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 6 of 7.
“It doesn't apply to the United States. It doesn't apply to Israel. It doesn't apply to Australia. It only applies to the countries that we want it to apply to. That is completely and utterly unacceptable, and that should worry us a lot. We should be the first country in the world, as an important middle power, to be advocating for international law and the rule of law, which have served this country so, so well ever since the end of the Second World War. The other point I'll make is how this stands to be such a gross misuse of public funds. For a group of about 280 people, for there to be a political fix—let's face it: the government's in a hole. They've got to do something about this cohort. They're not getting much cooperation from the opposition, who sees everything through the prism of political opportunity.”
“I was very pleased that the member for Indi spoke about international law, and that's where I'll start my contribution. If this bill becomes law, Australia will be in clear breach of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome statute was a statute agreed upon by our predecessors in this place and ratified by our predecessors in this place when they agreed that the forced removal of someone to a third country is a crime against humanity. That might sound a bit overly dramatic, but that's what we are contemplating today—to bring into law something that would have Australia stand guilty of crimes against humanity. This is another case of where we think that international law only applies to countries like Russia or China or Syria or Iran and that international law doesn't apply to good countries like us.”
“Much has been said and written about the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, and I applaud my crossbench colleagues for doing a much better job than I would ever be able to do to explore particularly the legal dimensions of the bill. It is entirely understandable that the speeches that have been given by my colleagues have been needed, because this bill would be a fundamental departure from how Australian law currently operates by removing the right to natural justice. That we would even contemplate that, let alone have a bill before us, beggars belief and diminishes our country. But, because my colleagues have spoken at such length about such matters, I actually want to focus on some other dimensions of this that are perhaps a bit more gritty.”
“In closing, I call on the government to increase brain cancer research funding and to commit to sustainable investment in the sector. They must also prioritise dedicated clinical care and support services, and they should expand access to clinical trials. Thousands of families like Abbey's are relying on the government to do better. We must not let them down.”
“Well, it hasn't flown under my radar, thanks to the passionate efforts of Janine and other advocates, and the fact is that, in regional areas like Tasmania, the burden is even heavier. For instance, families are often forced to travel interstate for care or clinical trials. Many navigate fragmented systems, disconnected records and inconsistent financial support. They fight battles on every front, whilst always being aware of how precious each remaining day is with their loved ones. Brain cancer may be rare, but its impact is not. We should honour those like Abbey and her family, and to that end I implore all parliamentarians to attend the annual Brain Tumour Alliance Australia event, Head to the Hill, on the lawns of parliament on 28 October and to meet with those people directly impacted.”
“In fact, each year around 2,000 Australians are diagnosed with brain cancer, and fewer than one in four will survive five years, making brain cancer one of the deadliest diseases in Australia. Indeed, it claims more lives than our roads and kills more children than any other illness and more adults under 40 than any other cancer. But, while research into immunotherapy and precision treatments is advancing, still too many Australians miss out. Unfathomably, brain cancer receives less than five per cent of total cancer research funding and consistently misses out on adequate federal funding for dedicated brain tumour nurse specialists nationally. Perhaps this is because the burden of the disease is not well understood and the marked level of disability associated with these tumours flies under the radar.”
“I recently met with Justine, the mother of Abbey, who was a bright, adventurous 10-year-old from Tasmania who was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a highly aggressive brain tumour. Abbey was in grade 4. She loved animals, had a wide circle of friends and dreamed of finding good homes for rescue dogs. That became her wish through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. But, despite two brain surgeries and countless procedures, Abbey passed away at just 11 years old, at home in her parents' bed, in June last year. Abbey's story is obviously devastating, and her parents, sisters, family and friends grieve daily. I also met with advocates and the Chair of the Australian Brain Tumour Collaborative, and in this meeting I heard that, while Abbey's story is devastating, it is far from unique.”
“Surely, it's now the responsibility of all of us in power to transparently get on and relentlessly challenge misogyny, victim blaming and discriminatory practices wherever they thrive. Frankly, the burden and responsibility of reform needs to shift from victims-survivors. Yes, their voices and lived experiences must be central, but it's the job of decision-makers to take responsibility for driving structural reform and cultural transformation and restoring systems that have failed too many for far too long.”
