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 4 of 14.
“I wish the concept of having to compulsorily question minors never arose. The reality is that the arguments now for these powers are stronger than they have ever been, and I cannot pretend to the parliament that I think they're going to go away. Every indicator we have of the direction now is that these powers are more essential than they've ever been.”
“Half of them are under 24, and 31 per cent are under 18. Of those who were charged with related offences in 2025, 11 out of 19 were minors. Since 2020, operational activity against people under the age of 18—there have been 53 people who have been 17 or younger, with the youngest being 12. Obviously, 12- and 13-year-olds are not part of the powers of this act; it kicks in at 14. We are in a situation where the pace of radicalisation can now be really fast. Getting information as quickly as we can is absolutely essential. Sadly, that increasingly involves minors. I wish these powers were not required. I wish what I believe the Howard government had genuinely thought 20 years ago—that this would be something required for a finite period of time—had turned out to be true.”
“Minors must only be questioned in the presence of a legal representative, and the minor does have the right to have their representative—a parent or guardian—present. ASIO does have to consider known vulnerabilities. It's highly unlikely that questioning would ever go beyond eight hours. But if there were a situation where that was realistically viewed as a matter of life and death for others, then the flexibility that is currently there should be there and needs to be there. The Attorney-General has to regard whether the warrant would be in the best interests of the minor as a primary consideration. With respect to the issues of minors, can I give some context as to how the case load for counterterrorism has changed. On our National Support and Intervention Program, we have 230 participants.”
“The member is right in saying that, when it was introduced, it was believed that it would be a last resort. It was not believed that we would be in the situation that we're in some 20 years later, where we are again in a situation of the threat-alert level being at probable and where we're in a situation where the pace of radicalisation can now happen online, can happen really fast and is increasingly targeting people who are young. The threat environment now is quite different. When you've gone through a situation of doing sunset after sunset, you do get to a point—which the government has arrived at—where there's a genuine belief that the need for this power is not about to go away. There are multiple safeguards in both the act and the statement of procedures.”
“In responding to the amendment, I thank the member for Warringah for both the content and the tone of the debate as well. I respect absolutely that everybody is coming to this place wanting to make sure that we get the right balance in terms of respecting everybody's rights and vulnerabilities while also making sure that we keep Australians safe. I don't for a minute think that that there's anything in this amendment where there is an intention to do otherwise than keep that balance. We just have different views on where that balance lies. The government won't be supporting the amendment that's been moved by the member for Warringah. It's a deliberate decision of the government to remove the sunset provision. It's been reviewed multiple times.”
“I wish the need for these powers were temporary, but history has shown us that it isn't. One of the key elements of the bill would in fact be undone by reintroducing and extending the existing sunset clause in the act. The sunset clause was put there not simply in the terms in which the member described, as being ongoing accountability; sunsets are put there in the hope that one day they won't be required. Since that time, the need for these powers has only become stronger. That's the reason why the government has decided to put to the parliament that the sunset be removed.”
“I thank the honourable member for putting the amendments to the House and for the arguments that have been put forward. The government won't be supporting the amendments. They would have the impact of doing two things: extending the existing sunset clause and forcing the PJCIS to conduct a review. In the government's view, the PJCIS is a powerful and deeply respected committee of this parliament. It already can inquire into the full range of national security legislation. Keeping discretion for the PJCIS in terms of where inquiries go is viewed by the government as being as being appropriate. In terms of the sunset provision, the government is very deliberately removing the sunset. The sunset provision, when it was brought in, was brought in in the hope that these powers would be temporary.”
“In recognition of this significant loss, I formally handwrote a letter of condolence to Mr Tarique Rahman, the son of the late Khaleda Zia, who is, at the moment, Chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, expressing my deepest sympathies on behalf of our community. Khaleda Zia leaves behind a complex and enduring legacy, one that will continue to be studied, debated and remembered for generations. May she rest in peace.”
“Her leadership paved the way for future generations of women to participate confidently in public life and national decision-making. Whether one agreed or disagreed with her politics, her impact on Bangladesh's democratic journey is undeniable. In my electorate, I want to acknowledge how profoundly this loss has been felt by many people who share their heritage in Bangladesh. For many Bangladeshi Australians, Khaleda Zia was not just a political leader in a distant homeland; she was a symbol of pride, identity and hope. The sense of loss at this moment among the Bangladeshi community reflects the enduring bond between diaspora communities and their countries of origin, and it deserves to be acknowledged with respect and compassion.”
