Andrew Wilkie
Clark · Independent · Australia
“Now, with the avalanche of gambling addiction from online and sports betting, we can safely assume it's hundreds of thousands of Australians either addicted to gambling or at serious risk of developing an addiction.”
“From 2010 to 2013, my first term, I had a written contract with the Prime Minister that there would be widespread and deep gambling reform in the country. But, of course, the gambling industry applied the blowtorch to the government, and I assume the factions applied the blowtorch to the Prime Minister.”
“It has completely ignored that there be a phased out but ultimately complete ban on gambling advertising, which three quarters of Australians desperately want.”
“While governments continue to pledge their commitment to ending family violence and femicide, victim-survivors need to see tangible reform. Perpetrators must be held accountable, removed from their victims' lives, and our system must prioritise community safety. Australia can, and should, do better.”
“It was one of the significant factors among a complex set of factors as to why the Labor Party lost power in 2013, and here we are again—an opportunity for a Labor government to enact very meaningful gambling reform and implement the 31 recommendations of the Murphy report, which is without doubt the best blueprint for gambling reform thi…”
“Last month, I met with a group of victims-survivors of family and domestic violence from my community, and I'd like to use my time today to read some of their experiences into the parliamentary record.”
The complete record
Every one of 322 lines we hold for Andrew Wilkie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 7.
“The national plan is good, but it's time for some national action to address this crisis. These women and children need leadership from governments, and they desperately need it now.”
“Clearly the systems we have in place are not working because at best they do little to protect vulnerable women and children and at worst send them right back into the arms of their abusers. As one of the women said to me: A lot of the process is the punishment. The abuse of institutions is a big part of the problem. Abuse of the courts, vexatious claims made against victims-survivors and lies told to government agencies like the ATO and Centrelink are some of the accounts given to me. Frankly, it's a damning indictment of our system that the processes designed to protect victims-survivors are being turned into a weapon against them. Several of the women I met with detailed how they now have criminal records because of the lies told in court by abusers.”
“While governments continue to pledge their commitment to ending family violence and femicide, victim-survivors need to see tangible reform. Perpetrators must be held accountable, removed from their victims' lives, and our system must prioritise community safety. Australia can, and should, do better. I welcome the intent of the government's National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, but intent without meaningful action and adequate resourcing is just a press release. I will use the words of one of the women I met: Real reform means moving beyond ongoing promises and creating systems that genuinely prioritise the safety and wellbeing of women and children in Australia. On average one woman is killed by a current or former partner every week, and that is obviously completely and utterly unacceptable.”
“Last month, I met with a group of victims-survivors of family and domestic violence from my community, and I'd like to use my time today to read some of their experiences into the parliamentary record. These statements are delivered anonymously, having regard to the privacy and safety of the women, as well as legal matters which are afoot. One statement reads: Imagine being four years old, having moved home eight times, crossed state borders for safety, having survived strangulation before you even took your first breath, witnessing your mother being raped repeatedly, not being protected by a Family Violence Order, and living with the ongoing risk that family law orders could require you to spend time with the man responsible for that violence. That is the reality for my son.”
“This includes, most heartbreakingly, taking Tibetan children away from local schools and forcing them to attend Chinese language state boarding schools in a clear attempt to sever connection to family, language and culture. What's more, this law also seeks to hold groups and individuals outside of China legally accountable for undermining ethnic unity and progress or inciting ethnic separatism. This attempted cultural genocide and extraterritorial and transnational repression is appalling and must be resisted in the strongest terms. I call on the Australian government to act and ensure they do not put the relationship with the Chinese government ahead of the fundamental human rights and cultural survival of Tibetans.”
