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 4 of 7.
“My question is to the Minister for Communications. It's almost three years since the Murphy report unanimously recommended a phase-out of gambling advertising. When will you be tabling the government's response to that report, and by what date will you actually legislate a ban on gambling advertising? Or is the Prime Minister continuing to block this sensible and popular reform?”
“In other words, it's all about priorities and teamwork. Instead of each jurisdiction wandering around like Brown's cows on healthcare policy and funding, they should be working together with the Commonwealth to ensure that, no matter what your postcode is or where you are in the country, you can be assured of access to quality and affordable healthcare when you need it.”
“In fact, if you're on the waitlist for the public dentist, you're likely facing a wait of about four years. This is, of course, not because our healthcare workforce aren't doing their best. No, they are highly professional and do an excellent job under a huge amount of pressure. But they do need to be properly supported by a funding model and a healthcare system which works no matter where you live. That's something we should be able to provide in this country. I've said many times before that Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and if we decide something is a priority then we can afford it. Indeed, according to the latest UBS Global wealth report , Australia ranked second in median wealth behind only Luxembourg. In the last budget, the government had over three-quarters of a trillion dollars on hand to spend.”
“For instance, in Tasmania hospital emergency department waiting times are markedly worse than the national average, with the latest data showing that the state recorded the worst results in the nation for emergency department performance. In fact, only 46 per cent of patients were seen on time in 2024-25 compared with the national average of 67 per cent—the goal, of course, should be 100 per cent—and that's if you actually manage to get to the ED, because Hobart has the longest ambulance response times of any state capital in the country. Across Tasmania last year more than 4½ thousand emergency incidents had to wait more than 35 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. That's just shameful. Meanwhile, the public mental and dental care system remains in dire straits in Tassie too.”
“Moreover, the figure is distorted by improved rates in rural areas, leaving the actual bulk-billing rate in Hobart somewhere between 60 and 70 per cent, and all that is despite Tasmania having one of the oldest, poorest and sickest populations in the country. As the Grattan Institute notes, boosting the bulk-billing incentive has the perverse side effect of 'entrenching a dysfunctional funding model' which incentivises practices to see more patients for shorter visits, regardless of patients' needs. This leaves GPs feeling overstretched and unable to meet patient needs and leaves patients without the time and support to properly address increasingly complex and chronic conditions. It's not just primary health care that's shackbaggerly in my home state, because acute care lags the rest of the country too.”
“As I speak with families and healthcare workers in my community and, indeed, right across Tasmania, I hear the same concerns repeated again and again—that GP clinics are overbooked, that bulk-billing is still difficult to find, that facilities are outdated, that emergency departments are cramped or overflowing, that diagnostics are limited and that, way too often, essential care is delayed. At the start of this year, GP bulk-billing across Tasmania was up more than 5 per cent—to 80 per cent—compared with 12 months ago due to the government's boost to incentives. And that's great. But, to be honest with the community, that improvement is off a low base, and Tasmania remains the second-lowest bulk-billing state in the country, well behind New South Wales and Victoria.”
“I thank the member for Fowler for bringing this important matter before the House, because access to quality, affordable health care is a fundamental right, and it shouldn't be dependent on your postcode. But, sadly, it's the case that it is. The postcode lottery is the daily reality for too many people in this country, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. I do acknowledge that this situation is, in part, due to health policy and funding being a complicated responsibility shared between the federal and state governments. But that doesn't mean the difficulties being experienced by the community can't be solved nor that we should accept the situation when specific challenges seem to be intractable. And, boy oh boy, aren't there some challenges to confront right now!”
“So, Speaker, I ask that you draw the minister's attention to this matter and remind the minister of the requirement to comply with all resolutions of the House.”
“Speaker, in light of the question raised by the Manager of Opposition Business relating to the House resolution on government responses to committee reports, I draw your attention to the fact that the report of the inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, called You win some, you lose more also known as the Murphy report—was handed down two years and five months ago. In fact, it was more than two years and five months ago now. This means it's more than two years past the time in which the Minister for Communications should have presented the government's response to this report under part (1) of the House resolution or a signed statement of reasons for the delay under part (2)(a) of the resolution.”