“Does the Tasmanian state government even understand the simple premise that healing cannot happen on scraps and good intentions? Clearly not. What's also needed is our schools, workplaces and institutions proactively reshaping the environments they operate in to support our most vulnerable. Institutional transparency and accountability is fundamental, and every level of government needs to work towards more flexible and adaptive systems. Moreover, every service that victims-survivors go to for support must be built on trauma informed practices and guided by lived-experience advocates. Finally, we need to stop waiting for a crisis to motivate change. Surely, enough victims-survivors have shared their trauma already to ensure that we know how to improve the future.”
“The reality is that the systems and supports created decades ago for those seeking refuge or healing from violence are now under-resourced and overwhelmed by the growing demand, demand which is driven by welcome cultural awareness and societal change but which still needs corresponding investment. It is patently outrageous, for example, that women's legal service lawyers are paid less than lawyers in community legal centres. What's more, organisations are calling out for stability because, quite simply, to plan effectively and adapt their services, they require adequate funding and long-term contracts. This need for long-term investment is especially urgent in Tasmania, which has the second-highest rate of sexual violence in the country yet receives the lowest state government funding contribution to domestic, family and sexual violence.”
“Instead, victims-survivors confront systems that are ill prepared to receive them or, in fact, turn against them. For instance, income and child support systems become weaponised, and AI and digital technologies are used to track and harass. It is no wonder legal, counselling and emergency support services are increasingly stretched to breaking point in their attempt to simply meet demand. Even in the here and now, I hear stories of women who spoke up but were then met with systems that are too often retraumatising, while young people under 18 often have no clear pathway whatsoever to seek help if they are experiencing domestic or intimate partner violence.”
“It could be that the solutions are so universally agreed upon that it no longer needs public discussion, but history doesn't give me confidence, and the costs of complacency are much too high. Remember, as recently as 2024, police reporting showed 644 sexual assault cases and over 5,600 family violence incidents in Tasmania alone. We know, sadly, that cases like these are under-reported, so the true numbers are certainly even higher. With all the inquiries, declarations and statements about ending violence against women and children within a generation, I think we are hopeful that, when someone finds the courage to speak out against violence in 2025, they would be met with support and care and that speaking up would mark the beginning of safety and healing. But, sadly, this is still often not the reality.”
“Our country continues to be shaken by revelations of systemic and institutional abuse against women and children. Stories continue to surface in our childcare centres, our armed forces, our schools, our aged-care facilities and our homes. This fact should be deeply uncomfortable for us and a constant reminder that, while countless hours have gone into royal commissions, inquiries and strategies to end this epidemic of violence, we cannot afford to lose momentum. For instance, in Tasmania, the inquiry into child sexual abuse in institutions laid bare a harrowing history of suffering. The testimony from victims-survivors, whistleblowers and advocates was courageous and confronting. Yet this issue and the resulting recommendations for change were noticeably thin on the ground in the lead-up to the recent 2025 Tasmanian election.”
“My question is to the Minister for Financial Services. Minister, the insurance industry is failing Australians. For instance, health insurance premiums are sky-high, but returns to policyholders are at rock bottom, while payments to private hospitals are, in fact, still so bad that many are in financial distress or closing. Meanwhile, for property insurance, premiums are going through the roof, and vast areas are being declared uninsurable. Minister, what exactly is the government doing about this?”
“Yes, about six months ago, the Minister for Health and Aged Care promised to hold the industry to account and said there would be consequences if they didn't lift payments—but they haven't. Instead of cracking down, the government is covering up, and that's simply not good enough. The situation won't change until the government puts in place serious guardrails, like requiring a minimum ratio of benefits to premiums and a coherent system of judging what each patient's treatment ought to cost so hospitals aren't able or forced to cherrypick their patients, as is happening currently.”
“Private hospitals are in crisis, and that's in no small part due to the health insurance industry. Now, the minister says insurers are increasing payments to private hospitals, but the hospitals say this claim is based on false data, dodgy analysis and accounting tricks, like double counting and padding the numbers out with things that don't even go to the hospitals—in other words, smoke and mirrors designed to make insurers look good. And, all the while, patients are being slugged with higher premiums for less care, and some hospitals are financially distressed and facing closure. But at the same time the health insurance companies—in particular, the for-profits—are doing very nicely indeed, thank you very much. A cynic might even say they're laughing all the way to the bank.”
