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 5 of 7.
“Some of those challenges are getting a lot of publicity, as they should, like the debacle with the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries that are three years late and half a billion dollars over budget, and the proposed third AFL stadium, which we can't afford and don't need and which most people don't want. Sure, Tasmania is as much, or more, affected by the usual challenges confronting communities right around Australia, like poor health care, underfunded public schools and choking traffic congestion. But those things come and go. What don't and won't are Tasmania's precious human and environmental capital and economic potential. So, as they say, come down for air.”
“I could go on, but, as I have only five minutes, I've chosen to highlight just these three areas, which have been announced this year, demonstrating the unique strengths of our environment, our people and our way of life. Indeed, I meet a plethora of constituents, who have either grown up in Tasmania or have chosen to build their lives there, who have unending enthusiasm to fulfil Tasmania's rightful role as the jewel in Australia's crown. So, despite the state government's best efforts, Tasmania continues to punch well above its weight. Yes, sure we've got lots of challenges—which almost inevitably can be traced back to the incompetent state government and underperforming local governments.”
“Incat is also one of the nation's largest single-site employers of apprentices and is expanding its operations, with the goal of becoming the global centre of excellence for sustainable large-vessel manufacturing. On the topic of sustainability, the University of Tasmania has been recognised again for its global leadership, ranking first in the world for climate action for the fourth year running, according to the Times Higher Education impact rankings. This outstanding achievement reflects the university's long-term commitment to meaningful climate action, from being certified carbon-neutral since 2016 and divesting from fossil fuel investments in 2021 to ongoing prioritisation of investments that support the UN Sustainable Development Goals.”
“No wonder a mammoth 1.348 million visitors came to our island in the year ending June 2025. I understand that that may not sound like a lot to mainlanders, but that is more than double the number of people who call the island home. In short, the secret is out. People know there's something special about Tasmania and are willing to spend their time, money and effort to experience it for themselves. But there's more. In my electorate of Clark, we are home to world-leading innovation at Incat, where a team of designers, engineers and technicians have just built and launched the world's largest battery electric vessel. Hull 096, named China Zorrilla , at 130 metres long is the largest electric vehicle ever constructed and will carry up to 2,100 passengers and 225 vehicles. The ambition doesn't stop there.”
“Moreover, we are the gateway to Antarctica, and we have a stunning natural environment, rich Aboriginal history and a quality of life that could be the envy of the nation. Frankly, our world-class wineries, beaches, hikes, dining and creative industries make us small but especially mighty, and it's no wonder that people flock there to experience it. Our tourism appeal in particular is undeniable, as evidenced by the fact that, this year, the Conde Nast Traveller 2025 readers' choice awards crowned Hobart as the 10th-best small city in the world—the only city in Australia to make the cut. And that recognition has been echoed elsewhere. For example, Expedia's Unpack ' 26 : t he trends in travel report named Hobart one of its destinations of the year, noting a 25 per cent increase in searches for Hobart compared with last year.”
“By now, most people probably know of my deep frustration with the way the Tasmanian government is stuffing up seemingly every aspect of running the state. I'm not alone, as evidenced by the community reaction to a relevant video I posted on social media earlier this year, which remains my most viewed to date and which still prompts people to stop me in the street to share their agreement with what I had to say. Yet underlying my frustration is the fact that Tasmania has everything it needs to be the jewel in Australia's crown. For a start, we have some of the cleanest air in the world, and, while that might sound like something Tasmanians say with a wink, it's a fact, verified and monitored by the CSIRO.”
“My office took the government's advice to search the Healthdirect website for a bulk-billing doctor in the Hobart area and found just one non-urgent care clinic that accepts new patients. In other words, all this talk about only needing a Medicare card to see a doctor is just more political spin. Of course I welcome the government's focus on strengthening primary care, but I don't support its parsimonious approach. We're a rich country and can afford to do better. It's all about priorities.”
“Providing accessible health care is a critical role for government, and to that end I welcome the government's boost to the bulk-billing incentive. But recent claims that the boost has led to a 'surge' in bulk-billing GPs in Tasmania is, at best, overegged—at worst, downright dishonest. No wonder the RACGP tell me they're not anticipating anything like a surge in bulk-billing in the state, especially in the cities, where the rebates and extra incentives fall well short of what's needed. No wonder GPs themselves tell me the only way to make bulk-billing viable is to see more patients in less time, which is especially concerning for Tasmanians, given our ageing population, high levels of chronic disease and poor mental health. These are not consultations that can be sped up.”