“My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, last year I wrote to you about the ecological and human risks of any emergency approval for florfenicol for salmon. I received no response, and the approval proceeded. Since then, the antibiotic has been detected in wild marine life up to 10 kilometres from the fish pens. So what penalties will be imposed for this dangerous contamination, or will the government let the salmon companies off the hook again, angling for votes in Tasmania?”
“There are countless layers to this, but some that come straight to mind are the need to work with state and local government to increase supply, tax reform to give first home buyers a chance to compete with investors and, for those who can't or won't buy, much greater protections for renters.”
“After all, it is younger Australians who have the biggest stake in the future, and we in this place surely have a duty to examine legislation, policies and decisions through the prism of their future. I note in closing that we're on the cusp of the greatest wealth transfer in history, from baby boomers to their children, but that this transfer is likely to entrench and exacerbate inequities without careful thought and planning. That's what Marcus reminds us—that we must boldly act now to ensure the next generations can survive and prosper in this country. This must directly address the ongoing housing crisis.”
“By this point, we are no longer talking about if the Government wants a "better" future for our young people; if it wants a future for them at all, it must make a concerted effort to increase the supply of housing and to reduce the barriers that prevent this increase. The Government must do more than tinker around the edges; they must address the underlying issues driving house prices. A better future is not one created by shrugging our shoulders; it is … created by decisive action in the best interest of this country's youth. Now, I'd like to thank Marcus for his time and effort in writing that speech and for his reminder that parliamentarians and decision-makers must pay particular attention to young Australians.”
“I'm honoured to read to the chamber today a speech prepared for me by Marcus, who is a young Tasmanian and a constituent of Clark: I am almost 18 and I would like to own a home. I love Australia, but the sad reality is that for myself and most of my generation owning a home is becoming increasingly impossible. Gone are the days when houses cost two peanuts and a firm handshake. Today, the price of housing alone paints a grim picture for the future of our young people, and by extension the future of this country. If the youth can't afford to live here they won't Cost of living and housing is causing immense strain on the middle class. Of the top 15 most unaffordable property markets in the world, 5 Australian capital cities are present, with Sydney being second in the world. This is ridiculous, and it can't go on.”
“Reform of the defence estate is long overdue, and it's a credit to the federal government that it's finally trying to sort out all the unused, under-utilised, inefficient and unsuitable stock. But, that said, the reform is confronting for veterans, serving members and the community, especially in Tasmania, which is bearing the brunt of the changes. As it stands, reservists and cadets will be forced to parade at new locations, which will be disruptive and a disincentive. And there will be no field firing facilities in the state, which would be a nonsense. So I say to the government: please continue to push information out, but also be open minded as stakeholders provide feedback. After all, flexibility in war is much better than reinforcing defeat.”
“My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, the rationalisation of the Defence estate was long overdue, and I am supportive in principle. However, media reporting today appears to be silent on the future of Anglesea Barracks in Hobart. Can you assure my community that the barracks will indeed remain a key part of the Defence estate and receive necessary funding for upgrades?”
“Prime Minister, it is well established that the opposition is the party or the group which has the most non-government members in the House of Representatives. Seeing as the crossbench is now as big as the Liberal Party and likely to soon exceed them with more defections, on what basis are the Libs still regarded as the opposition and enjoying the perks that go with it?”
“Not only is the community broadly—clearly, the majority—sick to death of the endless gambling advertising; the community is also sick to death of the way that advertising is normalising gambling. The community is sick to death of the way that advertising is effectively grooming children to start gambling as soon as they can. That's not an exaggeration. When you look at the evidence prepared by the Australia Institute, they found that last year almost one million young people aged between 12 and 19 gambled. That's all the evidence you need to make absolutely clear that all of this advertising is grooming young people to gamble as quickly as it can. This isn't some esoteric argument.”
“I seek leave to move the motion as circulated. Leave granted. I thank the government and the minister for granting leave. There is clearly an urgent need to address this motion, because there is an urgent need to give all members of this House a free vote so that they can use their own judgement, informed by their own constituents, on whether or not there should be a three-year phase-out of advertising on gambling, which, as the motion makes clear, was the flagship recommendation of the Murphy report, brought down almost 2½ years ago. The importance of addressing this urgently cannot be stated enough, because this is a very, very real issue that needs to be tackled quickly.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. I've recently had conversations with a significant number of government backbenchers who want a gambling advertising ban, which is unanimously endorsed in the cross-party Murphy report. So, as I asked in my personal appeal to you a fortnight ago, will you allow government members a free vote on this issue so they can exercise their own judgement, represent their communities and finally end this impasse?”
