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 7 of 14.
“I thank the member for Indi, both for the content of the issues she's raised and the manner of the casting forward of the continued conversations. I'll deal with the three issues in reverse order. We're not supporting the amendments, and I'll just go through the reasons. First of all, with respect to minor or preparatory works, the change that we have in our legislation is a small but important change to address uncertainty about when certain parts of an action can commence. It enables proponents to undertake certain minor or preparatory parts of an action that are not likely to have a significant impact on protected matters, with the minister's agreement, while the larger action is being assessed. It allows for the making of regulations on the matters that the minister is to be satisfied of.”
“That said, I respect the points that the member has put in making sure that the transition is done in a constructive way. The existing transitional rule-making power does provide the necessary flexibility for the government to work with stakeholders, as the member has suggested, and to apply a sensible transition period that provides certainty on when the new rules apply and ensure the benefits of the reforms for the environment and business are available in a timely manner.”
“The government is not agreeing to the amendments, in terms of the amendment related to climate change, for the same reasons as I gave earlier in response to an amendment from the member for Bradfield. With respect to on sheet 2, it seeks to further amend the commencement provisions to require the commencement arrangements to meet specific requirements. The requirement would be that they are 'consistent with the principle that the amendments related to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over three years'. In the government's view, it is legally uncertain what 'take effect gradually' would mean, and adding this criteria to instrument would potentially open a judicial review, which could frustrate the commencement of the bills.”
“This is an important step forward to provide the community with confidence that proponents are taking their greenhouse gas emissions seriously and that they have a plan to reduce those emissions in line with Australia's net zero targets.”
“Under the Climate Change Act 2022, the minister is required to give certain emissions estimates that they have received to the minister for climate change, as well as the Climate Change Authority and the secretary of the climate change department. The proposed reforms aim to support the safeguard mechanism by requiring developers to estimate and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions for scopes 1 and 2 and to include plans to reduce and manage those emissions. This information will be required for project assessments, strategic planning, regional approvals and bilateral agreements. These changes will improve transparency and accountability for new developments and support the effective operation of the safeguard mechanism, and are in line with the recommendations of the Samuel review.”
“I thank the member for Bradfield for the issues that have been raised. There are actually three amendments coming where the response from the government is the same, because they all deal with the same issue of incorporating climate change powers into environmental approvals, so the answer I give now is relevant to the amendment being moved now by the member for Bradfield, and to amendments that I'm anticipating are going to be moved by the members for Wentworth and for Warringah. We're not supporting these amendments. As the minister for the environment has previously said, there will be no climate trigger in the legislation. The safeguard mechanism is Australia's main law for reducing emissions and meeting climate goals. That's a decision that we've taken as a government.”
“I thank the member for the contribution and for raising the significant issue in the House. The government won't be supporting the amendment, and I'll explain why. There's a longstanding practice that the Commonwealth regulates for matters of environmental significance—and they are also based on specific heads of constitutional power—and state and territory governments regulate for matters that have been identified in the amendment that's before the House right now. We're trying to reduce duplication through this legislation, and the states and territories have a long history now of having mature laws on this issue and regulators to manage these.”
“The individual standards will be made as legislative instruments following the passage of this package of bills, which will create the new standards-making power. The government has made clear that its priority standards are matters of national environmental significance, offsets, First Nations engagement, and data and information. A prescribed consultation process will need to be followed before making a standard, and these are disallowable instruments.”
“The minister of the day will have the capacity to make standards but will only have the capacity to make standards if this bill is passed. Reforms will allow the environment minister to make national environmental standards. The standards will set clear and enforceable expectations for regulated activities under the EPBC Act. If a proposal is inconsistent with these standards, it won't be approved. This will deliver improved environmental outcomes, provide certainty and guidance for business, and uplift the quality and consistency of decision-making. Standards will protect the environment. Standards will give businesses clear rules. Standards will help decision-makers be fair and consistent.”
“With respect to the second sheet of amendments—first of all, amendments (1) and (5)—we are not supporting these amendments. In crafting the reforms, we've looked to three key pillars, all aligned with the Samuel review. One of these pillars is more efficient and robust decision-making, and one of the core recommendations of the Samuel review was to reduce duplication between state and territory and Commonwealth processes. This is an amendment that would maintain duplicative processes. Any bilateral agreements or accredited processes will have to meet our strong national environmental standards. With respect to the remaining amendments on the second sheet, which go to national environmental standards, the government is not supporting those either.”
