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 13 of 14.
“by leave—I move: That the House take note of the following document: Interim report for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia—Report, incorporating dissenting reports, February 2025. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.”
“No-one on the other side was able to make it to their time defending what is in front of us. Maybe you want your audition for the front bench. I got to say that there are a good number you are better than. It's a very special front bench that those opposite have provided.”
“So, after this moment, never think that there is an option for those opposite to claim that they're the party of lower taxes, because they will have voted for tax to be higher for every single Australian taxpayer—every one of them. As the PM said, tax cuts are the only cuts that they don't support. They're the only cuts they don't support. Those opposite have cuts planned, particularly because of their plans for nuclear. You don't get to spend $600 billion without making cuts. We know that they oppose what we did on medicines. They've opposed energy bill relief. They've opposed higher wages. They've opposed cheaper child care. Three times in three years they've opposed three tax cuts, and throughout all of that time this government has had a very simple refrain: people should be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn.”
“When you put them together, you get an average tax cut of $43 a week for 2026-27 and an average tax cut of $50 per week in 2027-28. Does that mean that the cost of living is solved? Of course it doesn't. You also need all the other measures, including higher wages and what we have done to bring inflation down. You need all of that to be able to make sure you're looking after people. But what is there up in lights is that those opposite oppose every single one of those measures—absolutely everything that would make life easier for people. Those opposite don't just believe that it should be harder for people; they vote that it should be harder for people.”
“We know that if you want cost of living to be eased for people, you want their taxes to be lower, and we voted for that. Those opposite are about to vote for taxes to be higher. To ease cost of living, you want wages to be higher, and we voted for that. At every single opportunity, those opposite have voted to restrain wages, just as they did for nine years, when low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of how they managed the economy. They have been consistent with every other cost-of-living measure, opposing energy bill relief, opposing free TAFE and opposing cheaper medicines, but it has taken until today that they have been forced to have the vote on where they stand on taxation. Let's remember that these tax cuts build on what we did last time that they didn't want us to do. They are a top-up on what happened last time.”
“Because, make no mistake, the conversation that those opposite will be having with their party members and with every single person who votes for them will not be about explaining whether or not they want to give this money but about the fact that they want to take it away. They keep telling us in interview after interview—the shadow Treasurer used the line again on the weekend—'The best guide to future action is past performance.' Well, they are about to provide the textbook case of past performance, which is: when you are given a decision, do you vote for taxes to be lower or higher? Members on this side are about to vote for taxes to be lower. We're about to vote consistently with how we've voted on every cost-of-living measure.”
“When the tax cuts were announced for the previous budget, they were initially going to fight them. They were going to hold an early election over them. But, eventually, they folded and said: 'Okay. Maybe we'll support them. We just won't be happy about it.' Today, you can't go back to your branches anymore and say: 'That's just the leadership. That's not what we believe.' You will now go back to your branches after what's about to happen, and it will be on you that you have voted for every worker in your electorates to have higher taxes. You're about to actively be part of that decision. Part of the reason why we're bringing this to a vote now is that I want to give the Senate the chance to consider this tonight. I want there to be an opportunity for this to be law.”
“It's a 15-minute speech, but he gets to the 13-minute mark and still hasn't mentioned them, then refers to them for all of 24 seconds before returning to the rest of his stream of consciousness. Today is the day when this term—and where the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have taken their party—reaches full circle. Never again let it be said by those opposite that, somehow, they think they are the party of lower taxes. Up until today, they've been able to say, 'It was just the Leader of the Opposition,' or, 'It was just the shadow Treasurer.' We know they're saying that, because it's in the papers. We know that they're all running off all their backbenchers, complaining about the lack of a coherent economic message. Today, all that changes.”
“I'd advise the House and advise members that at the end of this speech we'll be bringing this to a vote, because it's time for this parliament to decide whether or not we're going to provide a tax cut for every Australian. You would have thought that, for the big fight that those opposite decide to pick when they get to budget night and do the presser afterwards, the whole backbench would be ready to come in behind its leadership. But we get the shadow Treasurer making a speech, then the Leader of the Opposition and then no-one—none of the backbench turn up! We have two speeches from the crossbench—because no-one from there jumps. Then the member for New England comes in to be the one loyal soldier to give a speech about tax cuts.”
“I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of the debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour.”