“Clearly, it would be negligent for the federal government and for the state governments to wait for another catastrophic event and then to absolve themselves of responsibility by simply claiming it was 'unprecedented'. No, federal and state governments must instead pull every lever available to ensure the experts we have can work hand-in-hand across every level of government to plan appropriately, mitigate risks and protect Australians, and that work must start now—not after the next disaster and not after all of the funerals.”
“Recently I hosted a briefing by the Royal Automobile Club of Tasmania on the issue of bushfire resilience, something which unites many Tasmanians, who see bushfire risk rising alongside their insurance premiums. As a nation, we often speak broadly about bushfire risk, but Tasmania is uniquely impacted. The Tasmanian Fire Service estimates 98 per cent of Tasmania's land area is bushfire prone. This would come as no surprise to Tasmanians, with an astonishing one in six living within 50 metres of the bush—a fact that becomes apparent as we head into summer and Tasmanians begin reviewing their bushfire plans. Alarmingly, bushfire risk is projected to increase by between 19 and 30 per cent by the 2040s. If we continue to plan poorly, this will come with additional difficulty in finding insurance and protecting Australians.”
“To close I'll quote Alexander von Humboldt, who said: Cruelty to animals is one of the most significant vices of a low and ignoble people. Wherever one notices them, they constitute a sign of ignorance and brutality which cannot be painted over even by all the evidence of wealth and luxury. Hence it should be a stain on our national conscience that in 2025 Australia stands virtually alone as the global stronghold of the cruel greyhound racing industry. Frankly, the only way to end the cruelty is to end the industry, and the sooner that happens the better, starting with at least a ban on online gambling on racing.”
“Sensibly the bill provides for a period of two years to allow the industry to adequately plan and provide for the welfare of dogs following the anticipated sharp drop in revenue. Now, I stand by my long-held belief that the only way to actually ensure the safety of greyhounds is to ban the industry entirely. Frankly, there is simply no conceivable way to conduct races in a way that adequately meets animal welfare standards. No wonder community pressure is building on state governments to follow the example of the ACT and Tasmania and end the cruelty. But until all state governments get their act together on this, federal pressure needs to be brought to bear on the industry. And that's where this gambling ban comes in.”
“Furthermore, off track, the industry continues to breed far too many dogs and rehoming programs are failing. No wonder I suppose that over 1,600 greyhounds were euthanised within the industry just in 2024, the highest national toll since 2019. In other words, greyhounds are being abused and dying in the name of this industry, and Australians want it to stop. Which brings me to the purpose of this refreshingly straightforward bill, simply to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to remove the exemption for wagering services which relate to betting on greyhound racing. In effect, this would end online wagering on greyhound racing and hasten the demise of the industry.”
“And while not quite at the peak of $10.7 billion in 2022, last year still saw around $7.5 billion wagered on greyhounds in Australia. Appallingly though, but sadly unsurprisingly, wagering on Australian greyhound racing accounts for roughly 70 per cent of all bets placed on dog racing worldwide. This is a frankly staggering amount of money that only serves to perpetuate cruelty and suffering on an industrial scale. And the real cost? Well, so far this year there have been 99 greyhounds die and 9,663 greyhounds injured on greyhound racing tracks in Australia, with New South Wales having the highest injury rate in Australasia—60 per cent higher than the rate that led to New Zealand banning the industry. Mind you, it's Victoria that kills more dogs on its tracks that any other state.”
“And it's not just in Tasmania, with Greyhound Racing NSW being forced to plan for the closure of 11 of its 26 tracks due to a significant decrease in demand. Public perception of the industry has also been shifting, with more and more Australians recognising its inherent cruelty. Indeed, in September this year, 66.5 per cent of people surveyed by McCrindle were concerned about the treatment of greyhounds in the greyhound racing industry. And an October 2022 poll commissioned by GREY2K USA and the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds found that 57 per cent of Australians supported an end to dog racing. What's more, recent EMRS polling in Tasmania found that 74 per cent of Tasmanians supported the announced greyhound racing ban. But what continues to prop up the industry is online wagering.”
