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 7 of 14.
“When I say it makes them permanent, I mean it makes them permanent to the extent that anything is permanent in this place—that is, it is always subject to amendment, always. We're not talking about permanent like we talk about permanency with Constitutional provisions. Every single provision of every single bill that comes through this place is always subject to amendment. So while we talk about making them permanent, to the extent that anything is permanent in this place, if anything, after 10 years, I've learnt is that nothing is permanent in this place and the only thing constant is change. Since their introduction in 2003, these powers have been repeatedly extended because the threat environment has not diminished.”
“ASIO's compulsory-questioning framework allows ASIO, with the approval of the Attorney-General and a prescribed authority, to compel a person to appear and provide information relevant to serious national security threats. In practice, this allows ASIO to require answers and the production of documents where voluntary cooperation is insufficient. These powers exist because intelligence work is inherently preventive. They are designed to identify and mitigate serious risks before they crystallise into acts of violence or mass harm rather than after tragedy has occurred. The bill removes the longstanding sunset clause over the compulsory questioning powers and makes them permanent.”
“I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This is an important bill that acknowledges Australia's challenging and increasingly complex security environment, a reality most tragically borne out by the Bondi terrorist attack. It also comes at a time when the national terrorism threat level is classified as 'probable', meaning around 50 per cent. But the risks we face are not limited to terrorism. Australia faces multiple dynamic threats from ideological actors who seek to disrupt society and sow discord, often in ways that are not so obvious at the outset. The bill responds to this reality by formalising and recalibrating ASIO's compulsory-questioning powers to ensure they remain fit for purpose to address the contemporary threat landscape.”
“The Prime Minister, last year, said, 'We're going to stop taking donations from the CFMEU'—but they didn't. Not only did they not stop; you would think that, with this sort of an expose, the Labor Party would say: 'You know what? We'll do the right thing and we'll donate that money to charity'—to Mates4Mates or some charitable organisation. But, no, that money has stayed in the Labor Party coffers. I say, 'Shame on you.' Shame on the Labor Party, because that money is blood money. I don't use that term loosely, because the CFMEU have overseen physical harm on building sites and threats, particularly against women working on building sites—and even against public servants. I was in here every day talking about it, and the Labor Party did nothing. The Labor Party continued to take the money from the CFMEU.”
“What we have seen time and time and time again—businesses have come to see me, consistently over the last 10 years, and talk to me about the standover tactics of the CFMEU, the fact that they can't get a start on a job unless they agree to pay kickbacks to the CFMEU. When I start talking about this, those on the other side of the House go very quiet, because I'm not talking out of a textbook; I'm talking out of experience—35 years, now close to 40 years, experience in the building industry as a chippie, a builder and then a construction barrister. The CFMEU has overseen the greatest corruption in this country, in Victoria and in Queensland, and that's terrible in itself. But do you know what makes it even worse? You guys, the Labor Party, have taken millions of dollars in donations from the CFMEU.”
“It reminds me of the old Suncorp ad. The Queenslanders on my side will get this: 'Charter boat? What charter boat?'—nothing to see here. Well, Geoffrey Watson has belled the cat and identified that there is likely somewhere between $15 billion and $30 billion worth of corrupt payments that have been made within the building industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know as well as I know—and many people in this chamber would know—that I used to work as a carpenter in the building industry in Victoria. On my first day in the building industry in Victoria, I experienced the bullying and corruption of the CFMEU predecessor, the Builders Labourers' Federation. As an 18-year-old kid, I experienced it, and that's part of the reason why I'm sitting on this side of the House today, because Norm Gallagher was a rookie at the end of the day.”
“We've just heard 10 minutes of unadulterated, unobscured, constant attack on the shadow minister, who has raised a matter of very significant importance about alleged corruption in the building industry. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you have heard me speak about corruption in the building industry for 10 long years. I have spoken about this up hill and down dale. Whenever I spoke about it, those opposite—'Nothing to see here.' It was all white noise, nothing, there's no problem with the CFMEU. They kept taking their money, their donations, from the CFMEU. It wasn't until, I think, last year, when Channel 9 did an expose which put the issue beyond doubt, that we saw the member for Watson and the Prime Minister say, 'We had no idea about the extent of this problem'—or that there was, in fact, a problem at all.”
“My friend Travis Schultz OAM of Mooloolaba was honoured for his service to the law and also the community. Mr Kevin Stroud OAM of Currimundi was recognised for his outstanding service to the Caloundra community. Mrs Margaret Taylor OAM of Maleny was honoured for her service to music and the community. I also acknowledge Group Captain Phillip Godfrey CSC of Buddina, who received the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding achievement in senior officer management within the Royal Australian Air Force. These honours reflect the very best of Fisher—the quiet dedication, service and leadership that make our community stronger. On Australia Day, we celebrate unity, contribution and the shared story we are all part of, from our newest citizens to those recognised for decades of service.”