“But sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that's why we need increased transparency around ministerial diaries and past sponsorships, why FOIs should be made easier, not harder, and why we need to finally progress meaningful reforms to whistleblower protections, political donations and jobs-for-mates appointments. While we're at it, media freedom laws wouldn't go astray either. Any government serious about doing its job well should embrace transparency, not fear it, because transparency builds public trust, keep decision-makers honest and helps prevent the sorts of blunders, cover-ups and groupthink that often end up costing us all.”
“Australians rightly expect their governments to operate openly and transparently, so you can understand the community's frustration with this Labor government, which the Centre for Public Integrity recently assessed as failing on five of six integrity indicators and which they described as 'leaning into a culture of secrecy'. That's a very good description, because we haven't so much seen, simply, a brazen attempt to wind back transparency in one go; instead, we've seen a much more insidious pattern than that. Indeed, we've seen a combination of inertia on critical reforms, a fear of upsetting vested interests and a fetishisation of secrecy, driven in part, I would suggest, by hubris on the part of the re-elected Labor government.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Recently, the International Court of Justice found that states have a binding international obligation to assess and limit emissions, including scope 3 emissions, to avert significant climate harm. Scope 3 includes captive carbon in exported coal and gas. If the government won't include a climate trigger in environment laws or include scope 3 emissions in the safeguards mechanism, what steps will you take to ensure Australia's compliance with the ICJ ruling?”
“Heavens—the company they worked for possibly doesn't even exist anymore. They can't get payslips. I remember, during the furore of robodebt when it first blew up, talking to a constituent who, over the period that Services Australia were asking for documentation, had held four jobs, and two of those companies didn't exist anymore. The weight is on the government, but I put my trust in the minister. Hopefully, this can be resolved as quickly as possible. Question negatived.”
“Yes, please, Deputy Speaker. I just want to say, through you, to the minister: I do get some comfort from your response to my amendment, and I am prepared to put my trust in you and what you've just said—that you are progressing and working on all of the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. It had been my intention to call a division on this amendment, and I will now not be seeking that division. I would add, though: the country is watching. The country was outraged by robodebt and is looking to the government to move as quickly as it humanly can to implement those recommendations, in particular to bring that time limit on the recovery of debts into line with all the other time limits we have in this country. I make the point again of an example I gave 10 years ago about someone.”
“Of course, there's one other big thing the government could do to bring decency and humanity back to the income support system, and that's to finally raise the rates of payments to lift recipients out of poverty and to provide them with the basic human dignity to which they are entitled. I'll leave that all out there for the government to consider, but, for now, I urge the government—and, indeed, all members in this place—to take a first step and support my amendments to reintroduce a six-year limitation on debt recovery actions by Services Australia as recommended by the robodebt royal commission.”
“They could also revisit the robodebt royal commission report and the many other recommendations for which, after over two years, we're still waiting for the government's response and implementation. Just a few weeks ago I introduced my responding to robodebt bill; I'd be happy if they were wanting to adopt and progress that bill. Once the government have done that, they could then turn their attention to addressing the gross injustice in the mutual obligation scheme, which led to the illegal suspension and cancellation of the Centrelink payments of some 300,000 people between 2020 and 2024.”
“But one from a government agency which relates to a payment you might have received 10 years ago—you might have no documentation and perhaps only the faintest memory of your circumstances—is quite likely to be terrifying. It's no wonder that at the core of the robodebt royal commission's findings was the simple fact that government services need to return to providing access to an effective income support system for Australians, ensuring they are treated with respect and dignity. I would like to think that this government would have this goal as its guiding principle. I'd like to think the minister would consider this bill to be just a very small first step, with many more to come quickly, because there's a lot still to be addressed. For starters, the government could support my amendments and reintroduce the limitation on debt recovery.”
“The amendments as drafted don't magically disappear a debt if it has already been identified and is being pursued by Services Australia. What they do is reintroduce a bit of fairness to the system and a bit of humanity. It's a recognition that if six years or more have passed, you shouldn't suddenly have Services Australia notifying you of debts and demanding immediate payment or requesting evidence, which most people would long ago have lost or discarded. Even the ATO only requires us to keep evidence for five years. I'm proud that we have a comprehensive income support system in this country, but I think that, even despite the robodebt royal commission, people often forget or ignore the pain, frustration and terror the system can inflict on people. Of course, a debt notice is a frightening thing at any time.”