“Some of the workers were being paid for 38 hours but working 50 hours. The company was Merivale, and once again the Leader of the Opposition is making it clear that he'll cut and that workers will pay. (Time expired)”
“If the only answer is 'job share', that means 'pay cut'. When he cuts, people pay for that. He also wants to scrap the right to disconnect, where he's making sure that people would work longer for less. Once again, he'll cut people's entitlements; they'll pay with the outcomes. But it's workers across the board. Take just one workplace that the Leader of the Opposition might have heard of. One of the changes we made was to get rid of zombie agreements. One workplace had an agreement that had been struck in 2007, was meant to expire in 2012 and was still running in 2022. At this workplace—as I said, he will have heard of them; they run some restaurants—the workers were receiving no weekend penalty rates. Some of the workers were receiving no public holiday penalty rates.”
“Every single one of those changes, those opposite opposed—every single one of them. Bit by bit, they're gradually letting on that not only did they oppose them on the way in but they're now wanting to cut them if given their chance. Every Australian worker knows the simple truth that, when the Leader of the Opposition cuts, they will pay. When he makes cuts, they will pay in their pay packets every time. Some of the issues he tries to dress up. We had the whole conversation about working from home. Yet, what was his solution? His solution was job share. Job share means pay cut. If you've got a full-time job, where you're working some of those shifts from home—thinking about the way that people can be packed up in traffic in my part of Sydney, you can absolutely understand why some people want this flexibility.”
“Thanks to the member for Dunkley for asking a question about the economy and about the cost of living. It's only with every second question that you realise that's an issue in Australia. When we hear from over there, on budget day of all days, they've abandoned any discussion about what might be happening in Australian households—completely abandoned it. There's a series of changes that we've made to workplace laws. They have improved people's flexibility and have improved how much money they are getting into their household every single payday. Changes that have been made because of reforms that this side of the House and the Albanese Labor government have taken to the parliament are now finding their way into improved outcomes for the wages of every working Australian.”
“As members would be aware, the Senate has Senate estimates on Thursday; therefore, the only way of us being able to deal with these different pieces of legislation is to deal with them in the House today, and this motion is to give effect to that. I move: That the question be now put.”
“1) 2025-2026 and Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025 have not passed, all questions necessary to complete consideration of the bills being put immediately; (5) following the passage of the bills listed in (4), the resumption of debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 being called on immediately and all questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill being put at no later than 5.45 pm; and (6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. Members would be aware of the different bills that the government is seeking to get through the parliament this week.”
“2) 2025-2026 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026; (4) immediately following the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024, Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following on Tuesday, 25 March 2025: (1) after the introduction of Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, debate on each bill being adjourned until a later hour; (2) Ministers introducing the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 without notice and debate on each bill being adjourned until a later hour; (3) when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026 is called on, a cognate debate taking place with Supply Bill (No.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) on Tuesday, 25 March 2025: (a) standing orders 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting; and (b) the Federation Chamber not meeting; (2) on Thursday, 27 March 2025: (a) standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) being suspended for the sitting; and (b) after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically standing adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 7 April 2025, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“If same job, same pay goes—it's the only reason Danielle is now paid the same as her fellow workers, which is why she says that she's now in a position to purchase a home.”
“Over three years, minimum wage workers now have a wage increase of an additional $143 a week. That's for the lowest paid in the country. There has been a 27 per cent increase in bargaining. Flight attendants, coalminers, meatworkers are all earning more, and, at the same time, the days lost to industrial action have fall by 63 per cent. There are more than a million new jobs, with more than half of them full time. Danielle, a mine worker in the Hunter, who I've referred to before, got her pay rise because of the same job, same pay legislation—an exact policy those opposite have said they will take to the election to undo. Are you going to cut her pay, or are you just going to freeze her pay?”
“I remember them arguing why we had to not go to these new bargaining rules. It was because it would push wages up. Well, yes, it has, and people in this country needed to get pay rises, just like we needed to have same job, same pay, just like we needed to criminalise wage theft and just like we needed to have minimum standards for gig workers. Why should there be a situation where low-paid gig workers in this country have no minimum rates at all? But those opposite fought for that to continue to be the case. They're a party that wants to continue to have people to work longer for less. Every one of these results for wage rises is a result that those opposite tried to prevent—pay rises of up to 13½ per cent for aged-care workers; pay rises of 15 per cent for early childhood educators.”
