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 2 of 14.
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) government business order of the day No. 2, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 being debated in cognate with government business order of the day No. 3, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026; and (2) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. I move: That the question be now put.”
“by leave—I move: That Mr McCormack be discharged from the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation and Science and that, in his place, Mr Conaghan be appointed a member of the committee. If anyone wishes to argue the relative merits, now is the appropriate time. Question agreed to.”
“For the information of members, the purpose of this resolution is the taxation bills, which were introduced on Thursday of last week. I know there's a large number of members on my side of the House who want to speak on it and, I am told, one or two on the other side who are going to want to engage in this debate as well. We're hopeful that this means everybody who wants to participate will get the chance to be able to do so. The usual rules will apply. After 6.30 pm there will be no further divisions or quorum calls. Between 7.30 and 8 pm anyone who is scheduled to speak on the adjournment will still be able to deliver their five-minute speech, but after 8 pm we'll continue with the debate on the legislation. The intention of the government is that we would take the bills through in their final stages on Thursday morning.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Tuesday, 2 June and Wednesday, 3 June 2026: (1) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting; (2) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business have priority until; (a) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or (b) 10 pm; or (c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm; at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until the next sitting; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“I'd also add that there was no meeting more powerful than when a delegation from the Yazidi community came here from Wagga, which involved one woman—from memory, she would have been 19—who had herself effectively been a slave and hadn't seen her mum since she was eight. There are reasons why the government have the view that we have of what these individuals did.”
“As I've said to the member for Fowler before in this House, the government isn't settling anyone. The government is not involved in settling people at all. We have had citizens return, as we had citizens have self-managed returns before we came to office—including 45 men who had gone there to fight. But, in terms of the consultation with the community, I can give examples of consultation that has been very powerful and has happened in the lead-up to when it was first reported that these individuals might seek to return. I'd include Manda House in Australia, the Assyrian National Council, the Assyrian Australian Association, the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.”
“So the next time he gets up and complains just know, if he's getting really upset, if he's passionate about it and if it really angers him, it's probably something that he's done. So I'd say, members of this House, when this amendment comes up, we should defend the record of the Manager of Opposition Business. Even if he won't, we should stand strongly by it and say: 'We think you did the right thing.' Even if you're having buyer's remorse, our view is the way the Manager of Opposition Business behaved with respect to this procedure when he was in government was right and accurate. Even if you won't, we will defend you in this House and oppose this amendment. Question negatived. Original question agreed to.”
“You'll often hear the former minister for trade say a line used by those opposite on immigration, 'They're letting in all these yoga teachers.' You'll often hear that when the skills list comes out. Why do you think yoga teachers were added to the skills list? Because there is an agreement with India that was done under the Morrison government that said they would be added to the skills list. Who do you think was the person who announced that agreement to say that they'd be on the skills list? Once again, it was the Manager of Opposition Business. So, if you want to know what makes the Manager of Opposition Business the angriest and what really gets under his skin, it's anything he has done.”
“In 2021, he turned up as an assistant minister in the Morrison government, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment in this process. Who do you think the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment was who he was representing in the Federation Chamber in 2021? Could the trade minister at that time possibly now be the Manager of Opposition Business himself? The exact person right now who's in this place wanting to say, 'But you all have to turn up,' is the same person who had an assistant minister represent him in this precise process. It's not the first time that the Manager of Opposition Business has called on things and been outraged by things that were actually done by him personally. Let me give you one more example while we're on it.”
“If there's no-one else, I'll speak in reply. The amendment here is a solution looking for a problem. It's the case across a range of portfolios that there are multiple people sworn in to that portfolio. For example, there are two cabinet ministers in this House sworn in to Home Affairs. There are a further two assistant ministers in this place sworn in to Home Affairs. It is the case that there is always someone sworn into the relevant portfolio who is there for this process. If those opposite have a problem with that, then I simply say this. It's a brand new sense that they have to have a problem with this. Let me give a simple example. The member for Calare, who is now sitting on the crossbench, used to be a government assistant minister.”