“The government won't be supporting the amendments, and I'll go through, in turn, the different issues and the information that I've been provided with. Firstly, with respect to forestry, our intention, as the Minister for the Environment and Water has stated, is that we will apply the national environmental standards to regional forestry agreements under which native forestry occurs. Work on how to implement that commitment is ongoing. With respect to land clearing prior-use and continuous-use exemption, we have contained our amendments primarily to those recommended by the Samuel review. I know there are many people and organisations who are very passionate about this matter, but that is not something we are contemplating in the bill.”
“I thank the member for the issues that he's raised. The government will not be supporting the amendments that have just been moved. I've been provided with information on the amendments. In the first instance, one of them does not specifically relate to the current bills before the House but relates to amendments that were previously considered and passed by the parliament earlier this year, as was partly referred to in the contribution just made. The view of the government is that the amendment would create uncertainty and increase legislative complexity through introducing untested terms in the legislation that haven't previously been considered—for example, native species without reference to whether or not they are matters of national environmental significance.”
“This approach is better for the environment and better for business. We know that the current offsets regime isn't currently working for industry or for the environment. We need to be able to do something differently to improve the system and deliver restoration at scale. The bill strikes a balance in allowing that to happen while learning the lessons from other offsets approaches that haven't worked.”
“The new independent Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental offsets, including through pooling funds for similar projects. We do not support these amendments because new rulings powers under the act fulfil the role of enabling the minister to determine that restoration contributions in all or particular circumstances are not appropriate as compensation for a particular protected matter. This mechanism provides for flexibility and responsiveness by the minister as new information becomes available, including any advice of the Restoration Contributions Holder. The proposed amendments would also remove flexibility and limit the environmental benefits of larger strategic restoration actions—for example, increasing connectivity or creating wildlife corridors.”
“The minister must also make sure that the tests are met as far as is possible without preventing the national interest outcome. This means that projects that fall short of the new tests can only be approved where it is truly crucial to do so. Proponents will not get a free pass just because their action is in the national interest. In terms of the amendments that relate to the independent Restoration Contributions Holder, the government's environmental reforms will deliver better outcomes for the environment and the industry. The bill's reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can either deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or a combination of both.”
“The government will not be supporting these amendments. To provide some of the reasons, I'll provide information that's been provided by the Minister for the Environment and Water on each of the two issues raised in turn. First of all, the proposed national interest approval provision in the bill is directly responsive to a recommendation from the Samuel review. It's a provision that is to be rarely used and has significant guardrails, including a statement of reasons, where there is an overwhelming national interest outcome at stake. The national interest approval will not switch off the new environmental protections in their entirety. The approval must still be consistent with our international obligations, including for World Heritage and Ramsar wetlands.”
“Once again, and on behalf of the minister for the environment from the other place, I thank the member for Curtin for her constructive engagement on these reforms.”
“I want to thank the member for Curtin for the engagement that's happened with the government, including with me, through question time as well, in raising concerns about this issue. The government will support this amendment. It improves transparency and accountability for the effective exercise of the functions and powers of the restoration contributions holder. This amendment would require the minister to publish the annual report on the exercise of the restoration contributions holder's functions and powers on the department's website within 20 days of receiving that report from the restoration contributions holder. One of the key pillars of these reforms is enshrining greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making, and this amendment speaks to that.”
“But, certainly, the MPI will start; there's no world where we wouldn't do that today. But, if we end up in a situation where the motion that's on the Notice Paper to limit the time of debate on each amendment is required because we're going long, I'll move it in those situations. I'd ask members to be mindful of the different circumstances of other members in trying to make sure that we can have every amendment moved but still get through the business of the House in a reasonable time. Question agreed to.”
“Under standing order 45(c), I move: That order of the day No. 2, government business, be called on immediately. To advise members of the impact of this—there is a notice on the Notice Paper to make sure we can get through all of the amendments in a reasonable time. I'm going to have a go at not moving that and just see if we can try to get through things quickly. I'll look at the clock as we're going. I respect that members will have commitments and planes that have been booked for people who live a long way away, so my first option, if it looks like we're running out of time, will be to cut short—not eliminate but cut short—the one hour of debate of the matter of public importance. We'd probably just have the first couple of speakers or something like that.”