“I'd also like to acknowledge Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne—who will be moving a corresponding bill in the Senate today, I think, and who will join me shortly in a media event to discuss our reforms—and Liam Dunn from my own team, who did much of the legwork to get us to this point. To conclude, my crossbench colleagues and I are ready and keen to work with the government to ensure robodebt never happens again. Hence I urge the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Government Services, the Prime Minister and, in fact, all members of this House to finally come together at the table for legislative reform to ensure such catastrophic failures of social services administration can never happen again. In my remaining time, I invite the member for Indi, who is seconding the bill, to make a few comments.”
“Not only does this bring social security debts back into line with other debts, it would also go quite some way to addressing the decades of illegally raised debts which were the subject of the recent Federal Court decision on income apportionment. This bill has been drafted in close consultation with Economic Justice Australia, which is the peak body for community legal centres providing specialist social security legal services. Alarmingly, these legal services continue to see the harm and distress caused by Centrelink debts and observe that this will continue so long as the government continues to sit on its hands and not bring about appropriate legislative change.”
“This includes requiring certain automated decisions, which are likely to have the most distressing impact on people, to be reviewed by a real person before coming into effect. And it requires any decision made by a computer program to be flagged as such to people and to have clear instructions on seeking further information or review. Furthermore the bill makes changes to debt waiver provisions to better provide for Services Australia to waive a debt where it was raised, either as a result of an administrative error made by the Commonwealth or incurred because of family and domestic violence circumstances, including cases of coercive control. The bill also implements the clear recommendation of the royal commission that a six-year limit be reinstated on debt recovery.”
“There's also a duty to explain processes in clear terms and plain language so that people can find out what is required and expected of them, and, just as importantly, what is expected of Services Australia. Moreover there's a duty to act with sensitivity to financial and other stressors, and where possible to avoid actions which exacerbate these stressors. It's all simple stuff, but for some reason it's been missing in the legislation to date, and that's what this bill will remedy. Now of course the 'robo' in robodebt referred to the use of computer programs and other forms of automation. So, importantly, this bill also includes new legislated guidelines for how automation is used and overseen by Services Australia.”
“There's also a duty to avoid language and conduct which causes unnecessary stigma and shame for recipients of government support. This is a particularly important counter to decades in which governments, the media, and plenty of others demonised and used welfare recipients as policy punching bags. Moreover there's a duty to ensure sensitive, easy and efficient engagement with Services Australia in person, over the phone, or online, which I'm sure would be welcome news to anyone who's tried to get in touch with Centrelink to do even the most basic task, particularly when they're then directed to a phone line which rings for hours only to hang up.”
“And so that's what this bill aims to do: to improve and expand the principles and duties contained in social security law in line with the royal commission recommendation relating to the effects of robodebt on individuals, and to make other changes to the social security law to align with recommendations on compliance activities and vulnerability, automated decision-making, and debt recovery and collection practices. In particular, a large part of the bill aims to give effect to recommendation 10.1, that Services Australia should design policies and processes with emphasis on the people they are meant to serve. And it does this by inserting, within social security law, improved principles and duties for the secretary in administering that law.”
“Well, maybe not all, seeing as many members of the former LNP government don't seem to have any or many regrets about the whole sorry saga. It's also now better understood that, while the core of the scheme was found to be unlawful, many legitimate aspects of social security legislation did also encourage the situation to arise and supported it continuing unexamined for so long. No wonder the core of the royal commission's findings was the simple fact that government services need to return to providing Australians access to an effective income support system and to ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity when they do so.”
“Indeed, the possibility for human tragedy under this scheme was made clear to me and my office as early as 2016 when, after hearing from many distressed constituents who had received frightening and unfounded debt notices, I was among the first to raise the alarm, with the media, with the Ombudsman and with the government. But, while the media were slow to pick it up, and the then government didn't want to hear it, my office continued to hear countless shocking stories from my electorate in Tasmania, and indeed right across the country. In one memorable case, a person presented to my office so distressed that they curled up into a ball on the floor in my waiting room and broke down in tears, having a panic attack. Of course, all now agree that robodebt was a shameful chapter in Australia's history.”