“But the truth is that Tasmania is a small player in a much larger industry. And while that industry is in decline, Australia has the ignominious honour of hosting the largest greyhound racing industry in the world. Indeed, Australia has more than half the world's remaining operational greyhound tracks and, following a recent decision by New Zealand, will be one of just four nations in the world that maintains a legal, operating greyhound industry. Mercifully though, the greyhound racing industry in Australia is in decline, in terms of both participation and perception. In fact, a recent report commissioned by economist Saul Eslake found that in Tasmania attendance rates were down around 11 per cent between 2011 and 2023 on the industry's own figures, and that the number of races also fell by six per cent.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The greyhound racing industry in Australia results in animals suffering unspeakable and entrenched industrial-scale cruelty , which is why I've long campaigned for an end to the appalling industry. Indeed animal welfare issues in the industry are well documented and widespread. They include outrageous levels of injury and death, physical overexertion, inadequate housing, lack of socialisation and environmental enrichment, cruel training practices, illegal live baiting, administration of banned or unregistered substances , and euthanasi a of poorly performing and unwanted dogs. Many in the community share my disgust at this industry and its appalling practices , so y ou can imagine just how welcome is the Tasmanian government's recent decision to phase out greyhound racing.”
“Clearly, the government need to address this, and address it urgently, just as they also need to continue their work to ensure that the residential aged-care sector is put on a sustainable footing. Just yesterday, in my electorate, Southern Cross Care announced they are closing one of their facilities, leaving some 70 people to find new homes and 130 staff to find new work. There is obviously still much to be done.”
“Rosalie understood her provider had accepted the $3,000 quote for a support person to accompany her. But, to Rosalie's dismay, that quote was revoked and—surprise, surprise—when a new quote was forthcoming, the fee had nearly doubled. The explanation given by the provider was that the increased cost offsets losses under the new program and that offering a reduced rate when their financial position was untested under the Support at Home program was a business risk. Aged-care providers shouldn't be balancing their books off the backs of vulnerable older Australians who are stretching every dollar to remain at home, independent and safe. Frankly, it's outrageous that funding intended for essential services, such as cleaning, transport and allied health, is being swallowed up by administration.”
“She was aghast to discover that she would now be charged an additional 10 per cent for essential items and, even more distressingly, a 100 per cent increase to retain her two trusted support workers. When Rosalie questioned the soaring costs, her provider explained that, due to new compliance and administrative obligations, they'd restructured their fees to remain operational. So, to this end, the provider introduced what they call an 'internal service price', which is a fee applied regardless of who provides the support. As a result, Rosalie has gone from paying $55 per hour for trusted supports to $110. But it doesn't stop there, because Rosalie's story gets even worse. She had planned a trip to visit her terminally ill daughter before Christmas.”
“I am regularly contacted by constituents who tell me that their aged-care funds have been consumed by administrative fees at the expense of their care. And now, adding to the pain in the lead-up to the new Aged Care Act commencing on 1 November, there are reports of even further price hikes under the Support at Home program. So let me share just one report, about Rosalie, who lives with Parkinson's disease, arthritis and other serious health conditions. Now, Rosalie had negotiated with her aged-care provider to retain two longstanding, trusted support workers by self-managing some package funding. However, as the Support at Home program neared, Rosalie was asked by her provider to sign a new contract.”
“Now the government comes back to take another bite of the cherry with these reconsideration changes because, clearly, other industries got jealous of the salmon industry and wanted unfettered, forever approvals themselves. In other words, freed of the responsibility to consider changing circumstances and empowered to improve whatever they like under the guise of the national interest, Australia's environment ministers will now preside over the next mass extinction event. The community won't stand for that, so I won't support these bills without significant changes, and I urge the parliament to support my amendments and to come together to pass other sensible changes to fix these broken bills.”