“I recently met with members of Australia's Tibetan community who generously shared their stories and raised the alarm about the Chinese government's escalating cultural genocide against Tibetans. A particular concern is China's new law on promoting ethnic unity and progress which came into force yesterday. It's Orwellian title hints at its true intent—to accelerate the assimilation of Tibetans and others into a single Chinese national identity. In essence, the law codifies and expands practices that have long undermined Tibetans rights and freedoms, providing a new legal framework for policies that marginalise the Tibetan language, destroy Tibetan Buddhism, distort or eliminate Tibetan history and erode the foundations of Tibetan family and community life.”
“I call on the government to put aside that rubbish bill that was tabled today—or at least let it go to a committee, as was moved by the member for Curtin earlier today—and fix this. Fix it once and for all and be seen as a government with integrity. Stare down the media companies. Stare down the gambling companies. Stare down the major sporting codes. But represent the majority of your community. And do you know what? You might even be rewarded politically. It sure didn't help Julia Gillard in 2012 when she ditched these reforms. It was in the mix when she was toppled as leader and defeated at the polls.”
“In other words, since the Murphy report was provided to the government, more than a thousand Australians have suicided because of inaction by politicians and governments. How can we live with that? How can we sleep at night? How can the Prime Minister sleep at night? I say to the Prime Minister: if you're not going to fix this, then get out of the way and let the parliament fix it. Give us a free vote. Let us decide this. Let us represent our communities. Until we fix this, we are complicit. This parliament is a fellow traveller with the gambling companies, the media companies and the sporting codes, who are like jackals feeding on the carcasses of gambling addicts. This is intolerable.”
“But I say to the Prime Minister, who ultimately controls the government: stop blocking reform. Stop going into your caucus and telling your caucus members what they will do and what they will say and how they will vote. Listen to your membership, because everyone in this place—opposition, crossbench, government; all of us—is confronting, every day, people calling for reform. Every day we're meeting with people who are battling addiction. We're meeting with families who have had someone in their family suicide because of addiction. They say that at least 400 people suicide a year as a result of gambling addiction in this country, and we know that the prevalence is probably chronically underreported.”
“There are a lot of good people in the other place. But they are being stopped by their leadership. I'll talk in detail about the Prime Minister in a moment. But, briefly, to talk about the opposition, I don't think the opposition leader gets it. I don't think he understands the enormity of the problem. I don't think he even understands the politics of it. He's finally got an issue where he can polish up the brand of his party, because support for reform extends from the far left across to the far right. If you just want to talk raw, grubby politics for a minute, you could ask: why are we doing alright? It's because we focus on the issues the majority of people care about. So I say to the opposition leader: do your research, talk to your backbenchers and get on side.”
“It has completely ignored that there be a phased out but ultimately complete ban on gambling advertising, which three quarters of Australians desperately want. It has completely ignored the recommendation that there be an independent national regulator instead of this complete nonsense where a part-time regulatory body in the Northern Territory of all places, populated by officials who have connections to gambling themselves, are regulating all of these online sports betting companies Australia-wide. What complete and utter nonsense. The government has completely ignored the use of inducements by the gambling and sports betting companies, and I'll tell you why. I want to speak in support of a lot of my colleagues in this place—a lot of backbenchers. There are a lot of good people in the House of Representatives.”
“Now, with the avalanche of gambling addiction from online and sports betting, we can safely assume it's hundreds of thousands of Australians either addicted to gambling or at serious risk of developing an addiction. We know from very, very good research that, for every gambling addict in this country, between five and 10 other people are affected by that person's addiction—mums, dads, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, work colleagues, friends, people in the street who are victims of crime. The gross number of Australians who are affected by this is easily measured in the millions, and what does the government do? It brings out this half-arsed set of reforms in this bill this morning that will do very little to address gambling addiction in this country. It has completely ignored the flagship recommendations of the Murphy report.”
“We had a counter put out yesterday by the Australia Institute, and it shows the amount of money lost to gambling in this country since the Murphy report was given to the government. It has now exceeded $100 billion. I'll say that again. In Australia, more than $100 billion—with a B—has been lost by gamblers since the committee brought down the Murphy report. How can we tolerate that? And it's not just a financial cost; It's a personal cost. Who knows how many people in Australia are battling gambling addiction or are at serious risk of developing a gambling addiction at the moment? I remember back then, 2010-13, the figure for just poker machine gambling addiction was over 100,000.”