“As the royal commissioner herself noted, it was 'a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals.' Moreover, two years ago, the Prime Minister himself described robodebt as 'a gross betrayal and a human tragedy' which 'should never have happened and should never happen again.' But, it turns out, so far at least, that this was just paying lip service to the matter, which is troubling because it's entirely at odds with the tragic impacts of robodebt on thousands of Australians, especially those who suicided at least in part due to the financial and emotional devastation inflicted by the scheme and the impact on their friends and their family.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The community has been waiting over two years now for the federal government to enact significant legislative reform following the final report of the royal commission into robodebt. But, to their shame, the government has failed to do so, and this bill seeks to remedy that. Now, I do acknowledge that the government has made some efforts and made some progress, particularly on cultural change within Services Australia. But we simply can't accept this as job done because still missing is the legislative change to ensure that robodebt never happens again. Remember, robodebt was a catastrophic failure of government administration that destroyed the lives of thousands of Australians.”
“But, of course, neither is the right approach, because Australia surely needs tradies, carers, artists and other critical and creative thinkers every bit as much as it needs engineers, doctors and teachers. Indeed, there is an inherent value to the community of a broad education, and the fact is that a smarter, better and more diversely educated community is not only more employable; it's also healthier, happier and more adaptable. All of this is to say that it's beyond time the government acted on the principles they claimed to have just three and a bit years ago and finally addressed access and affordability in the higher education system. A great place to start would be scrapping the Morrison-era Job-ready Graduates scheme and returning to Whitlam-era fee-free first degrees. The country would be all the better for it if they did.”
“This spoke well of our country back then—that we valued education so highly that we prioritised investing in education and in educating Australians. Of course, we could and should extend this approach to early learning through early childhood education and care and into other tertiary education by extending fee-free TAFE to cover all TAFE courses. Sadly, though, the Whitlam-era reforms were, of course, unwound during the 1980s by another Labor government. But back to today. The Job-ready Graduates scheme exemplifies a narrow, individualistic and hard-nosed economic view of education, as does the other, often-touted alternative of setting fees based on future earnings.”
“We already accept that free compulsory primary and secondary education for all students should be provided on the basis that all citizens deserve an equal right to education regardless of their financial capacity. But it shouldn't stop there. I think we should apply that same principle to education across the entire spectrum of learning. In other words, higher education shouldn't be in some esteemed class of its own. This is why I have long called for a return to fee-free first degrees for Australian citizens. I'd hoped such an approach would find favour with the current federal government, because it was, of course, the Whitlam federal Labor government that introduced fee-free degrees in the 1970s.”
“If you ask me, that should come with a re-examination of our attitudes and approach to education across different stages of life. At the moment we don't look at education holistically, choosing instead to adopt a fragmented approach to early childhood education, primary and secondary education and tertiary education. Even within the tertiary sector, we've got fragmented approaches to vocational education and university education. Frankly, somewhere along the line we lost sight of the inherent value of knowledge and that learning is a continuum, and that education is inherently a public good and, for that matter, a human right. In other words, it doesn't start at age four and finish at age 16 or 18; it starts the moment you're born and extends to the moment you die. It's not hard to find the basis for a different approach.”
“So imagine the subsequent frustration among students, parents and many others in the community that, after three years in power and almost two years since the Universities Accord final report, this Labor government has yet to repeal and replace this appalling scheme. Yes, the government have made welcome steps in reducing student debts, which have been ballooning rapidly, but what they seem to not understand is: you wouldn't need to forgive student debts if you hadn't loaded students up with mountains of it in the first place. If the government doesn't act to address the fee structure, the problem will only re-emerge again for students in a few years time. In other words, the one-off cut to student debt is really just a bandaid on a bullet wound. It's clear, I suggest, that we need a return to first principles.”
“Australia is one of the richest countries in the world, and it's more than capable of ensuring that higher education is accessible and affordable for any Australian with the desire and aptitude to pursue it. Unfortunately, though, that's not what successive governments have chosen to do. In fact, the previous coalition federal government chose to drastically increase the cost of degrees in the arts and humanities, in particular, with the jobs-ready graduates scheme—a scheme which was rightly criticised at the time by the then Labor federal opposition as being inequitable and damaging.”
“I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) when the previous Government introduced the Jobs Ready Graduates Scheme, many students, education experts, universities, and members of the then Opposition criticised the scheme as an inequitable and damaging attack on students, and on the humanities and social sciences in particular; (b) the subsequent Australian Universities Accord final report found the Jobs Ready Graduate Scheme had been a policy failure and an expensive impost on students, and recommended it be replaced with a more equitable funding arrangement; and (c) despite three years in power and 18 months since the Universities Accord Report, the current Government has failed to act in the best interests of students and has left the Jobs Ready Graduates Scheme in place; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) urgently repeal the Jobs Ready Graduate Scheme; and (b) implement a return to fee-free first degrees for Australian citizens.”
