Sam Birrell
Nicholls · National Party · Australia
“They will put it maybe in New South Wales, Western Australia or Queensland, but they won't even consider Victoria. The taxes, the government interference and now this proposed work-from-home legislation just mean that Victoria is not an option.”
“The Mitchell Shire Council has identified the Kilmore-Wallan Bypass as one of the highest advocacy priorities, but the project has been languishing for years. The bypass is essential to improve safety, reduce congestion and return the historic town centre to local residents and businesses.”
“As I've often said in this place, it's a great privilege to represent the electorate of Nicholls in northern Victoria, one of the great food-producing parts of Australia. Recently, I had the great honour to go to a place called Legacy Packing in Cobram for the official relaunch of their state-of-the-art packing facility.”
“As at the last election, the AEC boundary changes meant that the town of Kilmore came into the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Nicholls, and Kilmore is one of the oldest inland towns in Australia. It's a beautiful place. It has bluestone buildings, a historic jail and a monument to Hume and Hovell.”
“A major agribusiness operator in northern Victoria who operates very successfully has told me: 'We're doing no more investment in Australia. The government's making it too hard.”
“We've also got high-tech investment in the dairy industry and the apple and pear industry and we have some new investments in the processing facility SPC, which is an iconic brand in Australia that processes peaches, pears, apples and also tomatoes.”
The complete record
Every one of 590 lines we hold for Sam Birrell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 12.
“In its submission to the 2023 inquiry into the operation of Commonwealth freedom of information laws conducted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the Law Council of Australia expressed a strong view that the transparency afforded to the FOI scheme through the FOI Act is critical to the effective operation of the administrative law system and, more broadly, to the integrity of Australia's democratic institutions. What did the Law Council say about the bill?”
“The bill changes the exemption for cabinet documents from those created or submitted for the 'dominant purpose' of going to cabinet to those created for 'substantial purpose'. This widens the scope for withholding documents and may lead to even more claims of cabinet confidentiality. In the bill, there'll also be a stricter deliberative document test. The amendments clarify and potentially narrow access to documents that relate to deliberative processes. What does that mean? Well, it makes it easier to withhold records of internal discussions and advice. This bill doesn't free up information; it just locks it up tighter.”
“Agencies can gain broader powers to reject requests deemed vexatious, abusive or frivolous, including those considered an abuse of process. These powers may allow government departments to refuse more requests on subjective grounds. I'll just go back to that: reject requests deemed vexatious, abusive—and I don't really have a problem with those two words, but 'frivolous'? What's the meaning of frivolous? The meaning of frivolous is to not have any sensible, serious purpose or value. Who decides what has serious purpose or value? There will be a 40-hour processing cap, so a discretionary limit is placed on the time agencies must spend processing a request, allowing them to stop work once the cap is reached, even if disclosure is in the public interest. There's broader cabinet document exemptions.”
“Firstly, there's a ban on anonymous requests. This bill prohibits anonymous FOI applications, requiring all applicants to declare their identity. This eliminates the ability for whistleblowers—who may be in fear for various reasons—or vulnerable individuals to request documents without revealing themselves. There are also mandatory application fees. This bill introduces a fee for lodging an FOI request, except for those seeking their own personal information, or waivers in cases of financial hardship. Critics, of which I am one, argue that this will deter both journalists and ordinary Australians from accessing information. It seems like we're entering a period of 'cash for transparency'. There are also expanded agency powers to refuse requests.”
“Now, energy is a critical issue for Australia, and the Australian public deserves to know the truth about Labor's energy transition. They see the outcomes in higher energy bills, but they should also be told the truth about Labor's transition, how it is going, and what advice the minister has received about the cost—the cost of energy being such a critical part of Australia's future prosperity. Instead, we get a briefing paper with massive information gaps. And this bill will make things worse. Under Labor, there's been a surge in FOI refusals. Non-disclosure agreements are used in consultations, the Senate orders for production of documents are flouted, and the Prime Minister cut opposition staffing, making it harder to hold the government to account. These changes have been rightly described as a 'truth tax'.”