“There is no obstacle in the way to finally doing it, so we've got to ask ourselves: why is the government acting in this way? Why is the government determined to run a protection racket for the gambling companies, for the media companies and for the major sporting codes? Is it because the government is gutless and scared stiff of the gambling companies, the media companies and the sporting codes? Or worse, is it because the government is complicit and is a fellow traveller with the gambling companies, the media companies and the sporting codes? Or even worse than that, is it because the government has no humanity and does not care about the human cost of gambling in this country? It's not just the financial cost. It was interesting.”
“It was one of the significant factors among a complex set of factors as to why the Labor Party lost power in 2013, and here we are again—an opportunity for a Labor government to enact very meaningful gambling reform and implement the 31 recommendations of the Murphy report, which is without doubt the best blueprint for gambling reform this country has ever seen. It's not like 2010-13, when it was a power-sharing parliament and things were difficult for the government. This time is completely different. The government has a thumping majority in the House of Representatives, and, if it were to try to legislate and enact strong gambling reform, I don't doubt it would have the support of the Greens in the Senate. In other words, this time around, the Labor Party has a clear runway.”
“From 2010 to 2013, my first term, I had a written contract with the Prime Minister that there would be widespread and deep gambling reform in the country. But, of course, the gambling industry applied the blowtorch to the government, and I assume the factions applied the blowtorch to the Prime Minister. Ultimately, the Prime Minister refused to honour that deal, and the government went on its own path with much weaker gambling reform. Of course, that didn't save the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Gillard was eventually toppled by the factions, in fact, and it didn't save the government, because the government lost in a landslide to then opposition leader Tony Abbott. I'm not saying that the government's behaviour at the time was the reason for that election loss, but I will assure you, Deputy Speaker Garland, it was in the mix.”
“I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Clark from moving the following motion: That the House: (1) notes that this morning the Government introduced useless legislation which will do little to prevent gambling advertising and protect vulnerable Australians and children from gambling harm; and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to personally explain to the House, and to all Australians, why protecting gambling companies, media companies and major sporting codes is more important to him and his government than protecting the interests, and lives, of Australians. Sadly, this is not my first rodeo. We've been here before and we've already seen into the heart of the Labor Party in Australia.”
“I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes that this morning the Government introduced useless legislation which will do little to prevent gambling advertising and protect vulnerable Australians and children from gambling harm; and (2) calls on the Prime Minister to personally explain to the House, and to all Australians, why protecting gambling companies, media companies and major sporting codes is more important to him and his government than protecting the interests, and lives, of Australians. Leave not granted.”
“Tasmania's Integrity Commission has never held a public hearing. It cannot investigate politicians' conduct during election campaigns, its budget is the second-lowest per capita of any state or territory commission and it has referred only two people for prosecution, which is the lowest rate of any state. This is simply not good enough. Tasmanians want and deserve so much more. We can have so much more. I call on the Tasmanian government and parliament to achieve so much more.”
“Moreover, independent experts have examined that legislation closely and found it wanting. Indeed, the Centre for Public Integrity has warned the proposed reforms largely amount to technical changes that leave major structural weaknesses unresolved, including chronic underfunding of the Integrity Commission; the limited ability to investigate misconduct involving third parties; accountability gaps involving MPs during election periods, when parliament is dissolved; weak appointment processes for commissioners; and ongoing barriers to investigating MPs where parliamentary privilege is asserted. In other words, the government has spent half a million dollars fighting its integrity watchdog and is now putting forward integrity reforms which experts say don't fix the fundamental problems. Some might call that ironic; I call that a pattern.”