“I thank the member for Hasluck. I remember, during the election campaign, standing up with the member for Hasluck at the Guildford Town Hall, talking about the need to get wages moving and talking about the fact there had been a decade of wages flatlining. Well, 10 years of low wages as a deliberate design feature in Australia ended the day the Albanese Labor government began. With that one word of 'absolutely', there was a change from wanting to keep wages deliberately low to wanting to get wages moving in this country. You can only imagine, with global inflation, what the wage freeze of those opposite would have meant over the last three years if they'd been able to continue with it. Every single thing we have put forward to get wages moving in this country, they have opposed. When we moved to fixed bargaining, they opposed it.”
“They're the words of someone who sits on the frontbench of the Leader of the Opposition—a Leader of the Opposition who gets approached at a fundraiser by someone saying, 'Can we bring back cash for visas?' and he's straight onto it. If only they'd asked for an au pair as well, he would have been able to deliver that too! This is a Leader of the Opposition who, no matter how tough he talks, you should look at what he does. He votes for students to be unlimited. He votes for cuts to compliance and he votes to bring back cash for visas.”
“That was how that worked. A number of reports came through, dealing with the huge problems of integrity in the visa system. I have referred previously to the Productivity Commission. We also had the Nixon review. Let me refer to a report a former minister in the Home Affairs portfolio, the member for La Trobe, gave on the regulation of migration and education agents. This gives a sense of what had happened to integrity in the visa system under them. These are the words of the member for La Trobe: Organised crime and illegitimate labour hire companies are using this loophole to bring out illegal workers who are often vulnerable and open to exploitation. This represents an orchestrated scam that enables these criminal elements to exploit foreign workers in Australia until their claims are finalised.”
“I thank the member for Robertson for raising an important issue to the House because the integrity of the visa system in Australia is something that needed to be corrected when we came to government given what we'd inherited. In October 2023, this government invested $50 million in compliance. There was a reason why we had to invest additional money in compliance. During the life of the previous government, where the principle person responsible for the portfolio is now the Leader of the Opposition, the number of compliance staff had gone from 360 down to 203. In terms of compliance, one of the most disturbing visas was what was known as the golden ticket visa where, instead of getting a visa on the basis of having a skill, a connection to Australia or a business that employed people, you would get the visa on the basis of having cash.”
“I move: That for Tuesday, 11 February 2025: (1) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended; (2) so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to business: (a) in the House, notwithstanding standing order 31, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until: (i) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; (ii) 10 pm; or (iii) a later time specified by a Minister; at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 12 February at 9 am; and (b) in the Federation Chamber, when the grievance debate is adjourned, the Federation Chamber continuing to meet, with government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Kevin James Andrews is referred to the Federation Chamber. Debate adjourned.”
“But there were changes that were made to legislation before it was introduced. The one that comes to mind immediately was a variation in how same job, same pay was done. Even though it still didn't have the support, there was a fundamental shift in how we did it because of feedback that was given by Kylea Tink because of her business background. There are changes in legislation—that story will be all across the parliament. But, I think, most importantly, beyond that, there was a change of tone, because Kylea Tink's optimism was part of the parliament. North Sydney was better served because you were here, the parliament was a better place because of your role here, and Australia is a better country because of what you've done in the 47th Parliament. So thank you for your work.”
“on indulgence—On behalf of the government, allow me to acknowledge that Kylea Tink's first speech showed an infectious enthusiasm and that that enthusiasm and optimism has been the story of this whole term. When redistributions come by, the loss that you immediately go to—it isn't as though a community won't be represented, because the communities all go somewhere. The loss that everyone was talking about immediately was the loss of Kylea Tink. What many people outside the oddness of our occupation won't appreciate is the number of changes that are made that are not in the public view. I know with legislation of my own and some briefings where, at the end, having provided a briefing of legislation I was intending to introduce, it was almost shell shock in terms of some of the responses I got sometimes.”
“Can I simply say, on behalf of the government and as someone who, like the member for Bradfield, knows there's nothing wrong with being loyal to a party and being able to say so—it's not why all of us are here, but it's why most of us are here—for your side of politics, you have been true to your party, true to your values and true to yourself, and you leave here with your head held high.”