“As with everything in my part of Sydney, while it was the Vietnamese community putting the celebration on there was an invitation to everybody to be involved. Many people who have heritage in other parts of Asia who also celebrate Lunar New Year were there, but also people who don't have a heritage that would traditionally celebrate Lunar New Year were there, as one community, celebrating the Year of the Horse together. I also want to acknowledge the passing of the former prime minister of Bangladesh, Begum Khaleda Zia, who passed away in December last year. Khaleda Zia was a defining figure in the political history of Bangladesh. As the country's first female prime minister and one of South Asia's most prominent women leaders, she broke barriers in a region and at a time where leadership was overwhelmingly male-dominated.”
“This month marks the celebration of Lunar New Year—a big deal in my part of Sydney—and just on the weekend I joined hundreds of locals in Bankstown to kick off the early celebrations for the Year of the Horse. I want to thank Canterbury Bankstown Council for putting on the vibrant celebration; the local Vietnamese community for all the work that they did as performers, volunteers and stallholders; as well as the council staff, whose hard work made it all possible. The Year of the Horse symbolises energy, independence and ambition, reflecting a time of momentum, progress and new opportunity. Lunar New Year is a time of new beginnings, offering an opportunity to honour family, culture and tradition, while looking forward with optimism and unity. It reminds us of the enduring strength found in renewal and in generations coming together.”
“The message to foreign fishers who want to operate illegally in our waters is simple: the waters you are on belong to Australia, not to you. You risk losing your haul, your equipment, your vessel and your freedom.”
“The success of Operation LEEDSTRUM and Operation LUNAR means that there are now attempts going further east to the Torres Strait. I acknowledge the really strong advocacy of the member for Leichhardt in making sure that we have led to the announcement that was made earlier today by Commissioner Gav Reynolds of the Australian Border Force to announce Operation BROADSTAFF to combat illegal foreign fishing in Queensland and the Torres Strait. It's led by Border Force under the leadership of Commissioner Reynolds. Since we came to government, border protection funding has been increased by $600 million. Surveillance flights are now 26 per cent higher than they were in 2022-23. The criminals have tried and failed in the Kimberley. They tried and failed in the Northern Territory. They are now trying in the Torres Strait, and they will fail.”
“Bringing all of those agencies together means that, since that point, there have been 103 interceptions, 35 boats have been destroyed and more than eight tonnes of catch has been seized. Prior to Operation LEEDSTRUM, there had never been a joint taskforce of this nature. That success, though, saw a response from illegal foreign fishers. Having discovered that the north-west was being blocked, they decided to try further east. The MPs here from the Northern Territory then saw attempts in our waters there because of our success in the north-west. As a result of that, we launched Operation LUNAR. Operation LUNAR in the waters of the Northern Territory saw us then have 97 interceptions, 44 boats destroyed and more than 20 tonnes of catch seized.”
“I thank the member for Leichhardt and acknowledge his strong advocacy to combat illegal foreign fishing in the northern waters of Australia. Illegal foreign fishing is not only an attack on and damage to our environment. It is not only an attack on and damage to commercial fishing and recreational fishing interests in Australia. It's a straight-out attack on our sovereignty. These waters belong to Australia. That's why, following increased illegal fishing attempts north-west of the Kimberley, the government announced Operation LEEDSTRUM in December 2023. In Operation LEEDSTRUM, we brought together a number of government agencies, including the Australian Fisheries Management Authority—AFMA, which is managed by the Minister for the Environment and Water—as well as the Australian Border Force.”
“I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026, the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026 and the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) 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.”
“For the information of members, a few weeks ago, every single one of those people was already a member of that committee, and that was the list that the Speaker decided wisely, I think, not to read out to us last week. This week's procedure is to put everybody back on the committees that they were bounced off last week. I don't know what the next procedure they make us move will be. It's something like the share house where you hate all the other tenants but it's too expensive to move out! Question agreed to.”
“by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Boyce be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water; (2) Ms Penfold be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Communications, the Arts and Sport; (3) Mr Birrell be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Education and the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability; (4) Ms Landry and Mr McCormack be appointed members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation and Science; (5) Mr Chaffey and Ms Landry be appointed members of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries; (6) Mr McCormack be appointed a member of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards; (7) Ms Landry and Ms Penfold be appointed members of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport; (8) Ms Landry be appointed a member of the Selection Committee; and (9) Mr Conaghan be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission.”