“These were complex matters, and he could not comment further. That's not leadership; it's concealment dressed up as a caution. Similarly, the Premier's claims that the criticism amounts to 'personal attacks' make a complete mockery of the whole situation. What makes this worse—just when we thought they couldn't stoop any lower—was that, under intense pressure, the government finally tabled their long-awaited reforms to the Integrity Commission Act. But there was one glaring difference between their 2025 consultation draft and the bill that was presented to parliament, and that is the removal of changes regarding the right to silence, which allows public officers under investigation to refuse to give information or evidence. Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.”
“When that money is added to the $317,000 the Integrity Commission has spent on legal costs for its investigations since 2022-23, that's nearly $1 million of taxpayers' money down the gurgler. I want to be mindful not to overstate what we know, because suppression orders mean the full picture remains hidden from the public. But what is obvious is the deeply troubling conduct of the Liberal government, its ministers and the Premier. In fact, Premier Jeremy Rockliff has become the first Tasmanian Premier in history to be censured by the state parliament. The censure motion, which passed on 17 June, found he failed to uphold the ministerial code of conduct in relation to both ministers, failed to ensure Ms Ogilvie corrected the misleading record when he became aware of it and failed to answer basic questions. His response?”
“She defended her lie by saying she erred while attempting to navigate a suppression order, and the cost to the taxpayer was about $120,000. In the following weeks, Jane Howlett resigned after evidence emerged that her office was aware of campaign texts sent in breach of conventions, when she had previously claimed no knowledge of such matters. Her legal fees cost $405,000, and who picked up the tab? You guessed it, Speaker; it was the taxpayer again. So that's more than half a million dollars of public money—and on what? Well, the Premier has confirmed both matters relate to court disputes with Tasmania's own Integrity Commission. Let that sink in. Tasmanian ministers used Tasmanian taxpayers' money to fight Tasmania's integrity watchdog in court—in secret—while lying to parliament that any such proceedings existed.”
“The Tasmanian Liberal government is in crisis, not a political crisis of the kind that passes in a news cycle but a crisis of integrity, the kind that corrodes public trust slowly and leaves lasting damage long after the ministers responsible have quietly exited stage left. Indeed, in all my days I haven't seen a government at state or federal level as dodgy as this Tasmanian government. Let me set out the facts for you because the facts speak for themselves. In the last month, two cabinet ministers have resigned because of grave breaches of public trust. Madeleine Ogilvie resigned after intentionally misleading parliament by claiming she was not party to any court case, and it was only after sustained questioning that she finally admitted that she had in fact brought a Supreme Court action.”
“I will support it. I hope it actually achieves something, but I am comfortable with my opposition to the bill, along with 12 of my colleagues—11 from the crossbench and Bridget Archer, who was then the member for Bass. I tell you what, I'll work with the government. We'll all work with the government to try and make this work, but, at some point, if they can't make it work, they should ditch it and stop giving parents that false sense of security.”
“Just cracking down on the tech companies in some way—increasing fines—is a fraction of what's needed to turn around these figures. It really is a fraction of what is required. If we can't turn around these figures, then I suspect we should stop giving parents a false sense of confidence that their kids are now safe. According to these figures, their kids are not safe. I'd rather parents know their kids are not safe and for the parents to be more involved in remedying the situation than to have given parents a false sense of security so that parents can say: 'Oh, governments have solved that problem. We don't really need to be alert to what our kids are seeing online on social media.' Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something which fails and gives people a false sense of confidence. I won't detain the House any longer.”
“I know that it's the job of the Prime Minister and the minister to boast about how many countries overseas are following this very closely and have expressed an interest in implementing a similar or, in the British case, an hopefully even better system. They're not going to come in here and say, 'It was ill considered and ill implemented, and we failed.' I know that politics don't allow that. But I think the government could be a bit more honest with people and, instead of crowing so much about the success of this, say: 'Okay, these are small steps. We've learned a lot, it's not working nearly as effectively as we hoped, and we're going to bust our boiler to remedy the shortfalls in this.' The substance of this bill would be one small step of a raft of reforms to try and make this work.”