“I rise also to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. In describing this bill and what Labor is doing, I think I'd paraphrase a Pink Floyd song called 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond'. My paraphrasing would be: Labor is saying that we'll bask in the shadows of secrecy and concealment, riding on a clandestine dream. With this bill, the Albanese government is trying to dodge scrutiny, and the bill will normalise the use of fees for freedom of information, reducing transparency and accountability. Only last week, we saw a perfect example of the government's love of secrecy. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, under political and public pressure, finally released his incoming government brief. This brief was heavily redacted. In some sections, page after page was completely blank. It was real Watergate-era stuff.”
“The Dismissal was a huge moment in Australian history and, as I said earlier, it's debated. I think the Whitlam government was an iconic government. It did some wonderful things and it governed in an irresponsible way throughout 1975. The Governor-General, whether he was right to act or not—somebody had to break the deadlock so those supply bills could be passed. It's interesting that, when Whitlam was dismissed and went back, he then failed to inform his own team. They still thought they were in government and passed the supply bills to the Senate, not knowing the government had changed. Again, those were crazy times in Australian politics. He was an iconic person, and it was an iconic moment in Australian history. We need to talk about it and celebrate, and I thank you for bringing the motion.”
“You can only imagine how dramatic it must have been for Whitlam to drive out to see Sir John Kerr at Yarralumla, to be handed a letter by Sir John Kerr dismissing him and withdrawing his commission as Prime Minister and then, in the next few moments, to see Malcolm Fraser come into the office and be handed a letter commissioning him to form a government. They were incredible times in Australian democratic history. It's worth noting that people say—and I learned this when I was a kid—that Kerr sacked a democratically elected government, and that's true. However, I think it's worth noting the caveat that Fraser was commissioned to form a caretaker government as long as he promised to call an election, which he did, and that election was won in a significant landslide by the coalition.”
“Anyway, he was forced to sack those two ministers—Jim Cairns and Rex Connor—and that led to the battle of wills between Fraser and Whitlam and the deferral of the money bills, or the appropriations bills, in the Senate. When that couldn't be resolved and Australia was threatened with having a government forced to govern without supply of appropriation money, obviously something had to happen. What happened will be debated for many, many years by constitutional experts and people who have a different view of things.”
“This is where the Whitlam government started to get into trouble with ministers who, with the probably noble intentions of developing Australia's resource sector, had funny ideas about how to finance that, including Rex Connor and Jim Cairns going to try and get a loan from a Pakistani loan broker, Tirath Khemlani, who promised to finance some of these projects from some pretty strange parts of the word. Of course, that was against the convention of the Treasury at the time. The loans affair did eventually start to cause the Whitlam government a lot of problems. It was said of Gough Whitlam, I think, that he was a totally honest and decent man who expected everyone else to be as honest and decent as he was, and that was to his own undoing.”
“There's no doubt the Whitlam government achieved some significant things in modernising Australia, recognising China and having a focus on the arts, and they need to be congratulated for that. Obviously, there was a debate between the two sides of politics leading to a 1974 double-dissolution election, which Whitlam won with a reduced majority but also some very close numbers in the Senate, which was to become such a sticking point as we entered 1975.”
“I want to thank the member for Werriwa for bringing this motion on. It's very exciting for those of us who follow Australian history to talk about this, and it must be a great honour to represent an electorate that had such a significant person in Australian politics as one of its former members. I was seven months old when the dismissal happened. I'll give personal recollections at some point. The 1972 election was a significant moment, when the Whitlam government was elected. It had been 1951 since the coalition had previously governed. One of the notable things about when the Whitlam government came in was a sworn-in ministry of two people—a duumvirate—of Gough Whitlam and Lance Barnard passing a lot of the legislation they'd promised in those first few weeks.”
“When the viability of these industries in Australia is threatened, they don't just stop doing what they're doing; they pack up what they're doing in Australia and they go and do it somewhere else. Emissions stay high, but Australia's economic future is damaged irrevocably. We need a plan which is cheaper, better and fairer.”