“What is missing from the bill is the commitment to address a key outstanding recommendation of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, and that is the reintroduction of a six-year limitation on debt recovery actions by Services Australia. The importance of this recommendation cannot be overstated. Two years have now passed since the royal commission report was handed down, and, frankly, there's no good reason that this simple reform has not yet been implemented. So that is exactly what my amendments seek to do, and they do so entirely consistently with the commissioner's own comment. She said, 'There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on any different footing from other debtors.' Let me be clear.”
“The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 bill contains a number of changes to the social security law that I and many others broadly welcome, particularly the expansion of debt waiver provisions. It also includes what I believe is an attempt at a nuanced and reasonable response to the issue of income apportionment debts. This was a method which was found to be unlawfully applied and which the Department of Social Services itself estimates has been used since the 1990s and could affect about three million people. While I would argue for waiving or writing off all of these debts, I can see that the minister has navigated a sensible pathway here.”
“Social Security Act 1991 16 Section 1234B Repeal the section, substitute: 1234B Time limit on debt recovery For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Chapter for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made. Student Assistance Act 1973 17 Section 42B Repeal the section, substitute: 42B Time limit on debt recovery For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Part for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made. Division 2 — Application of amendments 18 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a debt that is raised before or after this item commences.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert: (2) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 4 — Time limit on debt recovery Division 1 — Amendments A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 15 Section 93B Repeal the section, substitute: 93B Time limit on debt recovery For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings or any action under a provision of this Part for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after 6 years has elapsed since the overpayment was made.”
“We also need fit-for-purpose facilities that can recruit and retain staff and deliver timely care as well as support modern services. This is not about politics; it's about people. Governments owe it to them to deliver a system that works, no matter where they live in this country.”
“Again, that comes with painful human impacts—for example, the heartbreaking case of a Hobart child that suffered devastating burns as a baby. He is only two years old now and in a critical recovery phase. His parents have fought for laser therapy that could drastically improve his lifelong recovery, only to be told that the laser machine at the Royal Hobart Hospital had broken down, and would not be replaced due to cost. Sadly, while other states have invested in new health infrastructure, the Tasmanian government is still patching up what should have been replaced a decade ago. It's a false economy, and it's hurting people. Clearly, we need a dedicated rural health infrastructure funding arrangement and commitments to upgrade or rebuild our district hospitals.”
“Adding to the pain, in August, Royal Hobart Hospital staff were informed that a planned $130 million redevelopment of the emergency department was being shelved due to budgetary issues, replaced instead with a 'lower scope design' that management itself acknowledged is not fit for purpose. There's also the closure of the St Helens hospital and the broken-down BreastScreen Tasmania bus, which leaves women in remote areas without access to vital early detection services. With private health services in Hobart in trouble, including the collapse of smaller GP clinics and storm clouds over the Hobart clinic and Hobart private hospital, we're only going to see more pressure build on the public health system.”
“Let me be clear: this is not about asking for more than our fair share; it's about fairness. Quite simply, it costs more to build and maintain healthcare infrastructure in regional and remote areas. Moreover, workforce shortages and geographic isolation can also create real barriers to effective care. For example, as of September, over 9,000 Tasmanians were on the elective surgery waitlist, and only 63 per cent were seen on time. Another 10,700 Tasmanians are waiting for public oral health care. At the Royal Hobart Hospital in particular, bed block has led to major surgery cancellations, and ambulance ramping continues.”
“In February this year, Australian governments did extend the National Health Reform Agreement by one year. Under this agreement, Tasmania will receive $754 million in federal health funding this financial year. But, when you consider that Tasmania's public hospitals are said to cost over $3 billion annually and that our hospital costs are growing at nearly three times the national average, it becomes clear that this agreement does not go far enough. Clearly, a renewed multi-year NHRA agreement must remain a priority. But let's not pretend such funding absolves the federal government of responsibility to those living in regional and rural areas of Australia. The fund the member for Indi is proposing, however, would allow for targeted, needs based investment that lifts up rural and regional communities.”
“In Tasmania, where most of the state is classified rural and remote, the impact is especially acute, because, while Tasmania's four major public hospitals provide vital services, they're also supported by13 district hospitals, from King Island to New Norfolk, from Smithton to St Marys. These facilities are the backbone of their communities. But, when you talk to families or health workers across Tasmania, you hear the same concerns: facilities are outdated, emergency departments are cramped or overflowing, diagnostics are limited, and, too often, care is delayed. Remember—in places like St Helens or Ouse, where private providers have withdrawn services or closed, the public system is not the safety net; it's the only net. We must be honest about the problem here: federal funding has not kept pace with the realities on the ground.”
