed her once in the lower back, just missing her spine and kidneys, but leaving her with life-changing injuries and enduring pain. It should never have happened. Joeanne said only yesterday: 'We should all be safe at work. We all have family we want to get back to. It took me seven days to get home. And I'm one of the lucky ones.' All Australians have the right to feel safe, and be safe, at work. That's why the Australian government is reintroducing the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025, to strengthen protections for Commonwealth workers, who are facing increasing acts of violence and aggression just by doing their jobs.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. When Joeanne Cassar set out for work on a chilly Melbourne morning in May 2023, the mother and grandmother of six had no idea her life was about to change forever. As the 55-year-old drove to the Services Australia branch at an Airport West shopping centre that Tuesday morning, her mind was on the Biggest Morning Tea that the office was hosting and the biscuits she had personally baked and decorated. It was a normal day in a decades-long career serving the public. Sometime that morning, a man, who Services Australia had previously identified as being a risk to workers but had no legal authority to ban, turned up at the branch. As team leader, Joeanne asked him to leave. He did. Immediately. He then came back later with a knife.”
“This arrest cannot undo the pain and fear that it caused, but it does send the strongest message that this kind of hate and violence has no place in Australia. This attack was not simply an attack on Jewish Australians. An attack on a synagogue is an attack on Australia and is treated as such. Jewish Australians, like all Australians, have the right to feel safe and to be safe.”
“The government committed $250,000 almost immediately for the restoration and replacement of those Torah scrolls. In this year's budget, a further $30 million was committed to rebuild the synagogue and the community centre. It's not widely known, but in the week following the attack, the Prime Minister had raised with me that the rabbi and his family were on a temporary visa, which was soon to expire. Given that, in an act of horrific hate, people had tried to say that the members of the Jewish community and that rabbi, in particular, were not welcome in Australia, I took, on behalf of the government, the most deliberate action you can take which was, that week, to make him and every member of his family permanent residents of Australia, to say they belong; the hatred doesn't.”
“I want to thank, on behalf of the government—and, I think, fair to say the parliament and the nation—the more than 200 members of the Joint Counter Terrorism Team from across the Australian Federal Police, the Victorian police and ASIO. Together, they have worked more than 50,000 hours on this investigation, and they continue to do so. Following the horrific attack last year, the site was visited by the Prime Minister, the member for Macnamara and members of the government, and by myself on two occasions. I remember going the second time with the member for Macnamara, which would have been more than a week after the attack. You could still smell the smoke as though it was fresh and you could still see at your feet the rubble of the Torah, which had been burnt.”
“People, when there is an attack as reprehensible as this, want to see someone being charged immediately, understandably, but there is always a tension between wanting to see immediate action and making sure that the investigation gets to every person involved. While the attack happened last year, the wounds from that attack are still raw. As Deputy Commissioner Barrett said today, the investigation is not limited to Australia. The Federal Police are investigating criminals offshore who are suspected of working with criminal associates in Victoria to carry out the attack. This follows the arrest two weeks ago of another individual who was charged over his alleged role into the theft of a vehicle used by those involved in the attack.”
“I thank the member for Macnamara for the question and note that no member of parliament wants to have in their electorate the situation where we see the sort of hate crime that the member for Macnamara dealt with, with the synagogue fire at the Adass Israel Synagogue. Earlier today, Australian Federal Police executed seven different search warrants at locations across Melbourne as part of Operation Hillfield—the investigation into the arson attack at the Adass Israel Synagogue. Federal Police have today arrested a 21-year-old man who is alleged to be one of three people responsible for the attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in December last year. I want to acknowledge the patience of the Jewish community.”
“No-one believes that. Penalty rates are the way that people who are working inconvenient hours can hold their lives together. It's a way they can make ends meet. There has never been a moment—”
“What happened to unemployment after all their arguments saying, 'Oh, if you do something good for workers' wages, people will end up without jobs'? What happened? We ended up with the best and the lowest unemployment record of any government. That's what we had. This side of the House believes that people should be well paid; this side of the House wants people to be in work. But this side of the House will never accept the principle that the pathway to getting a good job is to have your pay cut, and to lose penalty rates is to have your pay cut. That's exactly what it means. Those opposite said—and I tried to take down so many quotes; I was enjoying the speech I'll concede—they're on the side of empowering Australians to do the best they can. They want to empower people. No-one thinks a pay cut makes them more powerful.”
“Right back at the 2022 election campaign, when the now prime minister, Anthony Albanese, as the then leader of the opposition, was asked whether he would support a pay rise for minimum wage earners that made sure they didn't go backwards, he answered with one word: 'Absolutely!' We remember that word. The response from those opposite was that it must've been a mistake and that it must've been a gaffe. How could anyone possibly have the conviction that workers should not be going backwards? Well, the conviction that people should be going backwards is the only conviction that is consistent for those opposite. Look at the outcomes. After all the things that they said would drive up inflation, what happened? Inflation went from having a six in front of it to getting back within the Reserve Bank's target band.”
“When we argued that 'same job, same pay' was part of justice in making sure that people's pay wasn't cut, we heard opposite: 'Oh no, no! That will drive inflation up if you give people a pay rise, and people will lose their jobs.' When we argued that you have to have minimum standards for gig workers, those opposite said the same two things. They said: 'Oh no, no! That will drive prices up, and it will drive unemployment.' When we said that we had to get pay equity for women and made sure gender equality was an objective of the Fair Work Act, those two offered the same two arguments that we've heard here—that it will hit inflation and that it will hit jobs.”
“I've got to say, the second of the two speeches made more sense than the first. I think it's probably the aspiration of every member of this parliament—if we could be half as good in life as the shadow minister thinks he is, we'd all be doing extraordinarily well. Talk about not learning a thing! There has never been a pay rise for the Australian workers that they have supported. Never once. But the arguments are always the same. The arguments that we just heard from the shadow minister were that getting the pay cut is 'the difference in whether you get a job or not'. I remember we heard this last term. The shadow minister—I'll say a bit more about this later—while he wasn't in this place last term, it seems was listening intently, because he's adopted all the same arguments we heard last time.”
“So you will stay here late if you are giving a speech—or if you just enjoy being here listening to the speeches; all reasons are available. But certainly there'll be no votes or quorum calls after 6.30. I hope that explains the procedure that this is bringing forward.”
“I am hoping that, by providing the opportunity for speeches both here and in the Federation Chamber, through the parliament's sitting late tonight and sitting late tomorrow night, that will encourage people to give very few speeches this morning and later this afternoon when we're dealing with the specific bills, in the hope that we might be able to get it across to the Senate cooperatively. That's what I'm hoping for, and I thank the House for it. I give fair notice that we do need to get the student debt bill across before question time, but I'm hoping that we're in a position where we can do that cooperatively. For the benefit of members, particularly new members, who might not be aware of this: even though the parliament sits late, after 6.30 there are no divisions or quorums.”
“With this motion I am trying to accept the urgency but find a way that the parliament still gets to vote on each of the procedures that the parliament would normally want to vote on, some of which would be lost if I moved that the question be put, but still make sure we get it across to the Senate and people are still able to get their speeches about the legislation on the record. So, while I accept completely that it is well and truly imperfect and there is stronger language available about people making some of their speeches after the bill has gone across to the Senate, that is the only way I've been able to find—short of the traditional gag motion—to get it across there.”