“Each year, the government allows consideration in detail to happen in the Federation Chamber. This is to allow the opposition to do what was originally thought of as a House of Reps equivalent to Senate estimates. It's never quite landed that way, but, effectively, it allows us to go portfolio by portfolio in the Federation Chamber, which is something that the opposition traditionally would have already requested. It's moved for those reasons.”
“1) 2026-2027 is called on in the Federation Chamber, consideration of the schedule being in accordance with the following order, and the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put for each portfolio in accordance with the timeframes indicated below, or earlier if no further Members rise to speak: (a) Education Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 5.45 pm on Tuesday, 2 June; (b) Defence Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6.30 pm on Tuesday, 2 June; (c) Health, Disability and Ageing Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Tuesday, 2 June; (d) Industry, Science and Resources Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 11.15 am on Wednesday, 3 June; (e) Finance Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12 noon on Wednesday, 3 June; (f) Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June; (g) Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 1.30 pm on Wednesday, 3 June; (h) Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 4.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June; (i) Attorney-General's Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 5.15 pm on Wednesday, 3 June; (j) Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6 pm on Wednesday, 3 June; (k) Treasury Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June; (l) Home Affairs Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 3 June; (m) Social Services Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 11.15 am on Thursday, 4 June; (n) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12 noon on Thursday, 4 June; and (o) Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12.30 pm on Thursday, 4 June; (3) any questions necessary to complete the consideration in the Federation Chamber of each of the bills being put immediately without debate; (4) the bills returning to the House and, when reported, any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of each of the bills to be put without amendment or debate; and (5) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027: (1) immediately after prayers on Tuesday, 2 June, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027: (a) returning to the House for further consideration; (b) when called on, the questions being put without delay or debate on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; and (c) standing referred to the Federation Chamber; (2) when the order of the day for the further consideration of Appropriation Bill (No.”
“At the moment, we're at the point where, if one or two more people add themselves to the speaking list, we won't get through it. Effectively, what this means is that, if we haven't finished the debate at 7.30, we will go to the six people who are listed to speak on the adjournment, they will give their speeches and at eight o'clock we will resume this debate. The debate will continue until the first call for a division, which will happen at the end of the second reading debate. There will be about five different opportunities for a division when we finish the second reading debate. There's a chance that this won't be needed at all, but, as I've watched the speaking list be added to, I just wanted to make sure that we're covered. That's the reason for the resolution. We will not be doing in detail tonight, though.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Wednesday 27 May 2026: (1) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting; (2) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until: (a) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or (b) 10 pm; or (c) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm; at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until 9 am Thursday 28 May; and (3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. For the information of members—this just covers us to make sure that we get through the debate tonight.”
“While we can't stop people from having horrific levels of bigotry, we do make it a criminal offence for anyone to support them, fund them, train them, recruit for them, join them or direct this group, with a series of penalties—the maximum of which reaches 15 years in prison. It sends a clear message to people who believe in racial supremacy that their views have no place in modern Australia. We are a country that judges you on who you are, not where you are from. The Neo-Nazis have gone after almost every group you can imagine: the Jewish community, the Muslim community, people of Asian heritage, First Nations Australians. They've engaged in all kinds of bigotry, but what the parliament has now done is set a standard that says: their views, their hate, has no place in modern Australia.”
“The process for prohibiting a hate group has a high threshold, as it should, and the process has to be initiated by ASIO. There's then a ministerial decision. There's then further work that has to be done by the Attorney-General, and consultation occurs with the Leader of the Opposition. That threshold had been reached with organisations which the director-general of ASIO had previously described as at that point in time having been 'awful but lawful'. When we introduced the legislation to this parliament, at that point, the Neo-Nazis claimed that they were disbanding because of those laws. They didn't disband; they phoenixed. They went from one name to a new name, and they continued with their hateful ideology and their hateful methods of organisation. Effectively, what the listing means is this.”