“I'm delighted to second the member for Indi's motion because it hinges on equity, access and dignity for every Australian. Healthcare facilities in rural and regional areas have long been neglected, leading to an urgent need for dedicated federal funding. Of course it's unacceptable that, in a country as rich as Australia, rural Australians receive $1,090 less healthcare funding per person each year than city residents. Indeed, according to the National Rural Health Alliance, that shortfall now amounts to over $8 billion annually, resulting in longer wait times, a lack of specialist services, staff shortages and, of course, outdated infrastructure.”
“My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Australia's hospital system is in crisis. State budgets aren't big enough to properly fund public hospitals, and health insurance isn't working for the private sector. People are suffering needlessly and, far too often, dying prematurely. Only the Commonwealth has the financial and policy heft to turn things around. When will the federal government finally act to fix things? Let's face it; just negotiating another funding agreement is hardly bold reform.”
“So we must listen to the youth, hear their concerns and lay the solid foundation stones for a future, not just for the present.”
“I thank Kodie for his hard work on this speech, which is on an issue that is important to a great many young people across the country. I thank him for his reminder to all of us in this building to focus not on speeches and slogans but on listening to young people and acting with urgency and compassion to provide the services and supports that they tell us are critical for their future. I would add that, at the end of the day, no-one alive has a bigger investment in planet Earth and humanity than our youngest people. Heavens to Betsy, for us in this place our race is half run, and the worst effects of climate change are quite possibly beyond us. Moreover, we're likely to enjoy from here an affluence many younger Australians can only dream of. No couch surfing for us.”
“If the Government truly wants to build a better tomorrow for young Australians, it must act today with urgency and compassion. We need cost of living relief that reaches those of us who are working hard but still falling behind. That means affordable housing, fair wages for young workers and access to education without a crippling HECS debt. We also need investment in mental health services, especially for young people juggling work, study and family responsibilities. And for Aboriginal youth like me, culturally safe support systems and pathways into leadership roles are essential, not optional. A better future isn't built by speeches or slogans. It's built by listening to young voices and the future generation. We're not just the leaders of tomorrow—we are the workers, the carers, the changemakers of today! So there you have it.”
“Every year for the last five years Raise Our Voice Australia has asked parliamentarians to amplify the voices of the young people from their electorate by reading speeches submitted by constituents aged 25 or under. This year young people were asked to submit a speech answering the question: what steps should the government take today to build a better tomorrow for young Australians? To that end, I'm delighted to read a speech submitted by Kodie, a 17-year-old from my electorate of Clark: I am 17 years old, Aboriginal and living in Tasmania. I dream of becoming a lawyer to stand up for justice, to give back to my community and to help shape a fairer Australia. But right now, I work three jobs just to keep up with the cost of living. That's not ambition—it's survival.”
“Our elective-surgery waiting list, as of August this year, is over 9,000 people out of a state of half a million people. That's up 11 per cent over the last 12 months. The median wait time in Tasmania for the public dentist currently averages 1,366 days. That's nearly four years to see a dentist if you've got a toothache and you can't afford to go to the private sector. For heaven's sake! Have we got a grievance? Yes, we've got a hell of a grievance. I'm giving voice to a great many Tasmanians when I say that of course we want a team, but we won't be bullied by the AFL, and we won't send the state further into bankruptcy by building this ridiculous stadium that the Premier and the opposition leader, I'm sorry to say, have turned into a vanity project that they will build against the advice of all the experts.”
“It's not like everything else in the state is fine. It's not like we've got nothing better to spend our dough on down in Tasmania. There are currently over 5,000 applicants on the waiting list for social housing. That's up 10 per cent in the last 12 months. There are an estimated 600 applicants on the public-housing waiting list that are entirely without housing—that is, sleeping in a tent or in a car. That's in a state of about half a million people. Yet the state government thinks it's okay to spend billions of dollars to buckle to demands from the AFL to build a third AFL stadium, within sight of one of the existing AFL stadiums, with an additional capacity of only 3,000 more spectators. This is just madness. It's not just housing that's in strife in Tasmania. Look at health.”