“Australia needs an energy plan that is cheaper, better and fairer. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the prosperity of our nation. Energy is the economy, so to ensure the prosperity of our nation, the government needs to focus on making sure that energy is affordable and energy is reliable. This is particularly evident in my electorate of Nicholls, which has significant manufacturing facilities, both for food and for other goods, who are very reliant on energy, both electricity and gas. Those prices are going up significantly. Electricity prices are up by 39 per cent, and gas prices are up by 46 per cent. That threatens the viability of these industries in my electorate and manufacturing industries across Australia.”
“In 2022, the Albanese government went to the election saying it would promote Australian creators on streaming platforms. In 2023, the Albanese government committed to legislating local content quotas for streaming services, with commencement in 2024, but, just like gambling advertisement reforms, nothing has happened in this area to promote Aussie content. I back Australian drama. Get behind it, Labor; we're all watching.”
“Australia has a proud history of locally produced content. Many shows have told great Australian stories. During that golden era of serialised drama on TV, we've had favourites like A T own L ike Alice ; Bodyline , the story of that famous Ashes series; T he Cowra B reakout ; Anzacs ; The Dunera Boys , about the amazing contribution and the prisoner of war camp in Hay. Who could forget the Aussie classic A ll the Rivers R un , filmed on the mighty Murray River at Echuca in my electorate? We watched them all for free on TV. Now we have choice, with endless streaming services. It's changed since you used to stay up and watch Channel 6 or Channel 3, which is all I had. But do we have more Aussie drama to watch? No, we don't.”
“I would just like you to respect and think about the Hamishs, the Matts and the Toms of this world, who do hard jobs, pay tax, create private enterprise, employ people and keep this country going. Don't waste their hard earned dollars.”
“The inputs are going up, and I don't see policies to help bring them down—and energy is a classic example. Energy is the economy. And, as I've said in this place before, renewable energy is good technology. It's great technology. But it needs to be part of a diverse mix in the grid. And, as I've talked about, the Centre for Independent Studies reports that it's good at about 30 per cent, but, when it gets near 60 per cent, prices go up. If prices are going up, businesses can't be competitive. And, if businesses can't be competitive, Hamish, Matt and Tom can't be profitable. And, if they're not profitable, they're not paying tax. And, if they're not paying tax, where's Labor going to get money to hand out and then brag about during question time?”
“We should not create a system where more and more people are reliant on governments distributing taxes to get by. Every day in this place, in question time, all the government seem to do is brag about spending taxpayers' money as if it is theirs, but it was earned by other people. Some of the spending we agree with. Some of it's good. A lot of it's wasteful. Who pays? And how are we looking after the industries that provide us with those tax dollars? Those industries are suffering because, when government spending gets unsustainable and it goes up four times faster than the economy is growing, we get inflationary pressures, and those put more pressure on business. The economic health of this country is in a really difficult place, and the trajectory is not good, because everything's going up.”
“When the government indulges in wasteful spending and threatens private enterprises, I want those opposite to think about Hamish, Matt and Tom and their employees, and all those people paying tax and doing difficult jobs that are essential to Australia's economic prosperity. The philosophy of this government is that everything is free. But nothing is truly free; someone has to pay for it, and often it's the blood, sweat and tears of Australians taking a risk, working incredibly hard in difficult conditions and paying a lot of tax. We should respect those people. Our philosophy is that you grow the economy, and to grow the economy you've got to have a competitive private sector. There needs to be a culture in this country of enabling private industry to thrive and employ people.”
“Hamish pays a lot of tax, and the produce earns a lot of tax for Australia when it's exported. Matt is a fruit grower. He pays a lot of tax. He works really hard, and he barely sleeps during the harvest season. The energy bills for his coolstores, required to run 24/7, are going through the roof. His employee is originally from India. He works long hours, earning good money, to get ahead in his new country, and he pays a lot of tax. Tom is from Gunnedah. He manages an engineering firm that does a lot of work for mining and energy companies. He works seven days a week and endures a lot of stress, with the price of everything going up, and that's been getting a lot worse in the last three years. He pays a lot of tax.”