“In terms of the running of the parliament, I don't think you can ever ask for more than the integrity that comes with that. In terms of his portfolio, for his side of politics, the legacy is extraordinary, and I'm glad he focused so much on Western Sydney Airport, which has been an issue which has gone back and forth—certainly well before I arrived here, and before the Leader of the Opposition arrived here. It was a live issue when the Prime Minister first arrived here. To have played a significant role in that development is something he'll be forever proud of.”
“on indulgence—On behalf of the government and at a personal level: I remember after my third year of not being selected for the Sydney uni debating team I asked who the selector was, and that was the first time in my life I heard the words 'Paul Fletcher'. Paul has made an extraordinary contribution for his side of politics. The role of Manager of Opposition Business is where we have worked most closely together, and on that I simply say that the most important thing about that relationship is that in the worst and most heated moments you can trust that you will always be honest with each other. Paul has been impeccably honest and has kept to every agreement that was made—and when he couldn't make an agreement, he just said so.”
“That's how the public found out about this. I'll tell you what: for the Australian people, that was not a free lunch. That one was in no way a free lunch. The Nixon review had found, under his leadership, mass exploitation of vulnerable individuals, as well as syndicates running brothels and engaging in sexual exploitation—even human trafficking. The Productivity Commission on cash for visas had said 'there is no case' for retaining this category of permanent visa. If you believe in the integrity of the program, you don't reintroduce cash for visas.”
“The problems became embedded with the nature of the visa, as a visa you qualify for because you have cash, combined with an obsession from the Leader of the Opposition, when he held my job, with cutting the compliance staff within the department—the people who were employed to make sure that the system had integrity. They were the ones he targeted and took from 360 of them down to 203 of them. It was the compliance staff that he decided to target. We first found out that this visa would be on the way back under the Leader of the Opposition not through an announcement. We know, from the Sunday Telegraph ,it wasn't because of a shadow cabinet process or a party room process—no, no, no. This came about, we found out, because someone asked him a question at a fundraiser, and, once again, there was a boom mic overhead.”
“Before I get to the lack of compliance staff, I'll explain—just to go a little bit further on this visa—that the Productivity Commission had made clear that, in a program where you have a limited number of permanent visa applications that get approved, every one of these visas takes away from another part of the program, and, when they have costed what it takes away from permanent skilled migration, the cost to the Australian economy—not our figures; Productivity Commission figures—is $2.5 billion. There are good reasons why this government got rid of applications for that visa.”
“I thank the member for Hunter for raising what is a very important issue, in what he has described as the 'golden ticket' visa—or what has otherwise historically been known as 'cash for visas', for the very simple reason that it's a visa you qualify for because you have cash. On 31 July last year, this government closed applications for that visa. No-one has been able to apply for the visa since then. It will take some time to deal with the mess that was created by the previous government on that, a mess which was contributed to by a lack of compliance staff.”
“We want to make sure that we get the balance right in providing the distinction between acknowledging the different pressures that small businesses are under, particularly with paperwork, and making sure that the definitions are realistic, because every exemption carries two consequences. It does mean that those businesses have an easier compliance burden; that's true. But it does also mean that the workers who work there have fewer rights than they would have in another business. Making the change in definition is a very big step, and given the way many businesses are structured with respect to casuals—that's why we have not been supporting a change in that number.”
“What needs to be remembered when people have their own commonsense view of what a small business is is that, under workplace relations legislation, overwhelmingly, casuals are not counted in those figures. So, when you consider a workplace that has 16 employees, that may in fact represent a much larger workplace, and, if you were to take that to 25, there are a good number of workplaces—a very good number—particularly highly casualised workplaces, which no reasonable person would consider to be small businesses which would suddenly find the workforce there exempt from a whole lot of rights that this parliament has decided workers should have.”
“I thank the member for Wentworth for the question and acknowledge that the member for Wentworth has been relentless in advocating for small business, which has often caused us to have different views on my legislation. Some of the legislation that I introduced when I was the minister did not have a large number of small-business exemptions when it was introduced; by the time it went through the parliament, it did. The question that the member for Wentworth goes to is whether the threshold as to how you define 'small business' in workplace relations legislation should be changed. There are a series of different definitions of 'small business' in different pieces of legislation, as most members are aware.”