“I acknowledge the member for Bennelong and also acknowledge that the electorate of Bennelong is one of the electorates where hate groups have been distributing some really horrific antisemitic and racially supremacist literature. In January, following the antisemitic terrorist attack, this parliament passed new laws so that organisations that had been able to evade terror listing by keeping themselves just below those thresholds were still able to be listed as prohibited hate groups. Shortly after that, we had a process which I previously reported to the parliament where we listed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group. On 15 May, the government listed the Neo-Nazis as a prohibited hate group. They've gone by a number of names: European Australian Movement, National Socialist Network, White Australia.”
“Of the two cohorts that have arrived in recent weeks, there are three people currently behind bars. Of those three who are currently behind bars, one is charged with entering a declared area and two are charged with crimes against humanity. No-one should presume that at any point in time the work of the Australian Federal Police in terms of investigating and gathering evidence is over. I would remind those opposite, before we came to office, 45 people who had gone there to fight had self-managed their return.”
“At one point under the previous government, in terms of how they were going with environmental approvals, their percentage of approvals that were running on time was six per cent. It got to as low as six per cent of their approvals running on time. Under this government, 93 per cent of approvals are running on time, and it's only happening because of the actions of the Albanese Labor government. We're building more homes and we'll continue to do so because we established the Housing Australia Future Fund, which they voted against. With the housing minister, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, we established build to rent, which they voted against. We established five per cent deposits, which they voted against. We've modernised our environment laws, which they voted against.”
“Last year, after the Economic Reform Roundtable, this government established a housing strike team within the environment department to speed up housing approvals to help with the building of more homes. It set a target to unlock 26,000 new homes by July this year. Already, we have succeeded in approvals not for 26,000 but for 35½ thousand new homes. Twenty-one of those are metropolitan projects—across those metropolitan projects, 20,000 homes. Thirteen of them are in the regions—across those regional projects, 15,000 homes. That means 3,000 homes for Western Australia, 14,000 homes in New South Wales and—as the member for Brisbane has asked this question—17,000 homes in Queensland unlocked because of this work. I'm asked why these reforms are desperately needed.”
“I acknowledge the member for Brisbane as somebody who understands all too well the challenges of young people trying to find their home. Most homes don't need an environmental approval at a federal level; most homes have the approval process go through local government and other procedures. But some housing developments do require a federal environmental approval. Unlocking this federal approval process has been one of the critical steps that this government has taken in being able to build more homes. The latest figures that have been released show the Albanese government is delivering housing approvals and has exceeded the target it had set.”
“by leave—I move: That Mr Repacholi be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Education for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the factors driving educational attainment. Question agreed to.”
“This document is tabled in accordance with the lists circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Vo tes and Proceedings . Document made a parliamentary paper.”
“We also, in the budget, have flagged further changes we'll be making with respect to working holiday-makers. For those opposite, it was the National Party, before the election, that said they would be opposed to any changes to reducing the number of working holiday-makers. In the budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition took a step that I haven't seen a political leader take in this place before. A lot's been made of what he said about permanent residents but there's one permanent resident he seems to like, in that Senator Pauline Hanson is a permanent resident inside his head, living rent free. He introduced a new argument that I've not seen before from any leader in this parliament, and that was to claim that, somehow, you will be more worthy as an Australian if you come from a liberal democracy.”
“I thank the member for Macarthur both for the incredible work he does in south-west Sydney and also the work he does for every one of his constituents, no matter where they come from. In Australia we've seen net overseas migration fall to 45 per cent below where it peaked, and those opposite seem reluctant to acknowledge that, when the peak occurred, every single one of the settings were the settings they had left in place when the peak occurred. With the reduction of 45 per cent in net overseas migration, the largest part of the growth we had to deal with was in student visas. When we brought forward legislation not only to be able to cap the number of student visas but also to be able to link the number of student visas to student accommodation—link it directly to housing—what did those opposite do? They opposed the legislation.”