“I want to place on the Hansard my congratulations to all our local recipients. Mr David Gole AM of Balmoral Ridge was recognised for significant service to architecture and heritage conservation. Mr John Western AM of Mooloolaba was recognised for significant service to surf lifesaving, an honour received at a time of deep personal loss, just the day after his wife Judy passed away. That must have been incredibly difficult. It reminds us that behind every award is a lifetime of service shared with loved ones that support those people. Mrs Patricia Barry OAM of Caloundra was honoured for her service to lifesaving and to the Sunshine Coast community. Mr James O'Shannessy OAM of Beerwah was recognised for his service to the community through a wide range of roles.”
“Australia Day is one of my favourite days on the calendar. This year I spent the day in two very special places—Maleny and Kawana—welcoming new Australians at citizenship ceremonies. In Maleny, 24 people proudly became Australian citizens. In Kawana, another 67 did the same. Across the nation, almost 19,000 people chose to call Australia home this year. Standing alongside people as they take the pledge of citizenship is one of the best parts of this job. It is a powerful reminder of the values that bind us together: respect, opportunity, contribution and a shared belief in Australia's future. Our newest Australians strengthen our community, and Fisher is better for having them. Australia Day is also a time to recognise service, and this year the Fisher electorate was exceptionally well represented in the Australia Day 2026 Honours List.”
“They work all day and then, when they go home at night, all they do is paperwork and government-regulation work. They are unpaid tax collectors, as my dear old dad used to say—God bless him—as someone who worked in his own business for 70-odd years. There are Australians who are doing it tough all over this country because they are in small business. Well, we've got your back. The coalition has your back. (Time expired)”
“Now, whether it be a franchise, like a mowing franchise, or whether they be carpenters, bricklayers or dentists, they all—or many of them—are carrying overdrafts. And, if you think that the interest rate on your home mortgage is high, wait till you have a small business loan. So they're copping it in the neck both at home and in their businesses. Small businesses are the engine room of our economy. And you know what, Mr Speaker? Do you know Labor's idea of how you create a small business? Start with a big one! Start with a big one, and, ultimately, you'll end up with a small one, because this government consistently has its foot on the neck of small businesses, because small businesses are constantly under pressure, with all of the red tape that they have to comply with.”
“That $23,000 is after tax—after tax! Every minute, Australia pays around $50,000 just in interest on Labor's debt. That is money not going to Medicare, schools, roads or tax relief. This government talks about helping families but their actions tell a different story, driving up prices and keeping interest rates higher for longer. Nowhere is this pressure felt more sharply than in small and family businesses—including in my electorate of Fisher, which is the small business capital of this country. What many people in this place don't realise is that, if Australians are failing to cope, just in making their interest payments on their home, think of the poor old small-business owner. Not only does he or she, usually, have to pay their mortgage repayments, but they've also got a debt for their business.”
“Rents are up more than 20 per cent. Health, education and food costs are all sharply higher. These are not luxuries; these are basic essentials. Housing and rent are now major drivers of inflation, because Labor's housing and migration settings have pushed demand higher while supply falls further behind. Economists have been blunt: government spending is now at its highest level, outside a recession, in almost 40 years, and they say that it's fuelling inflation and the fiscal guardrails have come off from this government. That is reckless and it's unsustainable. Mortgage holders already know the cost of the government's failure. The average Australian family, in average suburbia, with an average mortgage on an average home, is now paying more than $23,000 a year more in interest than they were when the coalition was in government.”
“Australians are doing it tough, right now, and, beyond this chamber, families and small businesses are under immense pressure, with little relief in sight. Make no mistake: this is Labor's cost-of-living crisis. When they spend, prices rise and Australians pay. This is not theory or modelling. It is in the weekly shop. It's in the power bill. It's in their rent and the mortgage that they pay. It shows up in inflation, which is now at 3.8 per cent—and that came over Christmas, at the worst possible time for households that are already overstretched. Under the coalition, inflation averaged over just two per cent. Under Labor, Australians are paying almost double that. And they feel it every single day. Australians are paying more for everything that matters. Insurance is up nearly 40 per cent. Energy prices are up nearly 40 per cent.”