“It turns out that when the ferries had been built someone realised they'd forgotten to build appropriate berthing for the ferries in Devonport. The ships are twice the size of the old S pirits . They need totally new berths. They were initially estimated, before they forgot to build them, at $90 million to be completed by 2024. The cost of berths, which they've now started to build, has blown out—wait for it; as I said, this is one of those whoopsadaisy moments—to $493 million. That's the cost to now build the berths, and they won't be completed until 2027 if you believe the state government's current figures—for heaven's sakes! This is the state government that reckons they're going to build a stadium for $1.13 billion. I reckon, as do a lot of other people, with the cost of debt over a decade it's going to be more like $3½ billion.”
“It then blew out by another $94 million because the cost of steel went up and the contractor went broke, and the Tasmanian taxpayer had to pay the foreign shipyard a bailout. Then we learned in just the last couple of weeks—it was one of those whoopsadaisy moments—that the Tasmanian government has announced the hulls are not strong enough, the hulls on both vessels need to be strengthened, and it's anyone's guess what that's going to cost. Two large Bass Strait ferries have got to have their hulls strengthened. What is that going to cost? For a start they'll have to sail the ships to somewhere like Singapore. They have to slip them, put them in a dry dock and, what, replate the hull? How many hundreds of millions of dollars is that going to cost? That of course is not the end of the ferry saga.”
“After a couple of days of soul-searching the Labor opposition came out as well and thanked the commission for its work and said they would ignore the report—that politicians know better than engineers, architects and professional project managers. So they're going ahead with the stadium, and the TPC report is being ignored. We might cut the Tasmanian government some slack if they had a clean track record of competence at developing and delivering projects and if we could have some confidence that they would do this right. But those of you who have been paying attention to the media in recent times probably have been unable to avoid the fiasco with the new Spirit of Tasmania III and Spirit of Tasmania IV ferries. Let me tell you what happened with them. The cost for them was additionally put at $850 million for both vessels.”
“Knowing that the Tasmanian Planning Commission was looking into this in some detail, those of us who don't want the stadium thought: 'Okay, we'll finally have a detailed report. Common sense will break out, and the government will use it as an opportunity to reverse out of this agreement with the AFL or to renegotiate the agreement with the AFL to at least not have a roof on the stadium.' I'm told by engineers and architects that'd probably save about $700 million. But what did the Tasmanian government do on the day the report was released? The Premier thanked the commission for their work and said that they would ignore the report.”
“So, if you add the cost of debt over 10 years, we're looking at a total cost to the taxpayer—wait for it!—of about $3½ billion. That's about 10 times higher than what Australian taxpayers were originally promised would be the bill. No wonder the majority of Tasmanians think we can't afford it. It's because we can't afford it! The state is broke. For a conservative government, you'd think they would take financial management more seriously than others. The state at the moment is heading for a forecast debt of about $14 billion over the forward estimates. Then you've got to add a couple of billion dollars for this stadium—heaven's sake! One of the most upsetting things in recent times was this Tasmanian Planning Commission report.”
“Anyway, time goes on. Now we're up for the whole $715 million. As time went on, the cost increased to $755 million. It was then put at $945 million, all from the taxpayer. And just recently the Tasmanian Planning Commission had a detailed look at this and put the cost of the stadium at $1.13 billion, and calculating the cost of debt over a decade, the cost—all to the taxpayer!—will be an estimated $1.8 billion. I mean, this is just going through the roof. This is in a state of half a million people. Mind you, to complicate things even further, I can't find a competent engineer or architect in Hobart who says that you can build a 23,000-seat, roofed AFL stadium in Tasmania, where the costs of building are higher than the mainland, for anything less than $2 billion.”
“We shouldn't be spending billions of dollars on a stadium at a time like this. Let me dwell on the issue of the cost. When the Tasmanian government agreed to the AFL demand for a stadium, the Tasmanian government said that it would originally cost $715 million, of which only $375 million would be taxpayers' money, and the Premier famously said that the taxpayer would spend 'not one red cent more'. What's happened since that announcement? For a start, the Tasmanian government hasn't been able to find one single equity investor from the private sector. And why would they? Because a detailed analysis showed that the return on an investment for an investor, whether it be the private or the public sector, would be about 50c in the dollar. No wonder the whole idea of a private investment in this was nonsense from the start.”