“In the face of some of the political rhetoric and game playing that goes on, particularly from that side, I want to talk about some real Australians, real people. Hamish is a dairy farmer in my electorate. He gets up at 4.30 every morning and milks approximately 500 cows. In the winter it's icy cold in the dairy. It's dirty. There are a lot of flies in the summer. At 3 pm he gets the cows in and does it all again. It's tough work, but he loves it. He loves producing clean, healthy food for Australia. After the afternoon milking, he goes out again and irrigates his paddocks, sometimes well into the night. Hamish is really worried that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan changes by this government will reduce the amount of irrigation water and push prices up, making dairy farming even more difficult.”
“Again, in my electorate, Melbourne University and Goulburn Valley Health have developed this model to extend health education, and I would like to see that not just in medicine and general practice but also moved into other areas of applied health learning and allied health, such as physiotherapy, nursing and midwifery—the list goes on of the number of students that we can train in regional areas. I'd like to also see that training expanded beyond the Murray-Darling medical school and beyond just medicine. There's so much potential in regional areas for us to train our own. We need to move Commonwealth funded places, to not just have them in the sandstone universities of Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane but also move them out into the regions.”
“The Melbourne University school of rural health at Shepperton is part of the broader Murray-Darling Basin medical school and a fantastic example put together by the previous coalition government whereby students can do an undergraduate Bachelor of Biomedical Sciences in the regions then graduate into a Doctor of Medicine postgraduate degree. In the case of my electorate, this is in the school of rural health at Melbourne University in Shepperton. The first lot of those graduates will graduate at the end of this year, in a few weeks. Those young people are already connected to the community. Many of them have made family connections and bought houses, and they will practise in the regions. It's a great example of moving tertiary access to people in regional, rural and remote areas so that we can grow our own health workforce.”
“Bringing in healthcare professionals from overseas is essential, and this must never be lost in the necessary discussion we should have about migration in Australia. Another way is to attract people from metro areas to regional, rural and remote areas. But then you have to find a way to keep them. I was involved in an effort, before coming into parliament, called the Greater Shepparton Community Connector Program. Working with local government, we were developing a concierge service—it was based on a successful model in Canada—where new employees and their families were connected by a local representative to help them find the schools, housing, interest groups and networks they needed to make their relocation successful. A third way is to grow our own—that is, train people outside metro areas.”
“An example of this is the distribution priority area classification and the limited number of medical bonded doctors and overseas trained doctors available to be deployed into areas of workforce need. This has significantly shrunk under the Albanese government's changes to the Modified Monash Model. Automatic inclusion of MM2 as a district priority area has made an incentive that was previously exclusive to rural and remote towns available to regional centres and, perversely, to some areas that are on the fringe of major capital cities. Along with the distribution of medical professionals, there are three main ways we can increase the numbers in areas outside metro areas: we can recruit from overseas, we can recruit from Australian metro areas into the regions, and we can train people in regional areas.”
“I've observed a consistent shortfall in the health workforce outside metropolitan areas. It's worth noting at this point that regional, rural and remote areas cannot always be lumped into one category. They have their own individual challenges and idiosyncrasies, and the Modified Monash Model has attempted to put a framework around this in order to prioritise areas of most need. This can work well when governments have the ethos of respecting that, but there have been examples lately where there has been an attempt to pay the Modified Monash Model lip service, and I believe this has led—and will continue to lead—to poorer outcomes for people outside regional areas.”
“Last week in Perth I spoke at RMA25, a conference co-hosted by the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, and the Rural Doctors Association of Australia. I spent most of the day listening—I think we could do more listening and less talking as members of parliament—to health professionals from across Australia. This is what I delivered as part of my address. In regional health, good public policy is partnership. And that partnership is really important in the regions. Regional communities are great places to live because people are connected and care for one another. Communities are invested in the health services that they have. Too often those services are very hard won and never taken for granted. But what we do have is workforce challenges.”