“And what did they do when there was something to limit what was putting the upward pressure on net overseas migration? What did those opposite do for the one piece of legislation that said, 'On the biggest part of net overseas migration, we're going to link it directly to housing'? Those opposite voted no. Those opposite declared they were opposed to it. If they're opposed to doing anything on backpackers and opposed to do anything on students—for family visas, it's already the case that for a parent visa, which you can't apply for until you're 67, it's a 33-year wait—the only thing left that they will attack will be the skills that we need. (Time expired)”
“The third thing that we've done that's represented in the reduction of the numbers is to bring down the numbers on international students. Now, international education functions differently to any other industry in Australia. International education is the only industry where you have to be able to find a home for every single customer, and, when we got to those peak levels, under their settings, of net overseas migration, half of that peak was international students. Those opposite might have forgotten that we brought in legislation for government to be able to put limits on international students. Those opposite might have forgotten that, when we did that, we said it was so that we could limit numbers of overseas students to take into account student housing.”
“First of all, in our permanent intake, 70 per cent of the permanent intake will now be taken by people who are already onshore, dealing with the fact of the increased numbers of people who have been on one temporary visa after another, who employers want but for whom we have not been able to find a permanent place. We're now shifting the permanent program to more of those places being taken by people who are already onshore, rather than offshore, than ever before. The second is to have a ballot system to start to put some limits around the working holiday-maker visa and to put some limits around the backpacker visa—a visa which, I might add, those opposite ruled out making any changes to before the last election.”
“I thank the member for the question and for the extraordinary work she does representing people in South-West Sydney. Tuesday night's budget confirmed that net overseas migration is now 45 per cent lower than it was at its peak, and what's important to remember is that every single migration setting when it hit its peak was one of the migration settings left by the former government—every single one of those. The 45 per cent reduction that has occurred has occurred under changes that have been made by this government. Three key changes are represented in the budget that that was brought down on Tuesday night.”
“I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill.”
“I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026; and (2) Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026.”
“Similarly, on Thursday, the House will adjourn following the budget reply. That means that the only night there will be an adjournment debate this week is, in fact, tomorrow evening. I commend the resolution to the House. Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.”
“For the information of members—this is a motion to allow the budget speech tonight and the budget reply on Thursday night. I'd remind members that you've got to vote for both; you can't just pick one of the two. In terms of procedure and how the House will operate—tonight and on Thursday, at around six o'clock, we'll suspend the sitting so that the attendants are able to do the work that's done preparing the chamber for each of the two speeches. The bells will then ring at about 7.25, or a little bit before that, for us to start at 7.30. I remind members that, with these two speeches, the clock doesn't apply in the normal way. That's just for members to be aware of. Tonight, after the budget speech, the Assistant Treasurer will introduce the remaining budget bills and then the House will adjourn.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: on Tuesday, 12 May 2026, standing orders 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting; on Thursday, 14 May 2026: standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) being suspended for the sitting; and after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically standing adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 25 May 2026, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting; and any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“by leave—I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Defence Act 1903, Mr Burnell, Mr Chester, Ms Mascarenhas, Ms Swanson, Ms Templeman, Mr Thompson, Mr Wallace and Mr Zappia be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. Question agreed to.”
“Together, these measures strengthen support for Australian creators and ensure the lending rights system remains clear, stable and fit for purpose. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 repeals the Public Lending Right Act 1985 and supports the transition to the new unified lending rights framework. It ensures related legislation continues to operate smoothly and consistently following the passage of the primary bill. The bill also provides continuity by confirming that the existing committee will continue to oversee the Public Lending Right scheme and will extend its role to the Educational Lending Right scheme, supporting transparent administration and ongoing advice to government. Importantly, these amendments provide certainty and continuity for existing and future claimants as the schemes transition to the new legislative framework.”