“Because of the nature of elections and Senate timetables, there was a brief window, of just over six months, when I was in the same caucus as Nick Bolkus, when I was first elected, as the Senate time started to wind down— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:23 to 11:43”
“It went for more than 100 hours—although that was largely Nick's fault, because 900 of the amendments had been moved by him. I've always had a large Greek community within my electorate. Boundaries have changed, but there's always been a big Greek community. No-one should underestimate the extent to which Nick Bolkus is loved—absolutely loved—and admired. And it's not simply because of the story that he tells: the story of being the first Greek Australian to serve in cabinet—of course that's huge—and of being the son of Greek migrants who came to Australia between the two world wars, travelling in steerage for a months-long journey. Of course that matters. But it also was just the values and decency of the man.”
“But the amazing thing was: almost everybody just brought flowers, and there was a presentation, like you were at a wedding, of flowers, with student after student wanting to go forward to basically just give a gesture of thanks to Nick Bolkus. If you think about how significant it was for them: of course, the protesters themselves, with the tanks coming down, were students, and, therefore, to be a student in Australia at the time—people were really scared, and that decision from the Hawke government was life-changing for them, and fundamentally a good thing for Australia to do and a real part of nation-building. In opposition, as shadow Attorney-General during the Howard government's changes to native title, he played the leading role in what, to this day, is still the longest-ever debate in the Senate.”
“He offered to do a fundraiser for me—and, actually, when I heard that Aria was running in the state parliament, I desperately wanted to go and do a fundraiser for her, but they're not legal in South Australia, so the intention was there but I wasn't able to help Aria in the way that Nick had helped me. But he said to hold a different sort of event, because he recognised—I was running and the previous speaker, Steve, was running at the same time—it was the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square decision, the immigration decision. And, because it was Nick, we had those students coming—not because it was an event for me; they just wanted to see Nick again—to probably one of the biggest events I've ever held.”
“We were from different states, different factions—we got along well, and that was enough. To now be in a situation where I'm the custodian for this government of one of the portfolios that he advanced so brilliantly for the Hawke government and the Keating government is a really significant honour. When I was first preselected, it was Nick who knew parts of my electorate better than I did, even though I'd lived there my whole life. On visits, like to Saint Basil's nursing home, I'd find myself—as a lifelong resident, having grown up only a few kilometres away from a site—being introduced, by someone from a different state, where the personal relationship that Nick held with people was deep and real and valued.”
“I rise to honour a former holder of the immigration portfolio, a Labor giant and a personal friend in Nick Bolkus. Nick and I first met at a time when I was working for the Australian Republic Movement and he was the shadow Attorney-General, which I think means I owe Malcolm Turnbull for the first time that I met Nick Bolkus. Back then was when the Senate was dealing with whether or not there would be a vote for a constitutional convention, which ultimately did happen. We did really well in the convention vote and then really badly in the ultimate referendum vote. That was the first opportunity I had to meet with Nick. And then, some years later, after I was preselected, he remembered the earlier meetings and, effectively, to some extent, just adopted me.”
“White supremacist ideology has no place in modern Australia and no place in our country. When someone is made to feel unwelcome and made to feel like they don't belong, the message from Australia and from this parliament has to be that we stand with you. While there wasn't specific intelligence on this occasion, at a time when the national threat alert level is at probable, there are times when people have information and are not sure whether it might be helpful. The request from the agencies is to please report it. The National Security Hotline is 1800123400 for people to use for any information they think might constitute a risk to public safety.”
“As a result of the investigations they've conducted, they have now charged a 31-year-old man with engaging in a terrorist attack, and, as has been referred to, this is the first time an individual has been charged with engaging in a terrorist attack in Western Australia. The charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. It is alleged—now, there is always a gap between the action and often a period where people are saying, 'Can you call it terrorism yet?' and a period of delay. That's because terrorism is not defined simply by the action but also by the motivation. And we need to give police time to do their work, to be able to get the strongest case together with respect to motivation. The motivation that will be alleged is a national, racially motivated, ideological cause.”
“The alleged offender was immediately arrested by Western Australia police, and an investigation commenced. Within 40 minutes of that arrest, the Joint Counter Terrorism Team had been engaged. That involves Western Australia police, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO. Later, they announced that they were investigating this act as a potential terrorist attack. Since that time, I've been receiving regular updates on the alleged offence, and yesterday I received a detailed personal briefing with the Western Australia police minister, Reece Whitby, who had travelled here with the WA police commissioner and with the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Krissy Barrett.”