“In fact, it found little significant change in daily use or time spent on social media, particularly for that younger cohort, in particular, under-13-year-olds. Now, you know, we have this ban. It's been legislated. I actually want it to work. I wish the government well, and I'll support this bill today because, hopefully, it will go some small way, at least—hopefully it goes a long way—to addressing that point I made about how we've got to stop punishing the kids and that we've got to start going after the tech companies who have the know-how to make things such as age verification or facial recognition more effective. They have so far chosen not to. When you look at figures like that, heavens, you've got to be very concerned. I get it. I know the government has got to get out there and crow about their achievement.”
“They found that, on a positive note, around two-thirds, or 66 per cent, of adolescents reported encountering some form of age-verification requirement. That's good. But, of course, we've already spoken about how easy it is to get around the age verification. For some of these platforms, you just enter a different date and you're in. But that's the end of the good news from the University of Newcastle. It generally found that the early impact on access and behaviour has been limited. It found that around 86 per cent of under-16s reported accessing at least one restricted platform in the past week. It found that most adolescents continued accessing platforms through their own accounts. That included 54 to 68 per cent of users under the age of 16.”
“When I'm talking about what I think is the failure of it so far, I've got some pretty good research to draw on. In fact, these are very recent figures. In May this year, research by Western Sydney University found that 61 per cent of under-16s who had previously been using banned platforms reported little or no change in their social media use. That's 61 per cent of under-16s who said it hadn't made much or any difference to their social media use. That's a pretty damning figure. That same research by Western Sydney University found that only 26 per cent of people under 16 who were in the research reported that their social media use had been significantly affected. That's all the evidence you need—that, up until this point in time, it has not worked. I could refer you to a University of Newcastle study in June this year.”
“I have five teenage children—two teenage daughters and three teenage stepsons. You can imagine how, a couple of years ago, my first response was that this is a great idea. So I could see how the government scored a lot of political points with this. At first glance, for a lot of parents and a lot of other people, it's very appealing, but, of course, when I started to do my research and started to speak to subject-matter experts and technical experts—child psychologists and others—I did a backflip, and I said as much in an opinion piece in the Guardian newspaper. I was the first to admit that those of us who were jumping to applaud it hadn't actually done our homework and that it wasn't going to be as simple or as effective as was suggested.”
“I've got to say—excuse me for harping on about one of my favourite subjects—but we're going straight to this unachievable social media ban and ignoring the achievable ways of making the online environment safer, for example, banning gambling advertising. On one hand we're saying, 'We'll try and get kids off social media,' but, in our next breath, we'll say, 'We can have ads on streaming services, ads on websites, three ads an hour on the telly and ads for gambling in the print media,' and so on. We're turning a blind eye to the things that can be achieved and racing to something that, frankly, is very appealing politically. I'll admit, when the government first announced the social media ban, my instinctive response was that's great and that's a really good idea.”
“We're punishing them when they're not the offenders. They shouldn't be the ones who are punished and denied their social media when it's the tech companies that are the villains and the guilty parties in all this. Didn't we hear from so many experts in youth mental health before the ban and since that there are a lot of young people who rely on social media for connectivity, particularly kids in rural and remote areas for whom it is one of the few ways they can really connect with a large group of their friends? And we're trying to deny them that. I think that's an issue. I think that's a problem.”
“In other words, the way it was designed was never going to work. And it's a bad law if it's a law that can't be enforced and a law that doesn't work; that's a bad law. It shouldn't have been brought into law. Of course, there were so many other issues that were raised by us at the time. It particularly concerned me that the problem here is the behaviour or the misbehaviour of the tech companies and these platforms but that, instead of more rigorously going after them and making them clean up their act and ensure that their online environments were safer—because, heavens, they've got the technology, the know-how, to make them safer if they want; these tech companies can find out any information they want when they apply their mind to it—we were in effect punishing children by trying to take them off social media.”