“I move: That the House: (1) permits a Member who is present in the House or Federation Chamber but is unable to address it, by reason of chronic illness or disability, to present a copy of the Member's speech for incorporation in Hansard, provided that the speech conforms to the standing and sessional orders in its language and content; and (2) notes for the avoidance of doubt that a contribution made in this way is considered to form part of proceedings of the House. In speaking on the motion I would advise the House that I consulted with the Manager of Opposition Business on this, and this is the next step in what changes the parliament have been gradually made to ensure we are more accessible chamber, given different issues that people face over time.”
“To that end, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill 2025: (1) the House note that all proposed amendments to the bill have been fully debated in the Federation Chamber and returned to the House with unresolved questions; (2) the unresolved questions on the bill being put immediately; (3) the questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put immediately; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“I didn't want to interrupt the member during that speech. I just want to note for the House that this entire debate of consideration in detail happened in the Federation Chamber last night and went for two hours. The minister was there, and, effectively, it sounds like we are about to repeat a debate that the House has had in the Federation Chamber, which is a formal part of this House. It's a formal part of our operations. If we're going to get into a situation where it is felt there is a need that whatever is debated in the Federation Chamber needs to be redebated here, that would be a fundamental change in the way the House has operated ever since the Federation Chamber was established.”
“This bill will help ensure we have the skills we need for the future and, ultimately, make sure the system is working in the interests of all Australians. This bill is an important step towards implementing the Albanese Labor government's migration strategy. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned.”
“This register will provide an important resource to check that a sponsoring employer is legitimate. The publication of a register on the department's website that includes the name of the approved work sponsor, their ABN, their business postcode, the number of sponsored workers and their occupations will promote transparency and accountability. The register will complement and strengthen the managed approach to Australia's visa system—increasing protections for migrant workers and ensuring a stronger workforce, which in turn strengthens the Australian community. Migrants make a valuable contribution not only to Australia's prosperity but also to our communities, our national identity, and to our connections across the world. They have the right to be safe and feel safe.”
“I've been given two copies of the speech; I'll only read it once. I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025 amends the Migration Act 1958to establish the legislative framework for a public register of approved work sponsors to be published and maintained on the Department of Home Affairs website. This bill is a necessary and important step to supporting a better targeted, temporary skilled work visa program as part of the Albanese Labor government's migration strategy. The amendments in this bill will strengthen protections for migrant workers. The register of approved work sponsors will enhance oversight and transparency mechanisms for the temporary skilled work visa program, helping to tackle migrant worker exploitation and misuse of the visa system.”
“It is an endorsement of Australian stories, a celebration of Australian creatives and a show of respect for the Australian audience. This bill will guarantee Australians will have access to Australian stories, now and into the future—it will ensure that no matter which remote control you're holding, Australian stories will be at your fingertips. Australians will see themselves, know each other and the world will meet us. Debate adjourned.”
“The streamers hadn't even arrived in Australia in 2013 when I was a new arts minister. I noticed at the time you can log onto Apple iTunes and choose a movie—and come back to your TV half an hour later—and it would be ready to watch. I said at the time it's not going to be long before we are watching the internet through our televisions. I knew then that the television quotas that we had available on free-to-air television weren't going to help. I wish Australia had acted then, we didn't have time before we lost office. But we are acting now. Since their introduction in Australia, streaming services have created some extraordinary shows. In the last few years, many of them have produced great Australian content. A minority are yet to produce any. This legislation is not a criticism of the streaming businesses in Australia.”
“There will also be a statutory review conducted four years after the commencement to make sure the requirement is operating effectively. The Australian government committed to ensuring Australians have access to local stories wherever they choose to watch their screen content. This bill fulfils that commitment. In introducing the legislation, I must acknowledge the numerous stakeholders who have long advocated for there to be an Australian content requirement on streaming platforms: the Screen Producers Association, present in the gallery at the moment; the media alliance, the MEAA; and all of the guilds as well as many people who don't, in fact, work in the industry at all, but who simply have a connection to the screen through watching great Australian stories. The path to this legislation has been long.”
“The requirement uses the definition of Australian content which is set out in the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020. This is the definition that is already used for commercial free-toair and other subscription television broadcasters. It is therefore the appropriate consistent definition. Streaming services covered by the new requirements will report to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will administer the Australian screen content requirement. Streaming services can acquit their obligation over a three-year period. This principle was put strongly to the government during consultation by the streaming services and reflects the lumpy nature of investment cycles in high quality programs.”
