Andrew Wallace
Fisher · Liberal National Party · Australia
“Based on that meeting, I worked pretty closely with the former shadow minister for communications David Coleman, and I was the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee when, with the member for Newcastle, we held an inquiry into protecting the age of innocence.”
“On 3 January 2018, Dolly Everett passed away at the age of 14. She was a young woman, a young lady, who had been bullied mercilessly. Sadly, she took her own life as a result of the bullying she encountered on social media. That happened not long into my parliamentary term in this place.”
“Later, in June 2024, the then opposition leader Peter Dutton pledged that a coalition government would implement a ban on social media for under-16s within 100 days of taking office. The Labor government did not introduce a bill to protect under-16s from social media until 12 months after we introduced our private member's bill.”
“It was the coalition that consistently led the charge on the protection of children. We actually set up the eSafety Commissioner—and what we now know, from the eSafety Commissioner herself, is that 70 per cent of children are still on social media as a result of this government's flawed legislation.”
“The continuity, the trust and the prevention that a good family GP, like my doctor in Maroochydore, provides cannot be replicated by a clipboard and a six-minute timer. That is where the human cost begins to accumulate. Bulk-billing has collapsed under this government, no matter what those opposite say or how they try and spin it.”
“For decades, Commonwealth governments, including coalition governments, have used health incentive payments to support quality care, to encourage digital health adoption, to sustain general practice in aged-care settings and to keep doctors working in rural and remote communities, where the economics of medicine are hard and the distances…”
The complete record
Every one of 667 lines we hold for Andrew Wallace, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 14.
“Yes, they can be a pain in the backside at times, but journalists play an important role in exposing wrongdoing, scrutinising governments and informing the public about matters of public interest. Freedom of the press must also exist alongside national security responsibilities. There is a very important difference between legitimate public-interest journalism and the reckless disclosure of highly classified information that could endanger lives or compromise security operations. This parliament must always maintain that distinction carefully and responsibly. While many offences are being removed, the legislation still preserves criminal liability for particularly sensitive categories of information, including census data, healthcare information, commercial information and patent information.”
“The focus should always remain on genuinely harmful conduct that undermines public trust or national security. These reforms also deal extensively with journalists and press freedom. We're honoured to have some of the Attorney-General's public servants in the chamber with us today, who, I might say, work very hard for the Commonwealth, and I thank them for their service. This bill introduces a requirement that the Attorney-General approve prosecutions against journalists or media staff before proceedings can continue for secrecy offences. The coalition supports a strong and independent media because a free press is absolutely fundamental to a healthy democracy.”
“Another significant aspect of these reforms is the expansion of secrecy obligations to persons providing services to the Commonwealth, including unpaid service providers in some circumstances. This reflects the reality of modern government, where governments increasingly rely on contractors, consultants, advisory panels and external expertise. Many people outside what we would consider the traditional public service now have access to highly sensitive government information. Where individuals are entrusted with that information, obligations should follow that access. Equally, these laws must be applied carefully, proportionately and fairly. Australians should not fear criminal liability for innocent mistakes or technical administrative issues where there is no harmful intent.”
“Australians were rightly angered by the revelations involving confidential Treasury information being misused by consultants and private firms. That conduct damaged confidence in government processes and raised serious concerns about integrity and accountability. Australians expect integrity from those entrusted with sensitive information, whether they are public servants, consultants, contractors or advisers, and Australians rightly expect governments to act when that trust is breached. This legislation attempts to address some of the gaps exposed by those events. If privileged Commonwealth information is exploited for private gain, confidence in our entire system of government is undermined. Public trust in institutions is something we should never take for granted in this country.”
“Frankly, most Australians would assume this type of offence already existed. Australians expect that, if someone entrusted with sensitive information abuses that information for personal advantage, there should be serious consequences. The proposed offence specifically targets intentional misuse of information where somebody improperly uses or communicates information to obtain a benefit or cause detriment to another person or Commonwealth entity. Importantly, this offence is narrower and more targeted than the existing broader framework. It focuses on deliberate wrongdoing and genuinely harmful conduct rather than technical administrative mistakes. I think most Australians would see that as a reasonable and proportionate approach.”