“Young people are actually getting their older sibling, an older friend or a friend who looks a bit older to stand in front of the device's camera at the time they are verifying their age. Of course, it was always going to be the case that some young people would get around the ban using things such as virtual private networks. And there was the fact that there were other platforms that hadn't been legislated against yet and that they would be places that young people would go to. I'm going to out two of my stepsons. They're both now over 16, but I know that, before their birthday recently, they were both still on social media, and there was nothing I could do to guarantee they would get off it. I hope Bertie and Ru didn't mind me confessing that—they'll probably be boastful of it!”
“I don't know that the government ever actually spoke to people younger than 16 who were using social media, relying on social media, and heard their perspective about why they were on social media, what they found harmful about social media and whether they thought there was anything that could be done to make social media safer. That would have been very, very beneficial. We were also concerned that it would just be unenforceable—that it wouldn't work. We had concerns that people could just enter incorrect birth dates when prompted by the social media platform. We've learnt, of course, of all sorts of tricks since it was implemented—such as people scrunching up their face and making it look a bit wrinkly—and how they fool the platforms and the software.”
“There were a lot of people who voiced a lot of concerns. I note that there were some 13 members—all were from the crossbench, except for the wonderful Bridget Archer, from the then opposition—who voted against the original bill when it came before this place. We had so many concerns, and they were pretty much all ignored. Probably one of our most significant concerns was we hadn't listened to young people to find out their perspective. The government did, quite rightly, listen to parents and other family members that had been affected, heard of their concerns and tried to respond appropriately to their concerns. That's good in isolation, but it didn't go far enough.”
“To be clear, I will support the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Although I didn't support the original bill, the Online Safety Bill, legislating the media ban, we have it, it's real, and history can't be unwound. I want to make this law as good as it can be made because I care as much about the safety of our young people as anyone else in this place does. But I lament, though, that we are trying to put lipstick on a pig, because the social media ban was ill conceived and badly designed and has been badly implemented. If only we could rewind history, go back and think about this from the beginning, start again and listen to all of the people who ventilated their concerns about the bill when it was being designed and legislated.”
“My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, I've spoken to many post office licensees, and it's clear that Australia Post is running them out of business as it morphs into a parcel delivery service. This gels with the move away from perpetual licences and the revelation that the board supports reactivating licence buybacks. It also puts the recent closure of the West Hobart LPO in a very different light. Minister, this will have severe impacts on communities. Will you stop it?”
“Frankly, the Australian people expect their government to plan ahead, to set clear rules and to stand up for the national interest. When it comes to the proliferation of data centres, that means ensuring that growth is sustainable, communities are respected and the public receives a fair return on the investment.”
“That's why the government's current political approach feels inadequate. We need a framework that recognises the opportunities and the risks—one that welcomes investment but on our terms, one that encourages sovereignty and economic growth while ensuring that environmental impacts are properly managed and that communities have a genuine say in developments that affect them, one that secures a fair return for Australian people from the use of our resources and infrastructure. Data centres will undoubtedly play a major role in the economy of the future. I think it's right we build them, but that means we should be paying closer attention and setting stricter limits on how they are built, where they are built and under what conditions they are built.”
“They rely on Australian land, Australian infrastructure, Australian energy networks and Australian water resources. Increasingly, they are being developed by some of the largest and most profitable multinational corporations in history, so it is entirely reasonable for Australians to ask: what are we getting in return? Our return should include requirements to invest in additional renewable energy generation, contribute to local infrastructure upgrades, support skills and training programs, and provide other direct benefits to the communities hosting these developments. For, if we roll out the red carpet without demanding proper safeguards and dividends, we risk giving away too much for too little, and that's a habit in this country. We do it with too many industries, and, once they're in, it's hard to roll anything back.”