“We will continue to work through the Senate inquiry to ensure its implementation strengthens rather than weakens natural justice. Australians deserve a tribunal system that is fair, fast and functional. This bill is a small but important step towards that goal, and I commend this bill to the House.”
“To the government, I say this: stop treating administrative reform as a branding exercise. Australians do not care whether it's called the AAT, the ART or anything else. They care about timely, fair decisions. This bill is a step in that direction, but, without proper leadership and accountability, even the best legislation will fall short. To conclude, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 is not revolutionary. It is belated recognition that the coalition was right all along. It concedes that fast-track, on-the-papers review works, it concedes that Labor's abolition of the AAT was unnecessary, and it concedes that efficiency and fairness can and must coexist. The coalition supports this bill because it is practical, proportionate and consistent with our long-held principles.”
“They announce with fanfare, abolish what works and then quietly adjust back to the coalition's policy when their system collapses. They did it with national security, they did it with infrastructure, and now they are doing it with the tribunal system. The coalition will not oppose Labor when they correct course and adopt the coalition's policies, but Australians deserve a government that gets it right the first time. When the coalition left office, the AAT managed about 67,000 cases efficiently, with clear processes and experienced members. Labor dismantled that framework and replaced it with one that doubled the waiting times and the costs. Now, to repair the damage, they've adopted the very measures they once rejected. That's fine by us because our concern has always been the outcomes, not the ownership.”
“It recommended on-the-papers review for low-risk, high-volume visa streams—and that is precisely what this bill now does. The coalition welcomes the government's long-overdue acceptance of that recommendation, but we will hold them accountable for delivering results, not rhetoric. While we support the bill, we remain cautious about its delegation of power to expand on-the-papers reviews by regulation rather than legislation. Any future extension beyond student and temporary visas should be subject to clear consultation, transparency and disallowance. Parliament, not the executive, should decide when the right to an oral hearing is limited, and we trust that the Senate committee will make sensible recommendations on this point. Labor's approach to reform is familiar.”
“Public confidence in administrative decision-making is falling. Labor promised confidence but has delivered utter confusion. The coalition's vision is clear. First, the review system must be independent and apolitical. Second, it must be accessible and efficient. Third, it must be fair and just, giving every Australian the confidence that decisions are made on merit. This bill moves us closer to that goal. It adopts a coalition idea to restore speed and focus to an overloaded system. Our task is now to ensure that the government implements it, competently and transparently. The Nixon review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system warned that protracted processing times fuel exploitation and undermine integrity.”
“Structural underinvestment has crippled the ART, and unless it is addressed, even the best legislative reforms will struggle to deliver results. The Administrative Review Tribunal itself supports these changes, recognising that mandatory paper based review for relatively simple matters, such as student visa refusals, is essential to clearing the backlog. Some in the legal profession have raised questions about procedural safeguards, and those will be tested through a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. But the broad direction of reform is sound, and the coalition will engage constructively to ensure it succeeds. This bill is one symptom of a much larger pattern. Across government, we see delay, duplication and drift. Freedom of information requests are stalling. Visa processing times have blown out.”
“Behind every tribunal file is a person trying to navigate a complex bureaucracy, a small-business owner appealing a tax ruling, a veteran disputing an entitlement or a student seeking to continue to study in Australia. They all deserve a process that is timely, transparent and consistent. The coalition's support for this bill is about those people. If on-the-papers review means faster, high-quality decisions, that is an outcome worth supporting. There is a financial and regulatory impact. The government claims the bill has no financial impact and minimal regulatory change. That may be technically true, but only because the tribunal must deliver more with the same resources. Labor should not imagine that these legislative changes are a substitute for proper resourcing.”