“There are some streaming companies operating in Australia that only have global content. If global content wasn't included, and the requirement was based solely on a streaming service's total drama expenditure in Australia, then there is a risk that services could in fact end up with no requirement at all. If global content were to be excluded from any requirement, international streaming services could simply minimise their expenditure in Australia and avoid any obligation. Simply put, 10 per cent of nothing, would deliver nothing. The requirement also includes a voluntary option for streaming services to acquit their requirements based on a calculation of 7½ per cent of their Australian revenue.”
“The Australian screen content requirement will apply to streaming services operating in Australia with at least a million Australian subscribers. The requirement is for streaming services to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure for Australia on eligible program formats in Australia and on new Australian programs. Eligible program formats are drama, children's, documentary, arts and educational programs. Total program expenditure for the Australian market includes the cost of programs commissioned or acquired specifically for the Australian market, as well as programs which were made overseas and not specifically licensed for Australia, otherwise known as global content—referred to frequently as global licensing. This global content can represent a large proportion of streaming services' catalogues.”
“Since the policy was endorsed in Australia's National Cultural Policy, Revive in 2023, there's been an extraordinary amount of engagement with stakeholders involving the Minister for Communications Anika Wells, and before that the now attorney-general Michelle Rowland as well as the arts envoy Susan Templeman. The extensive and genuine consultation process has informed the development of this requirement. The views of stakeholders and the analysis undertaken throughout the consultation process has informed the development of the Australian screen content requirements being introduced today. Consultation took longer than we would have liked but we were determined to get this right. The proposed requirement introduced today is consistent with Australia's international trade obligations.”
“But, unlike free-to-air broadcasting services and other subscription television services, streaming services have no requirements to make Australian content available on their platforms. The ready availability of content produced in other countries risks drowning out our own Australian stories. Without government intervention there is no guarantee that streaming services will produce and make Australian content available to Australian consumers. As more Australians watch screen content through streaming services, the government's goal in introducing these requirements is to guarantee a minimum level of expenditure on new Australian content on these services. It will ensure that access to Australian content—and Australian stories—is guaranteed to Australians regardless of the platform on which they choose to view it.”
“Australian content quotas for commercial television were first introduced in the 1960s to ensure that Australians had access to stories and to see their culture, language and values reflected on screen. These local content requirements were updated in the 1990s to apply to freeto-air and to other subscription television broadcasters, requiring broadcasters to commission a minimum level of Australian content every year. This is either based on hours, in the case of free-to-air commercial television broadcasters, or, in the case of other subscription broadcasters, a percentage of their total drama expenditure in Australia. These requirements stabilise the market, and act as a safeguard for the Australian screen production sector.”
“Major structural changes in audience viewing habits have meant that contemporary Australian audiences are increasingly engaging with content across multiple platforms. Public broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, cable and streaming are all part of Australia's television landscape now and into the future. In relation to the public broadcasters, the ABC Charter includes the requirement for the ABC to broadcast programs that contribute to Australia's sense of national identity, inform and entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the community. The SBS Charter states that the SBS's principal function is to provide multilingual and multicultural broadcasting and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians, and in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society.”
“Australian stories play an important role in shaping Australia's national identity, fostering social inclusion and encouraging cultural expression. They are our greatest cultural asset. They help build a sense of community, collective wellbeing and a shared identity. They reflect and define who we are as a nation and make us recognisable on the international stage. Australian stories help make sense of our past, define ourselves in the present and promote our people, our creativity and our country to the world. They bring people together and enable the exchange of experiences, ideas and perspectives. All Australians benefit when we are represented by and can hear our voices in the stories brought to the big and small screen.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today the Albanese Labor government is legislating for streaming services to have guaranteed Australian content. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and subordinate legislation to allow for an Australian screen content requirement on subscription video-on-demand (streaming) services. In the National Cultural Policy 'Revive: a place for every story, a story of every place', the Australian government committed to introduce requirements for Australian screen content on streaming services to ensure continued access to local stories and content. We should never underestimate how important it is for Australians to see ourselves on screen. It helps us to better understand ourselves and our neighbours and allows world to see us.”