“The bill ensures that the New South Wales local court reforms are appropriately reflected at the Commonwealth level and that the transition from magistrate to judge is seamless. This bill will maintain the integrity of the judicial system and ensure the smooth operation of both state and Commonwealth legal frameworks serving the people of New South Wales and Australia effectively. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“The coalition supports the bill, as it's a minor and technical yet necessary measure to ensure the consistent application of Commonwealth law across jurisdictions. The changes to the New South Wales local court system are significant, and it is imperative that the Commonwealth laws are updated accordingly to ensure the smooth and seamless operation of the New South Wales court system. The opposition is supportive of any commonsense measures that support judicial officers to perform their important roles efficiently, even amidst significant changes. The bill will allow them to perform their roles without confusion or disruption, safeguarding the smooth functioning of both state and Commonwealth judicial processes.”
“The provisions also preserve existing arrangements between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, allowing New South Wales judges to continue exercising certain functions under Commonwealth law, provided formal arrangements are made between the Governor-General and the New South Wales governor. The provisions essentially ensure that jurisdiction and powers conferred on New South Wales magistrates by Commonwealth law can continue to be validly exercised by the new judges of the New South Wales local court. At the same time, the amendments clarify that judges of the New South Wales local court will not be able to exercise jurisdiction or powers beyond the scope of their office, thereby maintaining jurisdictional clarity and ensuring these powers are exercised within their intended scope.”
“Part 1 amends the Acts Interpretation Act and the other relevant Commonwealth legislation to reflect the role change from magistrate to judge. This is a straightforward but necessary adjustment to ensure consistency in the application of Commonwealth law to judicial officers holding office in New South Wales. Part 2 contains transitional provisions designed to facilitate the implementation of these changes. These provisions ensure that the amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act apply to Commonwealth legislation enacted before, on or after the commencement of this bill.”
“This bill addresses the need for Commonwealth law to align with the change from magistrate to judge of the New South Wales local court. It necessitates corresponding amendments to Commonwealth legislation to ensure consistency and avoid jurisdictional confusion. The objective of the bill is to update Commonwealth laws, including the Acts Interpretation Act, to reflect this transition. These updates will ensure that jurisdiction and powers previously conferred on magistrates continue to apply to the newly appointed judge in the New South Wales local court. The bill will also ensure the New South Wales local court can continue to perform its functions effectively under Commonwealth law without disruption or confusion regarding jurisdiction as the transition takes place. The bill is comprised of two main parts.”
“I rise today to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026. It's an important yet uncontroversial piece of legislation that reflects recent reforms to the New South Wales legal system, specifically those introduced through the Local Court and Bail Legislation Amendment Act 2025 in New South Wales. This bill responds directly to the transition from the office of magistrate of the local court to the newly created role of judge of the New South Wales local court. The changes made in New South Wales are significant, and this bill ensures those reforms are reflected in Commonwealth law. The bill provides the necessary updates to ensure there is no ambiguity in the application of those laws across jurisdictions.”
“Seriously? No, not Luch. He's still a young man.' I think I was a bit shell shocked then. But his legacy will live on. For the attendants that are here, I would encourage you to take a leaf out of his book and use his phrase, 'That one's on the House, Mr Hastie!' Try and emulate that success, that spirit of Luch. I don't know what we'd do for him as an institution, but we should not just remember him in this sense, which is very important, but, I think, do something a little bit more as well, because I think he's a terrific example of what our democracy is all about, of what our country is all about. We're a migrant country, and we should continue to celebrate that, for all the riches that people bring to this country from their different cultures and faiths. I'm probably rambling now. Vale, Luch. You were a good man.”
“I know that he was immensely proud of you, Jess. I told you that yesterday. I know you've gone on to perhaps bigger and better things now, but he was incredibly proud of you for the work that you were doing and have done for this country. I just wanted to put that on the record because he and I would often talk about the great work that you'd do, that you did, for the committee. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. So, to Luch's family, to Jess, of course, and to his wife and kids: thank you for sharing Luch with the Australian people for so many years, for more than four decades. We are richer for having worked with Luch. The country is richer for it. Our democracy is richer for it. I want to thank you all for sharing him with us. This place will never be the same. When I heard that he'd died, I couldn't believe it. 'Not Luch.”
“It is a testament not just to Luch, not just to his family, but to our country. They don't make them like Luch anymore. That's really sad to say. But Luch was a man of what I would regard as great integrity and good humour. He treated everybody the same, whether it was the Prime Minister or the newest backbencher. What the Prime Minister said yesterday was very true. He would often just bring you a glass of water and say, 'That's on the House, sir!' He had a terrific sense of humour and was a good man. I had the privilege of working very closely with his daughter Jess, who worked in this building. Jess served on the secretariat of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of in the last parliament and for a bit in this one.”