“That reason is protecting Australia's national interest and maintaining public confidence in government institutions because some information, if improperly disclosed, can cause significant harm—harm to national security, harm to law enforcement operations, harm to Australians' privacy, harm to commercial-in-confidence matters and harm to public trust in government itself. Australians expect their governments to handle sensitive information responsibly. That expectation is entirely reasonable. Once public confidence in the handling of sensitive information is lost, it is incredibly hard to get it back. One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is the creation of a new targeted secrecy offence relating to the improper use or communication of Commonwealth information for personal gain or to cause detriment.”
“The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that many secrecy provisions no longer require criminal liability because alternative protections already exist. Some offences related to information that is now decades old; some related to agencies or frameworks that don't even exist anymore. Others duplicated protections already available elsewhere in the law. So there is genuine merit in modernising and simplifying parts of the framework. But, while the coalition supports sensible reform, we also believe secrecy laws exist for a very important reason.”
“That is not a small administrative tidy up; it is a major restructuring of Commonwealth secrecy laws and how they operate across government. Because of that, this parliament has a responsibility to scrutinise these reforms carefully and responsibly. Let me say clearly that the coalition supports the principle that criminal sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct involved. Not every administrative mistake should attract criminal liability. That seems pretty axiomatic. Not every disclosure should result in imprisonment. Where protections can appropriately be maintained through administrative sanctions, disciplinary action or civil remedies, that should be considered by government. It should be considered by this place.”
“That's why these reforms matter and why they deserve the careful scrutiny of this place. The government says these bills are intended to modernise and simplify the Commonwealth secrecy framework. To be fair, there is truth in that assessment. Over many decades, secrecy offences developed across the Commonwealth's statute book in an inconsistent and fragmented way. Different governments introduced different provisions at different times, often for very different purposes. The result has been a framework that became increasingly complex, patchwork, inconsistent and in some areas just simply outdated. The government proposes removing criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation.”
“At the same time, Australians also rightly expect governments to be accountable and not hide behind secrecy unnecessarily. The challenge for this parliament is striking the right balance—especially under this Labor government—between those competing responsibilities. Now, secrecy laws are not always the most headline-grabbing pieces of legislation debated in this chamber, but they are incredibly important to the functioning of good government and public confidence in our institutions, because, when governments fail to protect sensitive information, confidence in our institutions begins to erode. And, when confidence in institutions erodes, democracy itself is weakened. Equally, excessive secrecy can also damage democracy if governments overclassify information or overcriminalise disclosure.”
“The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 deal with an issue that sits right at the heart of responsible government and democratic accountability in this country. They are about how we protect sensitive information, uphold national security, preserve public trust and maintain confidence in our institutions. But they're also about ensuring governments remain accountable, transparent and respectful of democratic freedoms, including freedom of the press. In the modern world, information is power. Governments hold enormous amounts of personal, commercial and national security information. Australians rightly expect that that information is to be protected—it is to be protected responsibly and securely.”
“This is socialism from that lot, the government over there. This is the biggest form of redistribution of wealth in this country since the Whitlam government.”
“But, under the cover of darkness—and not just the cover of darkness—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer consistently said: 'No, there'll be no new taxes on housing. It's not going to happen. How many times have I got to tell you? Fifty times, I've got to tell you it's not going to happen.' Guess what? It's happened. Believe it or not, we cop a lot of you-know-what with the members of the public as politicians. Is there any wonder why, when you have people like the Prime Minister making those solemn promises, looking squarely down the line of the camera and saying, 'It's not going to happen under my leadership.' And then there's a change of heart, and it's sold like this: 'We've had a change of heart because things have changed. There's this intergenerational equity issue.' What a load of rubbish.”