“However, those are reasons not to abandon our support for international law but, rather, to demonstrate consistency in the ethical standards we hold, and to work harder together to prove its principles and its application. In the end, international law is based on cooperation around the fundamental principles of justice and accountability that protect us here in Australia and, indeed, protect billions of people right around the world.”
“But it hasn't had the guts, most of the time, to also apply it to Israel and the US. And Australia has been willing to break international law itself—for instance, when we helped invade Iraq in 2003 and every time we turn around, lock up and send offshore the many asylum seekers desperate for our protection. Mind you, it's always open to us to start doing better, and I suggest that immediately recognising the state of Palestine would be a solid start. I'm clear-eyed about the issues with the international rules based order and the criticism it faces for things like an ineffective UN Security Council and problems with enforcement.”
“Adherence to international law also limited the testing and proliferation of nuclear weapons and ensured they have not been used in any conflict since World War II. It has also served to elevate the importance of fundamental human rights across the globe. Moreover, international law guides international trade and telecommunications, which have helped make Australia one of the wealthiest nations and ensured we're connected and engaged across the globe. But, more and more recently, it seems Australian governments believe that, when it comes to our friends, might makes right but that a rules based order should apply to everyone else. For instance, the government will rightly call for international law to apply to China in Tibet, the South China Sea and Taiwan, to Russia and Ukraine, and to Iran in their nuclear program.”
“We should be alarmed at the federal government having mostly shrugged off breaches of international law in its reaction to Israel's genocide in Palestine, and at it ignoring international law completely in its approval of the US bombing of Iran. The federal opposition's mocking of the defenders of international law as 'misty-eyed nostalgics' is no better. After all, international laws anchors 80 years of relative postwar peace and prosperity, and Australia undermines it at its own peril. While it's certainly isn't perfect, international law does work to constrain the worst excesses of power and geopolitical competition. It also attempts to elevate and equalise the rights of all nations and, indeed, of all people. In particular, the rules based order saw the international community deal effectively with the hole in the ozone layer.”
“My question is to the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Minister, I've now met many allied health professionals who are concerned that the recently reviewed NDIS pricing structure, including cuts to travel and remote area rates, risks the supply of essential services in rural, regional and remote markets like Tasmania. Minister, will you pause these changes and properly consult with all concerned to ensure price settings are affordable for NDIS clients and sustainable for allied health professionals?”
“So Liberal and Labor must stop insisting that only majority government is okay and that the crossbenchers are just wreckers and roadblocks. It's simply not the case. Indeed, it's a lie because the crossbench vote shows that they are not fringe players but central to the operation of the Tasmanian parliament. In other words, it's time for Liberal and Labor to pull their heads out of the sand and to face the reality of power sharing. Anything less will show contempt for the long-suffering Tasmanian community.”
“Last Saturday, Tasmanians returned to the polls for the second time in 16 months. It was an election nobody wanted and an outcome nobody thinks was worth the disruption and cost. Hanging over the fiasco was, of course, the state's dire financial situation, because there are less than 600,000 people in Tasmania and we're facing a debt of roughly $13 billion by 2028—and that's despite the chronic underinvestment in our busted health and education systems, not to mention the appalling housing crisis and choking traffic congestion. But at least one thing is clear after the poll, where the Independents enjoyed a surge in their vote and no major party secured even close to a majority, and that is that the community expects all of those elected to grow up and, this time, make a parliament work.”
“My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In July, two vessels reportedly docked in Botany Bay, with some 175,000 tonnes of petrol from the Jamnagar refinery in India, which uses up to 55 per cent Russian oil. So these vessels effectively carry some 90,000 tonnes of Russian sourced petrol, paid for by Australians, which will help fund Putin's war in Ukraine. Why are the loopholes in our sanctions so big you can drive a tanker through them?”
“It's just breathtaking. It's absolutely breathtaking. It makes a complete mockery of everything that people say when they're wringing their hands and talking about the environment and how good they are on the environment, saying, 'If you care about the environment, you've got to vote for the Labor Party.'”