“No wonder a clear majority of Tasmanians think this proposal—well, this demand—by the AFL is not needed. They don't want it, and they can't afford it. I make the point repeatedly that we already have two stadiums on which AFL games are played very successfully, and, frankly, they rarely fill. Why they would want a third stadium with only a capacity of 3,000 extra seats beggars belief. The majority of Tasmanians don't want it. There has been poll after poll after poll which has shown clearly that just about everyone in Tasmania wants a team and just about everyone in Tasmania reckons we deserve a team. I mean, we're one of the foundation states when it comes to providing players to the AFL. But a clear majority of Tasmanians don't think we should go ahead with this.”
“The majority of Tasmanians have a monumental grievance right now—that, at the demand of the AFL, Tasmania build a third AFL-grade stadium in a state of about half a million people when we already have two stadiums on which AFL games are played. For a start, there's the very good facility up in Launceston, which has a capacity just shy of 20,000 spectators, and across the river from the electorate of Clark, there's the stadium in Bellerive, which also has a capacity of about 20,000 spectators. So why on earth would the AFL bully the Tasmanian government, and, through it, the Tasmanian community, to build not just a third stadium at beautiful Macquarie Point but a third stadium with a roof? For heaven's sake, why does the AFL insist that Tasmania spend all of that money to have a third stadium at Macquarie with a roof? It beggars belief.”
“My question is to the Attorney-General. Last week, Australian Taxation Office whistleblower Richard Boyle was sentenced after facing a lengthy prosecution for blowing the whistle on egregious wrongdoing in the ATO. His case was, of course, yet another demonstration that our whistleblower protections are deeply inadequate. Minister, exactly when will the government table the necessary amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Corporations Act so that whistleblowers aren't the ones being punished?”
“We know the banks have algorithms to detect and capitalise on just about anything they choose, so either they choose not to identify some suspicious matters or they do identify such things but then wilfully disregard them. And, in any case, they say it's everyone else's fault—not theirs. The Commonwealth Bank sure hasn't been keen to quickly find an acceptable remedy in the cases I've cited. Well, I won't be a party to this, so expect me to have a lot more to say about such matters during the term of this parliament.”
“Australians expect their bank to safeguard their money and to be alert to anything untoward going on. But too often this isn't the case. For instance, just last week, a couple recounted how they'd had $250,000 stolen by a financial adviser, who used the money to gamble. That is of course terrible in itself, but what was more alarming was that the bank, CommBank, thought there was nothing unusual in their account holder, earning maybe $100,000 a year, having his personal account turn over some $10 million on 52 online gambling sites. Last week, I also learned of a CommBank low-income customer who'd been loaned money repeatedly, even though it was obvious that the funds were mostly going to gambling companies and payday lenders. Good grief, what is going on here?”
“I note that the comment was withdrawn, but I don't think we should be so quick to—I wasn't doing so, but I don't think other honourable members should have been so quick to jump on the member for Ryan for floating the idea that there's an element of racism here. I put the question back to my colleagues. It's a genuine question. Would we be reacting the same way if this group of people had come from other countries? Admittedly, a lot of the other countries would take people back and would accept them being sent back, but not all. If these people in this cohort had come from other countries, would the government or the community have the same emotional response to this? I think it's a question that needs to be explored.”
“In fact, I'd liken it to a form of colonialism that we even think we have the right to ask the Nauruan government to take these people and that we are able to bring such financial force to bear to effectively force them to take these people. I'm reminded of a previous life more than 20 years ago now. I remember reading a cable that came back to Canberra from our top diplomat or one of the diplomats in Nauru, and the cable explored all of the money and the assistance that we were pouring into Nauru. I can still remember the last sentence of that cable from more than 20 years ago, and it said, 'We have bought Nauru.' And you know what? We're doing exactly the same again. I think it is a form of colonialism. I also want to pick up on the point that the member for Ryan made. The member for Ryan, I think bravely, raised the issue of racism.”
“The government's in a hole, so it's going to throw, over a few years, about $2 million of Australian taxpayer money at each of these approximately 280 people. That's an appalling misuse of public funds. That should alarm us. Even the people who want to be rid of this cohort of people should at least be worried about how we're spending this money, and we're going to be giving it to a country which, when I look at a recent Transparency International report—they surveyed Nauruans, and 50 per cent of Nauruans surveyed said that they thought the Prime Minister and the officials in the Nauruan government are likely to be involved in corruption. But yet we're going to hand over $400 million in year 1 and, I think, $70 million every year after that for, presumably, as long as any of this cohort of people are living in Nauru. That's appalling.”