“You know who I feel for today, apart from all those mums and dads that are out there that are really struggling under this government? You know who I feel sorry for? I feel sorry for Bill Shorten, because Bill Shorten would be sitting in his vice-chancellor's office at the University of Canberra and be thinking: 'Why? I tried to do the right thing. I took these policies to the to an election. I took these policies to the people, and they knocked me back.' But this government, under this Prime Minister, learnt their lesson. You've got to give them that much. This government knows that, if you take unpopular policies to the people in an election, then the people will figure you out, and they'll let you know about it.”
“It requires constant vigilance, constant education and constant resolve. Finally, I want to say those numbers again. If I have said anything tonight that distresses people, Kids Helpline is available on 1800551800 or Lifeline on 131114. This bill is one of the most important bills that we will deal with in this parliament, and I do want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for bringing it forward. It's times like this it's good to see the parliament come together for the benefit of this nation.”
“We also acknowledge advocates, including Andrew Carpenter, Madeleine West, Edan van Haren and many others who continued pushing this issue into the national spotlight. Their advocacy exposed a serious injustice in this country. Their persistence brought this bill before the parliament, and parliament should honour that work by passing this bill swiftly. I want to acknowledge the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, which is headquartered in my electorate of Fisher. Bruce and Denise Morcombe have spent two decades turning unimaginable grief into action. Through child safety education, victim support and the Day for Daniel initiative, they have helped protect countless Australian children. Their work reminds us that prevention and justice must go hand in hand, because protecting children is not a one-off legislative task.”
“Again, this is critical because perpetrators should not be able to abuse a child, declare bankruptcy and still preserve their retirement savings while their victims receive nothing. The coalition supports these changes. We believe they are measured, we believe they are proportionate, and, above all, we believe they are just. This reform exists because survivors and advocates refused to let this issue disappear. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary advocacy of survivors, families, lawyers and child protection organisations over many years. That includes organisations such as Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia and the Carly Ryan Foundation.”
“Importantly, this only applies where a court has already ordered compensation. It is not speculative. It is not arbitrary. This is about enforcing lawful court orders that have already been made. The bill allows survivors to seek limited information from the Australian Taxation Office about whether a perpetrator holds eligible superannuation assets. That matters because survivors should not be forced into expensive litigation without knowing whether there are assets capable of satisfying the debt. The bill then allows a court to make a perpetrator contributions release order. That order enables eligible superannuation amounts to be released in order to satisfy the unpaid compensation debt. The bill also ensures that compensation debts relating to child sexual abuse survive bankruptcy.”
“Holding perpetrators accountable should never be political. The Australian parliament should speak with one voice when it comes to rebuking predators and standing with victims-survivors. Under the current law, we've seen situations where perpetrators have been able to boast that their victims would never see a cent of their superannuation. That is appalling, and this bill begins the journey forward to seeing that that does not happen into the future. Enough is enough. This parliament has an obligation to close this loophole. That is why the coalition supports the swift passage of this bill. At its core, the bill creates a court supervised process, allowing survivors of child sexual abuse to access certain superannuation amounts held by a perpetrator where there is an unpaid compensation debt.”
“Imagine going through that process. As a former barrister, I can tell you it is harrowing for even the strongest of individuals. Imagine finding the courage to come forward and make a complaint to police. Imagine enduring what is a very difficult legal process. Imagine having the court believe you and a conviction ensuing, only to discover that the perpetrator has hidden away their assets in superannuation and you are left with nothing. That is the injustice that this bill seeks to redress, because superannuation is for retirement; it should never be used as a shield against accountability. This should not be political. This should not be a partisan issue. This should unite the parliament. The protection of children should never be political. Supporting survivors should never be political.”
“An even scarier statistic is that 37.3 per cent of women have experienced child sexual abuse, and 18 per cent of men. These numbers are staggering. They represent millions of Australians carrying trauma that often lasts a lifetime. And it doesn't just impact on them; it impacts upon their siblings and their mums and dads. It even has a generational impact, as the generations go down. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard repeatedly that survivors often experience decades of mental health challenges, including depression, anxiety, PTSD and substance abuse. It impacts on relationships, employment, education, financial security and, of course, physical health. For some survivors, after reliving that trauma in court and obtaining a compensation order, they still receive nothing.”