“It will lead to greater efficiencies of resources for the ART: in staffing, members, tribunal rooms—the list goes on. It's all about ensuring that those matters that do not require in-person hearings are not delayed when there are more efficient means of dealing with them. That is how justice systems everywhere should operate: efficient where possible and detailed where necessary. Labor once called this very approach unfair, and now they rely on it to save their own creation. They accused the former coalition government of denying people their day in court, yet this bill implements the same principle on a much larger scale. The difference is that we designed fast-tracked review, with structure, resourcing and transparency. Labor is adopting it out of desperation, not design. There is a human impact.”
“What matters is that applicants are properly notified and given a reasonable opportunity to respond and that decisions are made impartially on the merits, on a de novo basis, and the bill maintains those safeguards. It simply removes unnecessary formality in cases where the facts are clear, the law is settled and a hearing adds little value. That is the right balance; it is proportionate, responsible reform. Efficiency and fairness are not opposites; they are partners. An overloaded system that leaves people waiting for months or years is not fair; it is failure by delay. As the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied. By embracing the on-the-papers review, the tribunal can direct its limited resources to matters that genuinely need oral examination, while resolving similar disputes promptly.”
“But we do have some concerns about natural justice, and I want to speak about fairness, because that principle of fairness sits at the heart of this bill. The coalition supports the on-the-papers reforms precisely because they preserve procedural fairness, otherwise known as natural justice safeguards, while improving efficiency. The tribunal must still disclose any adverse information and give the applicant a chance to respond. Those who fail to respond will have their case decided on existing material that is entirely appropriate for a system that is drowning in delay. Some have suggested that moving away from oral hearings will reduce fairness, but the coalition rejects that argument. Written review does not mean unfair review.”
“It recommended that visa and student visa reviews be conducted on the papers within set time frames. And we agree. The coalition's position has always been that fairness and efficiency can coexist. On-the-papers reviews are not about denying justice; they are about delivering it sooner. So, about this administrative backlog and its consequences: well, for every student awaiting a decision, there is an education provider waiting for certainty, a university planning its intake, and a community relying on international students to sustain local economies. The longer these cases sit unresolved, the more damage is done to the confidence in Australia's migration system and to our reputation as a reliable education destination. Labor's delays are not just about an administrative issue; they have real-world economic and human consequences.”
“The coalition welcomes these changes, because they mirror what we have long argued for: efficient, proportionate and practical review processes that focus resources where they are most needed. When the system faces an 111,000-case backlog, it makes sense to streamline straightforward cases so that the tribunal can devote time to the complex ones. It's common sense, not politics. Let me be clear: the coalition supports measures that make our review system fairer, faster and more efficient. Before the 2025 election the coalition called for the reinstatement of fast-track review mechanisms for specific visa cohorts, consistent with recommendation 32 of the Nixon review. The Nixon review made clear that the lengthy processing times in the visa system invite abuse by unscrupulous operators.”
“Second, it broadens the tribunal's discretion to decide other matters on written material without a hearing where the issues can be adequately determined in the party's absence. Applicants will still have the opportunity to provide written submissions and to comment on any adverse information before a decision is made. It's a backflip from Labor that is worth welcoming: 10 out of 10 from all the diving judges! Let's be honest: this is a clear reversal of Labor's earlier position. When the coalition introduced fast-track on-the-papers reviews through the Immigration Assessment Authority, Labor condemned the model and pledged to abolish it. Now, under pressure from a stark cold reality, they have quietly adopted the coalition's approach—and that is a good thing.”
“When the former Attorney-General announced the new ART in 2022 he promised a body that would restore trust and speed up decisions. Instead we have an institution that is overwhelmed by work and underwhelmed with staff. This bill is Labor's secret confession that their grand plan has been an unmitigated failure. It is an emergency patch to deal with the tens of thousands of unresolved cases that are now choking the tribunal, especially in the student visa stream, where appeals have risen from about 2,000 to more than 40,000. So, what does this bill do? It has two main elements. First, it makes on-the-papers review mandatory for certain migration cases, starting with student visa refusals and extending by regulation to other temporary visas.”