“I thank the member for her question and acknowledge, as a proud Western Australian, her very personal interest in this. The terrorist attack that was described by the Prime Minister at the start of question time in Perth was horrific. A 31-year-old man allegedly threw a homemade improvised explosive device—this is a bomb fitted with screws and ball bearings—into a crowd of people rallying in support of First Nations Australians. It is fortunate that this bomb did not detonate, but, be in no doubt, it will be alleged in court that the intention was absolutely that the bomb would detonate. This could have been catastrophic if you think about the number of Australians who were there in a tight space. Had this gone the way it will be alleged it was intended to, we would have been looking at something quite catastrophic.”
“The number of people on the non-government benches, following the shadow cabinet position, now comprise 23 that will follow the shadow cabinet and 33 that will not. That means, for the Leader of the Opposition, who at the end of this week has to fill 11 frontbench vacancies, there are only five backbenchers left to fill these 11 vacancies who follow the shadow cabinet position. It's a group of four across there now on the crossbench—cross, very cross, apoplectic and just plain weird.”
“I've had a look at the amendments they were voting for. It was the member for Canning, the member for Barker, the member for Longman, the member for Grey and the member for Forrest, all of them defying the shadow cabinet's position. One of the amendments that they decided was a matter of principle was to have a statutory review of customs and excise laws. I really don't think that was the reason they decided. If you want to know the reason—you might notice the member for Canning has been reading a book during the course of question time today. Some people with better eyesight than me have noticed a copy of The Art of War on his desk.”
“It's well understood why, yesterday, we needed to adopt a new sessional order, because, for the first time in living memory, the crossbench became as big as the opposition. As a result of that new sessional order, we've been having more crossbench questions. I note that yesterday we had a question from the member for Clark, where he predicted that the crossbench was 'likely to soon exceed' the opposition with more defections. I don't know if he knew what was going to happen today, but it has turned out to be prophetic. What I would say, though, is: be careful what you wish for. You might not necessarily want the people who you're about to get. But today, of all things and of all the issues to decide where your line in the sand is, we had another five members of the opposition decide to defy the shadow cabinet—another five.”
“The priority that we take, without apology, is if something has to be done quickly to keep people safe then that's how we do it.”
“But if anyone wanted any piece of evidence about why the timely nature of that going through quickly mattered, it's to think about what happened on the Sunday, not the Sunday after the legislation had been released but the Sunday before this parliament returned, when the National Socialist Network, the Neo-Nazis of Australia, disbanded. It wasn't because we were saying we were going to take our time; it was because they knew it was going to go through that week. That's what happened. They made sure that they had disbanded. There are many organisations engaged in antisemitism. There are many organisations engaged in a number of forms of bigotry that the intelligence and law enforcement agencies that I'm responsible for as Minister for Home Affairs have to deal with.”
“The moment we had legislation ready, two things happened: the Prime Minister stood up in the courtyard and announced that parliament would be recalled, and that day the legislation appeared as an exposure draft, to make sure that people had an opportunity to get across the legislation as best they could. Various negotiations started and a parliamentary inquiry started immediately as well. I would love to have a situation where all legislation could be dealt with in a staged manner, like we do with most legislation in this House, where we don't commence debate in the week that it's introduced. That's what we normally do.”
“I thank the member for Bradfield for the question. I thank all members of the House for their cooperation in those sittings that we had not so long ago. Nothing degrades a democracy more than a terrorist attack. It's as simple as that. As soon as the horrific antisemitic terror attack had happened in Bondi, a number of us assembled in Canberra. The Prime Minister made sure that the national security committee was meeting daily. Within the first week, the Prime Minister stood up in the courtyard to announce that there would be a legislative response with respect to guns and with respect to hate laws. From that moment, public servants worked every day, including daily briefings to myself and to the Attorney-General, through the Christmas-new year period.”
“by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Caldwell and Mr Pike be appointed participating members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 federal election; and (2) Mr M Smith be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into local government funding and fiscal sustainability. Question agreed to.”
“I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 and Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework Bill) 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill.”
“To see the disaster that is before us now is something which is extraordinary and, I will say, unexpected. We will continue to update the procedures as the mayhem from those opposite demands.”
“This is the only practical way to be able to deal with the chaos that we have from those opposite. As I say, maybe I have to come back in a week's time and do another sessional order—maybe not. Maybe we end up with a situation where—there's a tradition that the opposition always get the first question. We've kept that here, but no-one who watches Australian politics closely and is still alive has seen this before. The concept that two parties who are unable to govern their relationship with each other in any sort of adult way could be credibly considered to govern an entire nation just beggars belief. When I first arrived here, it was the Howard government. We disagreed with a lot of what they were doing, but they were formidable and they were unified.”