“I want to acknowledge the work of Daniel Mulino, the Assistant Treasurer, for bringing this bill before the House tonight, and I want to thank him for his leadership in so doing. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, their families and the advocates who fought for this reform for almost a decade. This reform did not happen by accident; it happened because survivors refused to give up. Before speaking to the mechanics of the legislation, I want to speak briefly about the human impact behind it, because these are not abstract statistics; these are lives. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study found that 28½ per cent of Australians—more than a quarter—have experienced child sexual abuse. Let that figure sink in. More than a quarter of our kids have suffered some form of child sexual abuse.”
“Under the current law, perpetrators have been able to shield assets inside superannuation, declare bankruptcy and avoid paying court-ordered compensation. That is fundamentally wrong. A compensation order should not become a meaningless piece of paper simply because an offender has found a way to hide their money from the people that they harmed. This bill begins to fix that injustice. While this legislation is before the parliament today under the current government, it's important to acknowledge the long policy history behind it. The coalition began the work on these reforms in 2018, under Kelly O'Dwyer. Consultation papers were released. Stakeholders were engaged. Draft reforms were developed. This legislation builds on that work.”
“We have the opportunity in this country to be able to utilise these tools, yet we don't. We go to the FBI and get their assistance because apparently it offends our privacy laws here in Australia. That madness has got to stop. We have got to acknowledge that we have a huge problem here in this country, and we've got to be utilising every single tool that we can to save children from these child sexual exploitation offences—save the children but also identify these heinous individuals. Victims-survivors and their families have waited far too long for this sort of reform that we're talking about tonight. For too long, Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been weaponised by some of the worst criminals imaginable.”
“Offences were committed against 65 children in South-East Queensland and four children in Italy in 10 different childcare centres. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the good work that was done by Senator Maria Kovacic when she led a Senate inquiry in relation to this very issue of systemic abuse by paedophiles in childcare centres. It is incumbent upon us to listen to people like Jon Rouse, who has spent his professional life trying to identify these heinous individuals. We have an opportunity in this place—and it's for another bill, so I won't go on to it too much—to look at using technology like Clearview AI to be able to identify these people who exist on the dark web. They perpetrate their offences in real life, but then they record it and put it on the dark web.”
“It's about whether the laws of this country stand with survivors of child sexual abuse or whether they continue to allow perpetrators to exploit loopholes to avoid accountability. The coalition absolutely supports this bill. We support it clearly, strongly and without hesitation. Many people will remember a name. That name is Ashley Paul Griffith. Ashley Paul Griffith is a former childcare worker from the Gold Coast. He was sentenced on 2 September 2024 in the Brisbane District Court, where it was alleged that he had perpetrated some 1,623 child sexual offences. He pleaded guilty to 307 of those charges and was imprisoned for life with a 27-year non-parole period. The charges that he pled guilty to included 15 counts of repeated sexual conduct with a child, 28 counts of rape and 190 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16.”
“What I'm going to talk about this evening is going to upset some people, and I just want to give an acknowledgement that, if what I talk about tonight causes you distress, you're able to call Kids Helpline on 1800551800 or Lifeline on 131114. When I was the shadow Attorney-General last year, I worked with a number of people, including Jon Rouse, who was previously with Task Force Argos. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, which Peter Dutton established a number of years ago, identified that there were 82,764 reports of online child sexual exploitation in 2024-25. That's an average of 226 reports each and every single day. Just let those figures sink in: 226 reports of online child sexual exploitation. That's why this bill is so important. The Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 is about justice.”
“So the obvious question becomes this: what specific conduct currently escapes the law that justifies such a dramatic expansion?”
“It concerns the local cafe owner already battling Labor's cost-of-living crisis. It concerns the tradie employing a handful of apprentices and subbies. It concerns local tourism operators trying to survive in an economy where confidence is already weakening. Those businesses do not have endless legal resources. They do not have compliance teams sitting in corporate head offices. They simply want clear rules, practical regulation and the ability to focus on running their businesses instead of hiring lawyers to interpret vague legislation. Australia already has very strong consumer protection laws. The Australian Consumer Law already prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct. It already prohibits unconscionable conduct. It already prohibits unfair contract terms and a range of specific unfair practices.”