“Today in an interview the Leader of the Opposition doubled down on wanting to bring back a discredited visa; he wanted today to divert police resources from an active investigation; and Senator Hughes has criticised for the first time a prime minister for being on the ground during a natural disaster. (Time expired)”
“He said, 'The Albanese government should hold firm on good policies that are in place for good reasons,' referring specifically to our abolition of the visa that the Leader of the Opposition wants to bring back. He went on to say: The Magnitsky Act is designed to prevent kleptocrats and human rights violators from coming into the country, and now you have somebody who wants to propose a fast track for potential kleptocrats to come into the country—it makes no sense … He went on to say: As the rest of the world closes down these loopholes, Australia is going to get more of these people because they're not welcome elsewhere. This level of reckless arrogance shows the twisted priorities we have seen just today.”
“From 360 down to 203—that was in the compliance division. There are different visas where you qualify in different ways. The fact that you are married might qualify you for a partner visa. The fact that you have particular skills might qualify you for a work visa. The way you qualify for a significant investor visa is that you have cash. That is how you qualify for that visa. So, when I use the term, I am not using the term in the sense of the Howard government scandals—a government the Leader of the Opposition was part of. The significant investor visa is a visa designed to be cash for visa. We have seen the comments, some of which I read out the other day, from Magnitsky act founder Sir Bill Browder. Those opposite didn't like some of the comments that I read from him, so I'll read some different comments from him.”
“I want to thank the member for McEwen for raising what is an important issue. Soon after we came to office, my predecessor had commissioned the Nixon review. The Nixon review was presented to this government and found serious problems with the integrity of the visa system which we had inherited. It found that the visa system, as it had been administered by previous ministers, including the now Leader of the Opposition, had overseen mass exploitation of vulnerable individuals, as well as syndicates running brothels and engaging in sexual exploitation and even human trafficking. When you ask, 'Well, what was happening with compliance? We're hearing that some of the services that are provided by Australian workers need to be cut,' there's form there. You can guess which part of the workforce the cuts were made to in immigration.”
“Obviously, if there are amendments, divisions that are called or anything like that, they would be dealt with by the House tomorrow morning. Question agreed to.”
“For the information of members who may not have memorised today's Notice Paper , the effect of this is to allow for a later sitting this evening. The usual 6.30 rule will still apply in terms of no divisions or quorum calls after 6.30. Those people who were scheduled to speak on the adjournment will still be able to do so. We have some legislation, particularly in the Federation Chamber, which deals with crimes which are happening in real-time. Given that we are very close to the end of the speaking list, if we have a chance to get an agreement with the parliament to be able to deal with that more quickly, I think it's well and truly in the national interest for us to do so. This will give us the flexibility to do that.”
“I move: That for Wednesday, 5 February 2025: (1) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended; (2) so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to business: (a) in the House, notwithstanding standing order 31, at 8pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until: (i) business concludes, if earlier than 10pm; (ii) 10 pm; or (iii) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm; at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 6 February at 9 am; (b) in the Federation Chamber, government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns at approximately 9.30 pm; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“I quote again: It's hard to imagine that it's good politics to be standing in front of the Australian people and saying, 'we want to have potentially dodgy criminals buying their way into Australian residency and Australian passports.' It seems like the kind of thing that someone might be doing just for a narrow group of political contributions. When it comes to immigration policy, I suggest the Australian people don't look at what the Leader of the Opposition says but look at what he does. He opposed limiting the number of students coming in. He issued more visas than any other minister in history, and now he is wanting, as policy, cash for visas.”
“There has been a response from the founder of the Magnitsky Act, Sir Bill Browder. If those opposite want to in some way discredit someone of that esteem, I suggest they first go to the homepage of Senator Paterson, where you'll find both Sir Bill Browder being praised in the parliament and his image. But here's what he's had to say about this proposal, and these are all quotes. It's 'reopening the door to organised crime'. I quote again: The types of people who have taken advantage of this in the past are often the ones you least want to have coming to your country. I quote again, in language which I would not use: Australia is not such a poor country that it needs to prostitute itself to Chinese and Russian criminals.”
“I thank the member for Blair for his question. When the member for Blair refers to the golden ticket visa, it's the name that's often given to the significant investor visa. This is a visa that was abolished by this government—and abolished for very good reason. It was not consistent with the integrity of the visa system that Australians would expect. I had thought that was a bipartisan position because of the serious national security reasons that were associated with its abolition. But, over recent days, we've seen that once again the Leader of the Opposition didn't realise there was a boom mic overhead. And, when asked about this visa, he said—not realising he was being heard: I think we'll bring it back. Whether we do it before the election … we'll have to consider all that.”