“Moreover, we have updated and authoritative conservation advice from the experts at the environment department saying the primary driver of the skate's decline is low dissolved oxygen and that the main, anthropogenic cause of that oxygen debt is the salmon farm. Surely, acting in the environmental and public interest and on the precautionary principle, any environmental regulator worth their salt would account for this new evidence and rein in the industry to prevent an extinction. But what has been done instead? The previous environment minister sat on a reconsideration request without a decision for almost two years before the government then removed the power to reconsider that decision altogether.”
“The fact is that the reconsideration process is an important safeguard intended to ensure environmental decision-makers can correct mistakes and be flexible and responsive to a changing environment and evolving science. I want to bring attention back to the Maugean skate because it really is emblematic of what's wrong with our environment laws currently and what the government plans to bake in with these reforms. There, in Macquarie Harbour, we have an endangered, prehistoric fish which has outlasted the dinosaurs and exists in that one location only. We've also got clear scientific evidence of its decline, coinciding with expanded salmon farming following a federal approval created in 2012.”
“To remedy that, my amendments insert a new section to clarify that a minister can reconsider past decisions if the action concerned is likely to contribute to the extinction of a native species or has another unacceptable impact as defined in the new section 527F. My amendments also delete clause 181, which introduces a new limit on the timeframe for third parties to apply for reconsideration to just 28 days and sets other new and ridiculously high thresholds which must be met when any third party wants to request a decision to be reconsidered. Let's not mince our words. As drafted, the process is so onerous and limiting that it's intended to all but end the ability of members of the community to request that past decisions be reviewed. That's bad process, bad for transparency and bad for the environment.”
“Some perhaps remember specifically the former environment minister being ruthlessly undermined by the Prime Minister and forced to come in here and herald the government's choice to remove her ability to reconsider certain past environmental decisions, all because the Prime Minister promised the salmon companies they could continue to wreak environmental havoc in Macquarie Harbour and continue driving the Maugean skate to extinction. In these bills, the new environment minister is undermining these reconsideration revisions even more, and that's of particular concern, s another feature of these bills that concerns me is the devolution of approvals to states and territories who, let's face it, have an even worse track record on environmental approvals than the feds.”
“Indeed, it's been well ventilated by now that these reforms fall well short of what's needed to stop and reverse biodiversity loss and to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. It's riddled with all sorts of carve-outs and loopholes which would allow for continued environmental destruction in the face of all the evidence. Speaker, you'll excuse me, being from Tasmania, for reminding the House of the mother and father of all carve-outs: the exemption of the regional forestry agreements and the changes which the government rammed through the last parliament on budget day this year to exempt the salmon industry from ongoing scrutiny.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, page 73 (after line 16), after item 178, insert: 178A After subsection 78(3A) Insert: (3B) However, subsection (3A) does not apply if the action is likely to cause or significantly contribute to the extinction of any native species or cause any other unacceptable impact as defined in section 527F. (2) Schedule 1, item 181, page 73 (line 21) to page 75 (line 15), omit the item. When the Leader of the House stood up to introduce the Environment Protection Reform Bill, in an astonishing misstep he forgot to say one crucial word in the bill's title—'protection'. That might have been a slip of the tongue but many have since been left wondering if the government has left protection out of the bill as well.”
“We have a world-class public service. It's really world-class. It's populated by officials and senior officials who want to give frank and fearless advice, and they want it to be recorded. They are quite comfortable with their advice being one day publicised, in particular if the government makes a serious misstep by—hmm!—accidentally invading a country for fraudulent reasons! Then that advice would clear those officials of any sort of incompetence or unprofessional behaviour. Good on the member for Indi. It's another good amendment, and I'll be supporting it.”
“The point I'm getting to is that this claim that the current FOI framework is a barrier to frank and fearless advice is actually back to front. I think public servants would be much more comfortable with giving frank and fearless advice if they knew that it was written down and noted carefully. One day, if the government's refusal to heed that frank and fearless advice was made public, then it would be the government's problem, and I would be vindicated. I wouldn't stand accused as an incompetent—or worse, unprofessional—public servant that wasn't giving frank and fearless advice. I'll make this point as firmly as I can. The claim that frank and fearless advice is not being provided, because public servants are scared of their advice one day being publicised, is quite misleading—in fact, it's terribly misleading.”