“Instead, those questions will be answered over years through litigation, court decisions, regulator interpretation and legal disputes. This legislation in its current form is a lawyer's picnic, and in the meantime Australian businesses will be left guessing. Uncertainty creates risk. Risk creates compliance costs, and compliance costs ultimately get passed onto consumers. This bill will become a lawyer's picnic because when laws are vague it is lawyers, regulators and courts who end up deciding years later what parliament supposedly intended. That is not good lawmaking. That uncertainty may not concern large multinational corporations with armies of lawyers and compliance departments, but it absolutely concerns small businesses. It concerns the family retailer on the Sunshine Coast.”
“But the major concerns in this legislation are not those targeted reforms. The major concern is the sweeping new general prohibition on—and in parenthesis—unfair trading. The bill prohibits conduct that may manipulate consumers, distort consumer decision-making or cause detriment, including non-financial detriment such as stress, inconvenience or wasted time. That is where the real uncertainty begins. While those words may sound reasonable at first glance, they are extraordinarily broad in practice. What constitutes manipulation? When does ordinary marketing become unlawful pressure? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? When does persuasive advertising suddenly become unfair conduct? The bill does not properly answer those questions.”
“They are frustrated when signing up online takes 30 seconds but cancelling becomes an impossible maze involving hidden forms, endless emails, phone calls or mandatory waiting periods. Australians are also frustrated when they see one advertised price at the beginning of a transaction only to discover compulsory fees suddenly appearing at the check-out. Consumers deserve transparency. Consumers deserve honesty. Consumers deserve to know exactly what they are paying before they commit their money. That is why the coalition is more open to the targeted reforms dealing with drip pricing and subscription contracts. Those are real issues. Those are identifiable problems, and targeted reforms addressing specific conduct are always preferable to broad and vague legal overreach.”
“However, we will move a second reading amendment and support referring this legislation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for proper scrutiny, because legislation of this size and consequence deserves proper consultation, proper scrutiny and clear legal drafting, not rushed lawmaking, which we continue to see under this chaotic Labor government. That makes for bad laws. This bill contains three major components. Firstly, it creates a broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices. Secondly, it introduces new rules around drip pricing and mandatory transaction based charges. Thirdly, it introduces new obligations for subscription contracts, including cancellation processes and disclosure requirements. Let me say this very clearly. Australians are rightly frustrated by subscription traps.”
“But consumer law must also be practical, it must be proportionate and, critically, it must be clear enough for honest businesses to understand exactly what is expected of them before they can comply with it. That is a fundamental tenet of our justice system. That is where this bill raises serious concerns, because, while the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 contains some targeted reforms addressing genuine consumer frustrations, it also introduces a broad and uncertain new prohibition on so-called unfair trading practices that risks creating massive legal uncertainty for Australian businesses. Let me be clear. The coalition will not oppose this bill in this House.”
“From the cafe owner in Caloundra trying to manage rising wages and energy costs, to the tradie in Palmwoods battling fuel prices and supply costs, to tourism operators, retailers, family businesses and local manufacturers right across the seat of Fisher, they are all saying the same thing: Canberra—this place, this House—just keeps making their lives harder and making it harder to do business. Australians absolutely deserve strong consumer protections. Consumers should not be misled. They should not be trapped in subscriptions that they cannot cancel. They should not be hit with hidden fees halfway through a purchase, and we've all experienced it. Businesses deliberately doing the wrong thing should absolutely be held accountable. The coalition supports that principle very strongly.”
“Australians are already paying more for just about everything. Groceries are up. Power bills are up. Insurance is up. Fuel is up. Interest rates are biting. The average Australian family with a mortgage is now paying, after tax, $29,000 a year more on their mortgage than they were paying under the last coalition government. Right now, small businesses across Australia are under enormous pressure just trying to keep their doors open. That is certainly what I'm hearing around the Sunshine Coast and everywhere else I go around the country.”