“I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 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, what this means is that we schedule another late sitting tonight through to 10 o'clock. We've also got a late sitting scheduled in the Federation Chamber, but I expect, with the way we've been tracking, that we'll get through government business well in advance of the times that are speculated there. It's just to make sure we get through what we need to today. The usual thing—there'll still be an adjournment debate for the people who are scheduled for it. At the end of the adjournment debate, though, we won't adjourn and we'll return to government business. The normal principle that, after 6.30 pm, there'll be no divisions or quorums that will be counted at the time will continue. Question agreed to.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Wednesday, 5 November 2025: (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 Thursday, 6 November at 9 am; (3) in the Federation Chamber, government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns at approximately 9.30 pm; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.”
“Other than that, it would be a 10 pm cut-off, unless we end up with fewer speakers. Thirdly, the Federation Chamber would also be continuing until 9.30 pm tonight, and the final thing is, instead of debating the seven bills separately, we would have the cognate debate that was circulated earlier today with respect to the environment legislation.”
“5 to 10; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. To explain to the House what all of that procedure means, firstly, the 6.30 rule still applies, so after 6.30 pm people who are not expecting to speak or not rostered on in the House certainly won't be required for divisions or for quorum calls after 6.30 pm. Secondly, in this House, if you are rostered to speak on the adjournment debate, the adjournment speeches will still go ahead, but at 8 pm the House will not adjourn. The House will return to government business and continue on government business until 10 pm. The only circumstance where a minister might ask for it to go longer than 10 pm is if we've got a final speaker and they've got a few minutes left in their speech.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring today: (1) in the House: (a) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting; and (b) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until: (i) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or (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 Wednesday, 5 November at 9 am; (2) today in the Federation Chamber, government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns at approximately 9.30 pm; (3) the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 being debated in cognate with government business orders of the day Nos.”
“The concept of that holder is effectively, for the land sector, an equivalent to what we have under the Water Act for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, where you have someone who's in charge of holding, in this case, an amount of money, but delivering with a direct obligation to provide landscape scale outcomes, which, project by project, the environment has never been able to get out of the EPBC Act. The concept that the member refers to in terms of the government's appetite for amendments, the minister has made clear that we are in discussions on this legislation. We want to see it be able to get through. We are in constructive conversations with the different groups around the parliament. We want to make sure that we get this done, and we get it done this year.”
“If you can have somebody who is independently charged with looking at where those offsets occur, then instead of businesses choosing this area and that area, where effectively you end up with a map of Australia that looks like someone's got a toothbrush and splattered bits of paint to get these tiny little dots with no resilience, you end up with a situation where you can deliver landscape scale offsets which are capable of resilience and, therefore, delivering a long-term outcome for the environment in a scenario where we've made the change I referred to at the start, of going from no net loss to a net gain. That's why the independent Restoration Contributions Holder is established.”
“As the member for Curtin has described, under the legislation it becomes an option of either delivering the direct offset to the business itself or paying for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment. There is potentially a real strength for the environment in the payment mechanism if we get this right, and it's this: when you have small offsets all over the place, effectively you end up with no sections that are large enough or have landscape scale to have true environmental resilience, particularly when we're dealing with climate change.”
“I thank the member for Curtin for raising the legislation, and that particular aspect of it, and I acknowledge the member for Curtin who, in her time in this place, has followed these issues related to the environment throughout her whole time here. If I can go through the changes that are there with respect to offsets in two sections, if I may. The first concept is a change—at the moment, under environmental law, there is a principle of no net loss. Under the new principal, it goes to net gain. That's a significant shift that happens in terms of what offsets are aiming to deliver for the environment. The second concept at the moment is that a business delivers an offset directly themselves, and that's the only option.”
“I just hope, as all members on this side hope, that the parliament takes the opportunity to finally follow through on recommendations that have been waiting too long. During that time, the environment has suffered; business has suffered. It's time to get this done.”
“For a long time, since this bill was commissioned in 2019 and handed to the then environment minister, now the opposition leader, in 2020, we have had five years where the recommendations have been there for a better outcome—where the recommendations have been made for outcomes that would deliver a better outcome for the environment and a better outcome for business—and we have not had the situation where the legislation has been before the parliament, to make its way through the parliament. Right now it's before us, and we have an opportunity now to put the legislation through, which would, among different things, provide the opportunity for the exact sorts of standards that the member for Indi is putting in place.”