“Through our national cultural policy, Revive, the government has invested in modernising lending rights to include digital formats. E-books and audiobooks are now a normal part of library collections, and it is only right that creators are recognised and compensated for their use in these formats as well. The Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 secures these reforms in legislation and provides a clear, modern framework for the future. It ensures that our lending rights schemes continue to support Australian creators, adapt to changing technologies, and strengthen our cultural life. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“In 1974, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam approved the Public Lending Right scheme with a clear vision of fairness—one that recognised the value of authors' work and the importance of supporting Australian voices. More than 50 years later, that vision remains just as relevant. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, more than 17,000 payments were made to eligible Australian creators and publishers through the scheme, totalling $28 million. For many creators—authors, illustrators, translators, and editors—these payments are not supplementary; they are a reliable and meaningful source of income. Lending rights payments help make it possible for Australian stories to continue to be written, published, and shared. This bill also reflects the way Australians now read and borrow books.”
“These schemes acknowledge that access to books should not come at the expense of those who create them, and they play a crucial role in sustaining Australia's writing and publishing sector. While not everybody who writes a book seeks to be a full-time author, it is still telling that the average income in 2021-22 for an Australian writer was reportedly $16,100. While this legislation won't turn that around, it is one of the concrete things that government can do to help. An author's creativity is their property. It should not be stolen by those that wish to use it for other purposes. When it is read through a library loan or an educational setting, the author should be paid. The origins of this principle are worth recalling.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 is an important step forward in recognising and supporting Australian creators and publishers. It brings together the Public Lending Right and Educational Lending Right schemes into a single, contemporary legislative framework, replacing the Public Lending Right Act 1985 and ensuring these vital programs remain fit for purpose. Public and educational lending rights exist for a simple and enduring reason: to ensure that Australian creators and publishers are fairly paid when their books are made freely available through public and educational libraries.”
“In areas like the Riverland—I spent time in the Riverland when I was putting the basin plan together—there was a view back then, which I presume is still the view but I haven't ground-truthed it recently, that people were concerned that there was overallocation in catchments further north and higher up in the system. That certainly was the view back then. I remember the view by the member for Groom back at the time before he went off to his current minerals job—”
“The concept when the Water Act was brought in and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder was established, in the face of an acknowledgement from the Howard government and supported by our side in opposition, was that the river system had been overallocated to death. The concerns that were put by the member for Barker, in terms of people living within the basin wanting the system to be healthy, are something that has been acknowledge and acknowledged really strongly. There is a regular characteristic within the basin that people will generally acknowledge overallocation for the water entitlements that are given to their north, effectively.”
“Those who have spoken in the debate are people who know the basin well, and so some of what I go through now is for the benefit of members generally. I don't want this to be seen by those who have had much of their livelihood or some or all of their livelihood within the basin as me explaining it to them, but I think there are some facts about water that, for the benefit of the House and the operation of the plan, are helpful for me to lay out. I do this in that context. In the first instance—and I'm always troubled by the acronym CHEW because the letters aren't in that order, but anyway. It's the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder which was established under the Water Act. The office is actually a creation of the Howard government.”
“I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill.”
“These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings . I'd also just draw members' attention to the fact that one of the documents is the document from Australia's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, to the President of the Security Council, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, to report with respect to lawful measures in the Middle East.”
“For the benefit of the House, this suspension means the Treasurer would introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026 and debate would continue immediately. The speaking times would be as they ordinarily are. We'd be interrupted at 1.30 as usual for 90-second statements followed by question time, the MPI and then a presentation of one delegation report. After that, we'd return to the debate on the fuel excise bill. If we're still continuing at 5.30, at that point all questions before the House would be voted on, and any consideration-in-detail amendments which had been circulated would be treated as though they had been moved. I now welcome the very happy contribution from the Manager of Opposition Business.”
“I move the motion relating to the introduction and passage of a bill in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper : That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026: (1) debate on the bill continuing after the second reading speech of the Minister; (2) immediately following the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance and the presentation of a delegation report by the Member for Corangamite, if the bill has not passed, debate to resume immediately; (3) at no later than 5.30 pm, any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put, with any message from the Governor-General under standing order 147 being announced, and any detail amendments circulated being treated as if they had been moved [together] by the Member proposing them; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the whole debate time limit on the motion to take note of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement progress report—Ministerial statement being removed. Question agreed to.”