“While we mourn his passing, we also celebrate his extraordinary life and the immense contribution he made to the law of our nation. Sir Anthony's work shaped not only the course of Australian law but also the future of our country. His legacy will continue to guide us and his commitment to justice will remain an inspiration to us all. May we honour his memory by continuing to strive for the principles of fairness and justice that he held so dear. Sitting suspended from 11:00 to 11:15”
“It was a decision that enhanced Australia's economic integration, ensuring that trade between the states was not hindered by unnecessary legal complexities. Sir Anthony's legacy is not just in the decisions he delivered, but also in the way he shaped the High Court's approach to constitutional interpretation. His ability to adapt, to evolve and to interpret the law with a deep sense of justice and fairness is what set him apart as a truly visionary jurist. To Sir Anthony's family, friends and colleagues, I offer my deepest condolences. The legal profession, our country and the world have lost a giant, but his legacy will live on in the decisions that he brought down, the principles he upheld and the justice that he sought.”
“His judgement broadly interpreted the Commonwealth's external affairs power, allowing the federal government to legislate on matters relating to international treaties. It was a pivotal moment in Australian legal history that highlighted Sir Anthony's capacity to interpret the Constitution in a way that addressed contemporary concerns, balancing legal principles with national priorities. Additionally, Sir Anthony's judgement in Cole v Whitfield in 1988 helped bring much-needed clarification to section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which deals with the free movement of goods across state boundaries. Sir Anthony's ruling in this case helped to end decades of inconsistent rulings and brought much-needed certainty to Australian commercial law, reinforcing the importance of clarity and fairness in legal interpretation.”
“But Sir Anthony's influence extended far beyond Mabo. He was also instrumental in recognising the implied freedom of political communication in the Constitution through the Australian Capital Television case in 1992. This decision was instrumental in helping to safeguard political speech and preventing excessive government interference in legitimate public discourse. It was a judgement that has ensured that free expression on political matters remains protected and that the right to communicate freely is enshrined in our Constitution. Sir Anthony also made a landmark judgement in the Franklin dam case in 1983. This case expanded the Commonwealth's legislative power, particularly in relation to environmental law.”
“Sir Anthony's career is marked by numerous landmark judgements and decisions that have shaped the Australian legal system, influencing the development of constitutional law, human rights and native title. As Chief Justice of the High Court, he was at the helm of some of the most significant legal reforms in Australian history, but perhaps he will most be known by the decision of Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) case, heard in 1992. This landmark judgement, which recognised native title for the first time, overturned the doctrine of terra nullius, or 'land belonging to no-one'. Under Sir Anthony's stewardship, the High Court recognised the rights of Indigenous Australians on this land, a legal shift that not only reshaped property law but had profound cultural and social implications for this country.”
“Today we remember and honour the life of Sir Anthony Mason, a man whose lasting contributions to the High Court of Australia continue to shape our legal landscape. Sir Anthony passed away just shy of his 101st birthday, leaving behind a legacy that will endure for generations to come. Sir Anthony was a former Chief Justice of Australia and one of Australia's greatest and most influential jurists. Throughout his remarkable career, Sir Anthony guided the High Court through some of the most significant legal reforms in Australian history. His judgements not only reshaped Australian law but also deeply influenced the social and political fabric of our nation. His work will continue to inspire and guide generations of lawyers, judges and citizens who seek a just and fair legal system.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank you for the indulgence of standing up. We've got a minute to go before five o'clock. Never one to miss an opportunity, can I express my best wishes to my parliamentary colleagues on both sides—and, of course, to yourself, Mr Speaker—for Easter. Easter is a time of renewal. It's a time of rebirth. It's a time when Christians around the world remember the death of Jesus Christ. It's a time for families to come together, just like at Christmas. I would encourage all my parliamentary colleagues to do just that and spend some quality time with their families. We'll see you all here in five weeks time. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 17:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 09:38, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.”