“If anyone comes in here later today to vote for this bill and claims they're a friend of the salmon industry, they're the complete opposite, because, one day, the salmon industry will be on its knees, and the people who support this bill will be the ones to blame. Let me talk about the maugean skate for a moment longer, and I proudly wear a little decoration of the maugean skate on my lapel. It is one of the most historic species on the planet. It is a remarkable creature. It survived for millions of years—millions of years. So what does it make of all this talk about us dealing with the extinction crisis? When we come in here and we're going to vote on this, seemingly the government, maybe with the opposition—hopefully they will see sense and oppose it—are going to knowingly vote to make one of the oldest species on the planet extinct.”
“It's a curious thing that the people who are trying to do, in their minds, the right thing by the salmon industry by effectively carving it out from the EPBC Act—what they're actually doing is hastening the demise of the industry, and I'll tell you why. The salmon industry in Tasmania is an important economic driver. It is a significant employer, and I actually support it. I actually want it to survive and achieve its full potential. But it will only achieve that potential if it is transparent, if it's very carefully regulated and if it's put on a genuinely sustainable footing. Leaving it in Macquarie Harbour to kill off maugean skate is not putting it on a sustainable footing. What it's doing is just trashing the industry's reputation even further and hastening its demise.”
“It's a matter for the Labor Party, but it does call into question the integrity of the Labor Party when it's putting Tassal, Huon and Petuna ahead of the grassroots membership of that party. What about the environment minister? I've got a lot of respect for the current environment minister, and none of my comments are directed at the member for Sydney. In fact, I feel a certain sympathy for the member for Sydney because she's been so ruthlessly sidelined and was made to come in here and read out that speech that she read out earlier today. You could just look at the expression on her face. It was like she was talking while simultaneously sucking on the most bitter lemon this country has ever produced. That is no way to treat a frontbencher. What about the industry itself?”
“Since when are less than 100 jobs in Strahan as important as they are? Since when are those jobs more valuable than dealing with the extinction crisis? Of course, we must do everything in our power to deal with the extinction crisis. For this parliament to be in the process of legislating killing off one of the planet's most prehistoric species—to knowingly do it with legislation like this—can't be described as anything less than egregious environmental vandalism. What about the groundswell of dissent within the ALP? You can't tell me there are not a lot of good hearted, intelligent ALP backbenchers who are in barely silenced revolt at the moment. What about them?”
“It was just patent nonsense, and it disappoints me because the member for Grayndler is better than that. I know he's much better than that, and he diminishes himself when he comes in here and says such absolute nonsense. The severity of what this parliament is in the process of doing cannot be underestimated. It will be a complete failure of governance. What happened, for heaven's sake, to the promise by the Labor party in the lead up to the last election that, if elected, it would strengthen our environmental framework? It turned out to be just a con job. What about public opinion? What about the fact that the vast majority of Tasmanians, when polled, want the salmon industry kicked out of Macquarie Harbour because of the environmental damage it's doing and the fact that it has helped take the maugean skate to the edge of extinction.”
“This country already has weak environmental laws, and, if the parliament passes this bill, they will be even weaker, because it means that, starting with the salmon industry and Macquarie Harbour on the West Coast of Tasmania but extending to perhaps hundreds of projects that were given the go-ahead more than five years ago and which have been in operation ever since on a continual basis, none of them can ever be reviewed by any future environment minister or any future government. For the Prime Minister to come in here in question time today, to ridicule the crossbench and to claim that you must vote for the Labor Party if you care about the environment is just absolutely ridiculous! Is the member for Grayndler the Prime Minister or the 'Propaganda Minister'?”
“Let's be perfectly clear about this fact; if the parliament legislates today and tomorrow to give exemptions from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to projects and industries, it will be one of the most egregious acts of environmental vandalism this parliament has ever been responsible for. In fact, I would say it would be second only to the Abbott government removing the price on carbon in late 2013. The enormity of what this parliament is doing here cannot be underestimated.”
“My question is to the housing minister. Minister, in 2023, National Cabinet agreed on nine reforms under A Better Deal for Renters. However, both the national shelter and the tenants union note that in Tasmania the state government is currently not pursuing six of the nine agreed reforms. Why is the Tasmanian government being allowed to slow-walk these agreed reforms, and will the federal government finally inject some urgency into nationally consistent protections for renters?”