“While they may not use as much as some industries, on the driest inhabited continent on Earth any proposal placing additional pressure on water resources does need to be scrutinised and managed carefully. There are also concerns about lack of proper community engagement and a lack of consideration about the long-term economic return to the community. The centres are increasingly big and sometimes pretty ugly. They can be noisy and could impact power prices, land prices, local water resources and the general amenity of communities. There's a reasonable expectation on the part of communities that proponents should be made to demonstrate that all these concerns will be addressed before approvals are granted. These facilities are not being built in a vacuum.”
“It also brings investment, economic activity and jobs, though the number of long-term jobs is obviously considerably less than during the brief construction phase. But the truth is that, at the same time, there are also a lot of reasonable community concerns about the proliferation of these centres, not least to do with the environmental impact they have, consuming vast quantities of power, water and land as they do. Indeed, by some estimates, by about 2030 data centres in Australia will use about as much energy as all the homes in Victoria. Without additional energy in the grid and renewable energy in particular, emissions and power prices will rise. Data centres also use a significant amount of water.”
“The fact is that Australia already has about 162 operational data centres, with at least another 90 in the pipeline. In fact, Australia is consistently recognised as one of the most attractive locations for investment in data centres, and many companies want to build here because we're close to the growing demand in South-East Asia. We've got a lot of land, significant renewable energy potential and relative geologic, economic and political stability. Moreover, if we plan it right, being a significant centre for this infrastructure could actually provide us leverage and even some steps towards digital sovereignty in what is an increasingly competitive and sometimes dangerous global AI race.”
“I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this matter of public importance before the House. It's a timely debate about a matter on which this federal government appears to be slow off the mark. Yes, the government has laid out five expectations for data centres, but the government really should be going much further and establishing clear rules and limits which prioritise Australia's environment and national interests and provide a reasonable return for the Australian community. I'm not against data centres in principle—not at all—because housing data centres in Australia has the potential to be a really good thing. They are the engine of much of the digital world, underpinning the operation of things like cloud computing and, of course, artificial intelligence.”
“Finally, I was also thrilled last week to present more than 80 students at Hobart City High School with their bronze level Duke of Edinburgh awards. I understand Hobart high is the first Tasmanian school to make the award available to all students in the same year, providing a wonderful opportunity for learning, development and skill building. Good on them all! These three events reminded me of the richness of the Tasmanian community. It was wonderful to celebrate the achievements of its residents, from some of the youngest to one of the oldest.”
“Over the past week or so, I've enjoyed celebrating some fabulous achievements in the Tasmanian community. For instance, on the weekend before last, I was privileged to be invited to Margaret Elliott's 100th birthday party at the Brighton RSL near Hobart. Margaret is the last living member of the Australian Women's Land Army in Tasmania. The event was a wonderful celebration of her life, the great work the land army did and the important role Margaret played in it. At the other end of the age spectrum, last week I also had the lovely opportunity of speaking with students from years 4, 5 and 6 at Mount Stuart Primary School. I was greatly impressed by this happy, bright bunch of kids and their enthusiasm for learning. It fills me with confidence in younger Australians.”
“Instead, I understand that Nauru has recently enacted a law to permit so-called community monitoring officers to monitor the cohort and use force if necessary; in other words, to give legal authorisation to these threats of physical violence. As the process of removal of individuals from Australia to Nauru continues, I feel no option but to bring my concerns to the Australian people. It would be a travesty if, forewarned with my concerns, the Australian government nonetheless continued conduct that saw those removed to Nauru experience physical violence. Thank you.”
“I was absolutely shocked by such unashamed and gratuitous threats of violence. From my perspective, these comments were not isolated. Another relevant individual indicated that those removed from Australia would, on arrival, face a reckoning—with justice in Nauru served on the streets, rather than through formal channels. I took this to mean that the removed cohort faced the risk of vigilante violence from those entrusted to safeguard their wellbeing in Nauru. I have repeatedly tried to raise concerns about these matters through appropriate channels. To date, I have seen no evidence that my concerns have been addressed.”