“The resurrection of Jesus Christ offers profound hope in these challenging times. Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice by dying on the cross for us and then rising from the dead, defeating death itself so that we may have eternal life. Amidst the suffering we see around the world, this message shines through the darkness, offering Christians enduring hope. It represents a time when we acknowledge a god of love, who loved the world so much that he sent his only son to die on the cross so that we could have life. As we reflect on the significance of both Passover and Easter, let's draw strength from these messages of hope. I wish the Jewish community a happy Passover and all Christians a blessed Easter.”
“Passover is a timeless reminder that the Jewish people not only survive but thrive while the forces of hatred fade into history. Passover also reminds us of our shared responsibility to stand against antisemitism. It is unacceptable that Jewish people live in fear because of who they are, especially here in Australia. The Bondi attack tragically demonstrated the deadly consequences of unchecked hatred. I'd also like to extend my best wishes to all Christians, who will be celebrating Easter this week, in the lead-up to Sunday. It's always special when Easter and Passover overlap, and it's especially fitting, as we know that Easter itself has Jewish roots. After all, Easter centres on the death, burial and resurrection of a Jew who lived in Israel over 2,000 years ago and who himself celebrated Passover.”
“I'd like to extend my best wishes to the Jewish community in Australia, in particular on the Sunshine Coast, ahead of Passover. Passover is a time of reflection and hope, symbolising the resilience of the Jewish people. This year's Passover will be marked by solemnity as Jewish Australians continue to grieve following the Bondi terrorist attack and those attacks on 7 October in southern Israel, and many still worry about loved ones in Israel amidst the current conflict. Yet Passover brings comfort and light. Passover commemorates the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery and their journey toward freedom in the promised land. It's a story of hope and triumph which continues to resonate today. Just as the Jewish people were pursued by pharaoh, they continue to face the evils of antisemitism today.”
“And who could blame it? The coalition has a concrete plan to fix this. We will conduct a full national regulatory stocktake. We will set a target to cut the red tape burden informed by a consultation with business and the community. We'll block the flow of new red tape by requiring regulatory offsets—if you want to add a rule, you have to remove one first. We will strengthen the scrutiny of new regulation so that no proposal passes without a rigorous assessment of its real cost to business, and we'll lift the reporting thresholds that are forcing thousands of medium-sized businesses to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on compliance that adds nothing to their bottom lines or to the national interest. Labor is choosing complexity. The coalition is choosing growth.”
“Boards are now spending more than half their time, 55 per cent, just managing compliance. That has more than doubled since Labor came to office. That is time not spent on hiring, investing or growing their businesses. While Labor adds layer upon layer of red tape, our competitors are moving in the opposite direction. The UK has committed to cutting its regulatory burden by 25 per cent. Canada has introduced a one-for-one rule—remove a regulation for every one that has been created. The EU—even the EU!—is slashing red tape for small business. And Australia? We have no national target and no plan. The Productivity Commission has confirmed what every small-business owner already knows—Labor's regulatory weight is crushing investment, stifling innovation and dragging down living standards, and capital is going elsewhere.”
“Today, I'm giving a voice to every small-business owner in Australia who is drowning in red tape while this Labor government looks the other way. In the small-business capital of the nation, the Sunshine Coast, a cafe owner can face up to 30 separate licences and approvals before they've poured their first coffee. A local tradie needs to pay hundreds of dollars in permits just to fix a tap. An engineer working across state lines must obtain separate qualifications and pay multiple fees in each jurisdiction just to do their job. Red tape in Australia has become a war on enterprise. The numbers are damning. Compliance with federal regulation now costs Australian businesses $160 billion a year—nearly 6c in every dollar of GDP. That's up from $65 billion a decade ago.”
“And yet action appears to have only followed public exposure—and that was by A Current Affair . The Minister for Home Affairs has clear powers under section 501 of the Migration Act—powers that exist for exactly this situation. So the questions are simple: Why has this not already been done? Why is this individual still in my community, when he should have been deported? No community should ever become a refuge for someone seeking to avoid facing serious allegations involving children. Today's briefing shows us something very important. This problem is not unsolvable. Prevention is possible. Technology is ready. The law can be strengthened. The power already exists. What we need is action from this government.”