“When Labor scrapped the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, and replaced it with the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, they claimed the old system was slow, politicised and unfit for purpose. Yet, one year later, the new ART is slower, more expensive and facing the largest backlog in its history, irrespective of its iteration. The case load of the tribunal has ballooned from about 67,000 matters when the coalition left office to more than 11,000 today, and the median time to finalise a case has stretched from 30 weeks to 68 weeks. That is not reform; that is regression. Labor has spent millions rebranding a tribunal that already worked, has dismissed experienced members and has left Australians waiting twice as long for justice. It has been nothing more than a political witch-hunt.”
“I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The bill amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and the Migration Act 1958 to allow the tribunal to decide certain matters without holding an oral hearing; in other words, the bill allows for certain matters to be heard on the papers. At first glance, this appears to be a technical efficiency measure, but in reality it represents an important turning point for the tribunal. After almost two years of rhetoric and senseless rebranding, the Labor government has finally admitted that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal never needed to be abolished and that fast-track, on-the-papers review is essential to restoring confidence in our administrative law system.”
“One moment that stood out to me, that I'd like to share, was a wonderful conversation we had with the inter-parliamentary assembly's secretary-general, who's from Brunei, about enabling more women to be involved in parliaments across the ASEAN area. We were able to share some great examples not only of federal parliament but also of some things that the state parliament—in particular, the Victorian parliament—has done around child care. Australia can be a great example as to the way that parliamentary democracy, particularly across genders, can be enhanced around the world. I think that we were able to do that with our discussions. I echo the comments of the member for Adelaide and thank him for his leadership in the dialogue.”
“I echo the statement made by the member for Adelaide and thank him for leading the delegation to the 45th general assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Vientiane, in Laos. The member for Adelaide represented Australia. I believe we both did. It's very important that we present a united front as Australia on behalf of our parliament. I think that the member for Adelaide and I were able to do that during the discussions we had in the bilateral meetings. It was a very well-facilitated trip, as the member has said. I would like to thank the Australian embassy in Laos for hosting us and looking after us, and I echo what was said previously about Dr Susan Love and her support of the delegation.”
“They have already been described as a government that is not performing well in the area of transparency, and now they seek to put legislation into this place to give them even more cover. We don't think that's a good thing for the Australian people. We don't think that's a good thing for our democracy. The freedom-of-information legislation that's coming in is an example of that, and this Centre for Disease Control is an example of that. Debate interrupted.”
“This is a bill that will make changes in relation to freedom of information legislation and the Biosecurity Act, which are some very, very important pieces of legislation. If we're going to change those, we need some oversight of the parliament, whether it be here in the House of Representatives or in other place. Experts and the public have been denied any opportunity to be heard, and we believe this is unacceptable and another example of a disturbing trend from this government to hide from transparency and accountability. That concern will be echoed in the coming sitting weeks of parliament, when new legislation around freedom of information gets introduced into this place.”
“So the opposition wants to pursue answers to these issues through a Senate inquiry. We're interested in knowing how the CDC, the Centre for Disease Control, will operate. How will it improve pandemic preparedness, and how will it integrate with existing public-health architecture, which I would say already services Australia quite well? It has been set up by governments of all persuasions over a number of years. I think a lot of Australians will share our concerns, but, despite the significance of this legislation and the scope of change—and there are secrecy and privacy concerns—the government has, in the Senate affairs legislation committee, refused to hold a single public hearing of inquiry into the bill.”
“We ranked second in the world for pandemic and epidemic preparedness in the 2021 Johns Hopkins Global Health Security Index. Our pandemic response was described internationally as the gold standard. It was a very, very difficult time for a lot of Australians, but I think the then federal government handled things very well. I wouldn't say the same about the state governments. As a Victorian, I endured some of the failures of the Victorian government. Enhancing our preparedness is a noble goal, but we already have what many would describe as a world-class framework. Now, I'm not saying that that framework can't be improved, but the development of the Centre for Disease Control is a large step, and it requires a lot of thought and a lot of oversight. I don't think we're there yet, and the coalition doesn't think we're there yet.”