“I accused the Howard government of misleading the Australian community over the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. One of the reasons I resigned and went public was my concern as a public servant and intelligence official that, if I just ventilated my concerns internally, they wouldn't be reported. They'd be buried and they would never see the light of day. Heavens, if for any reason one day there should be one or in fact two inquiries into Australia's misplaced invasion of Iraq, there'd be no record of it. My experience was that, if I as a public servant had been able to give frank and fearless advice and if it had been recorded carefully, I might've been more comfortable sticking with the team and not resigning from ONA.”
“To give effect to this, section 34 of the FOI Act should be repealed. The wide range of class and conditional exemptions in the FOI Act is sufficient to protect the public interest in relation to Cabinet documents. The mere fact that a document is a Cabinet document should not, by itself, be regarded as justifying maintenance of its secrecy. In other words we shouldn't be having a debate about the merits of increasing the exemptions; we should be having a debate about the merits of reducing exemptions. I would like—this is going to be a little bit indulgent, so bear with me—to recount something out of my own personal experience. The students of ancient history in the Federation Chamber might remember that 20 or so years ago I got myself into terrible strife when I resigned from the Office of National Assessments and went to the media.”
“Again I will be supporting the member for Indi's amendment, because clearly the attempt by the government to greatly increase the exemptions to the FOI framework are unwarranted. Again, as a matter of principle, the effort to do this will be an impediment to the community's access to information thereby promoting democracy through public participation and scrutiny. That's self-evident; I don't need to talk in any more detail about that. Surely we should be doing everything to shine a light on governance and public administration, and we should be taking no backwards steps in that regard. I would also make the point—and the member for Indi has already touched on this—that the robodebt royal commission made a very, very clear recommendation: … the Government should end the blanket approach to confidentiality of Cabinet documents.”
“Frankly, when it was announced right back at the start that the FOI framework would be reviewed, I actually spoke positively in the media of this move by the government because I felt it would likely be a genuine attempt by the government to modernise our FOI framework, which is warranted. But, sadly, now that we are preoccupied with the detail of the reforms, I find the reforms very much lacking and I've become quite critical. I will leave it there. I will support the amendments moved by the member for Indi.”
“If that is the case, then, sadly, the Centre for Public Integrity is quite right on its recent integrity report card on the Albanese government. I'll just remind you, when it came to transparency in the report card, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the government a 'fail'. When it came to cronyism, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the government a 'fail'. When it came to undue influence and, in particular, the access of lobbyists, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the Albanese government a 'fail'. It also gave them a 'fail' for parliamentary accountability and for supporting an independent Public Service. So the government is rating poorly already and this adds to the criticism of the government.”
“I was first attracted to the argument from the government that, with emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, there needs to be some tension in the process as an impediment to AI swamping us with FOI requests. But we haven't seen the evidence of that. In fact, when I look at the data between 2020 and 2024, FOI requests to the government have remained fairly steady at about 34,000 a year. They've gone up a bit and down a bit, but, if there is an issue in the future, we haven't actually seen even a whiff of it at this stage. So I can only draw the conclusion either that this is ill-considered because it is unnecessary, or, as the member for Indi has spoken to, that this imposition of a charge is indeed meant to create that tension to deter people from applying for FOIs in the first place.”
“Even the most modest amount of money will be an unreasonable impost. I'm sure, in our own communities, we would all regularly come across people who cannot even afford to shout themselves a cup of coffee at the local cafe. For them, $5 is too much to spend. It's not unusual that, as an MP and on behalf of members of my community, I apply through the Tasmanian FOI framework for people to access information in the Tasmanian system. They come to me and ask me to apply because there is no financial charge in Tasmania for an MP applying. They go to all that trouble to come to me because they can't afford it. I would also add that I don't think the government has satisfactorily made the case that there is a need to charge.”
“I support the member for Indi's amendments. I think they are good and worthwhile amendments. I support the amendments, first of all, as a matter of principle. I think, as a matter of principle, the government should be doing whatever it possibly can to facilitate the community's access to information, thereby promoting democracy through public participation and scrutiny. So I think, first and foremost, that this is a matter of principle; people should not be charged for seeking information they need to find. There is also a practical dimension to this—and this goes to the point of the member for Indi—that it is a disincentive for people seeking information through the FOI framework. Just about whatever financial impost the government might put on applying through the FOI framework will be unaffordable for a lot of Australians.”