“The change that we're doing is that, while the first question will still be from the opposition, it will then alternate from this part of the non-government benches to that part, and it'll go back and forth for the first eight non-government questions. Then we have the second set of eight, under the sessional order, where it will alternate but start with the crossbench, going back and forth. How long this will last I don't know. Watching the media, I don't know if we're moving to a situation where the crossbench in fact starts to become larger than the opposition. I see members of the crossbench nodding, but you might not want the ones you get. Be careful what you wish for! When we talked about the growth of the crossbench last time, you never expected this one was going to happen.”
“At some point we might have to, because the number of people on the crossbench is now 28 and the number of people in the opposition is 28. It has happened before. It happened in the early 1930s, but it has not happened since then that we've had a situation where the crossbench has managed to rival the opposition in this House. What we will change today is the order of questions for question time. Effectively, we can't have a situation where we only have—while the sessional order covers a much longer period of time, very often we end up with nine or 10 questions a side, and that would mean, at the moment, under the sessional order, that the crossbench—which occupies half of the non-government benches—would in fact only get three of the questions. We need to be able to change the sessional orders as a result of that.”
“Anyone who was a Nat in any of those committees has now been forced to leave immediately. They're no longer eligible, because they're not members of the coalition. Now, we could restructure the committees this week; I just have no idea what the arrangements on that side will be in seven days time, and I don't want to be in a situation where the committee process of this House is completely left hostage to the chaos and the indulgence of the coalition—well, the former coalition. In fact, I might remind you, Speaker, now that there is no longer a coalition, the term 'no-alition' should be completely in order because it is not the official name of any of them in any permutation whatsoever. So we're not changing the committees today.”
“On the bit of the legislation that would ban the Nazis. Of all the hills to die on, that's the one that made them decide they couldn't possibly remain part of the coalition anymore. They couldn't possibly stay there, because of the part of the legislation that would ban the Nazi Party. Effectively, the Nazis saw it coming, and we had two strong reactions to that part of the legislation: the Nazis disassembled themselves, and the Nationals disassembled the coalition. Those were the reactions that we had from both. There are a number of things that change as a result. While the Speaker wasn't willing to oblige in terms of reading out the names of the committees, there are a whole series of committees where you have opposition members defined as members.”
“Gotta implement the whole of the antisemitism report straightaway.' The moment he gets here—the exact person interjecting now—it's: 'Oh, it's all too fast. Can you slow down, and these bits from the antisemitism report—can you just not go ahead with that, please? Can you not implement those?' Those at the back were saying, 'Can you please split the bill so we can vote against it twice?' That's the position they ended up with, effectively opposing any measures of change as a result of the horrors that happened with the antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi. We end up with a situation now where we go back to Billy Hughes with, 'You've got to draw the line somewhere.' He would join every party except the predecessor of the National Party. But where did the National Party decide to draw the line?”
“Effectively, when the member for New England moved to the crossbench, it had not occurred to us at the time that the entire National Party was going to move to the crossbench with him, and, while he's not their leader, they appear to be his followers in the pathway over there. We end up with a new seating arrangement here. We still have the traditional crossbench over in the corner there, but we now have the cross, the very cross and the apoplectic all in front of us here. An honourable member interjecting— How long did it take you to come up with this arrangement? Seriously! The one who just interjected was one of the people who, over summer, were saying: 'Gotta get the parliament here quickly. Gotta legislate straightaway.”
“(f) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker ( standing order 192 B ). (g) During the adjournment debate in the House, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker ( standing order 31 ). (h) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker ( standing order 191 ). (i) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed ( standing order 46 ). For the information of members, the reason we have to do this is significantly changed seating arrangements on the other side of the House.”
“(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 43 ). (c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least seven crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 43 ). (d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 193 ). (e) During each one hour period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 193 ).”
“I move: That sessional order 65A be amended to read as follows: 65A Opportunities for crossbench Members Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House: (a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to: (i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth questions; and (ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, fifth, ninth, thirteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh and thirty-first questions.”
“(f) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker ( standing order 192 B ). (g) During the adjournment debate in the House, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker ( standing order 31 ). (h) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker ( standing order 191 ). (i) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed ( standing order 46 ). I'll save the arguments for after the suspension, when we get to the second motion. Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.”
“(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 43 ). (c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least seven crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 43 ). (d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 193 ). (e) During each one hour period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call ( standing order 193 ).”