“In fact, to be the longest serving employee in the Department of the House of Representatives is no small feat, but to have worked down the hill at Old Parliament House, then to have come up here to work as a labourer in the construction of this great, magnificent building and then, once again, to have worked in this building since 1988, serving democracy, serving us all—not just serving the people who have the privilege of being in here but serving the nation in the way that he did—as a former carpenter and joiner, really struck a note with me. That is what's great about this country—that a man from a Macedonian background can come here, whether working as an attendant or a labourer on a building site, and 40 years later have so many members of the House of Representatives stand up and talk about how great this man was.”
“But I'll cherish that photo because Luch was a true gentleman and an inspiration to me and clearly to everybody else that he touched in this place. It was really interesting to hear the Prime Minister talk about Luch yesterday. This was a gentleman who worked in the employ and service of our great democracy for more than 40 years.”
“It was his ability to be able to lighten the mood in what could sometimes be a very difficult working environment. I will always remember Luch for that. I don't know how it came to be, because, of course, we can't take photos in the House of Representatives, but somehow a photo was taken of Luch and me. We were the only ones in the chamber. The House wasn't sitting at the time. I think it was in between sitting weeks. It was after the election that we'd lost, and I think it was probably the on last day, or on the last day before I handed the baton over to the current Speaker. There's this great photo of me on the floor of the House of Reps, and Luch is standing in the seats looking over me, looking like he's giving me a lecture, and, of course, nothing could be further from the truth.”
“It's really quite remarkable to stand here and listen to the minister and the member for Flinders and many other speakers, whether they've been here for five minutes or 25 years, and listen to their stories, because I thought I was the only one who had a really good relationship with Luch. And that was the nature of the man—that he had that kind of relationship with so many other people. I remember working very closely with Luch when I was the Speaker of the House. Listening to the current Speaker talking yesterday, he used the same jokes with me. But being the Speaker of the House of Reps is a very stressful job. Most people would have absolutely no concept of how stressful it was and is. But Luch, every single day, was a voice of reason, of calmness, of good humour and of good sense.”
“It's not very often that you get to rise in this place and on the passing of someone who works in this place, bringing all of us together, and that's what Luch has done. Ljupco Jonceski—I didn't know that was his full name. I used to call him 'Luciano', after Luciano Pavarotti, because I wanted to be different from everybody else who called him Luch. Luch was the kind of gentleman—and I use the term 'gentleman' in its truest sense—that had the ability to make everybody feel as though you were the only person in the room. When he was operating in a room as the attendant of 150 people, many of whom probably had pretty high opinions of themselves, Luch had the ability to make everybody feel special.”
“Let me tell the minister that that's not happening on the Sunshine Coast as a result of this federal government. What she didn't talk to the parliament about yesterday was the fact that she cut $180 million from the Mooloolah River Interchange project. She also cut funding to the Caloundra access road, which would have provided a second access road into what is now a very busy Caloundra. Without the Crisafulli government picking up the slack in building and funding these projects, they simply would not have happened.”
“I rise to talk about some of the listening posts that I've done in my electorate over the summer. I did the 'Tour de Fisher' for 2025, where I rode around in my electorate, speaking to my community, taking my office to them. I also did a really very busy listening post just last week. What people were telling me is that they are hurting. They are feeling like they are being consistently and economically crushed by this government. One of the other things they talked to me about was the unbelievable squeeze that they are experiencing in relation to road construction on the Sunshine Coast. I listened yesterday to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government talk about all of the wonderful things this government is apparently doing on road construction.”
“This is an uncontroversial bill, but it is an important one. It modernises our law in sensible ways. It supports the responsible use of cultural materials. It clarifies educational practice for the digital age, and it updates long-outdated administrative processes. The coalition will continue to approach these reforms with commonsense and respect for the rights of creators, educators and institutions and will continue to ensure that copyright law remains fit for purpose in a world where technology is evolving faster than ever before. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“Copyright laws must support Australian creators, protect the value of their work and encourage innovation and learning. This bill broadly achieves those aims. The bill is measured and responsible. We will not oppose the bill in the House, and we are very likely to support the bill in the Senate based on the findings of the Senate inquiry. We will continue to push for clarity around key terms, including 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', and we will continue to defend the rights of Australian creators against any attempt to open the door to unauthorised AI training. These reforms are practical, incremental and beneficial. They do not alter the fundamentals of copyright. They do not diminish creators' rights, and they deliver long-sought clarity for teachers, students and cultural institutions.”
“Ultimately, the committee recommended that the bill be passed as drafted, reflecting the position of most stakeholders. Coalition senators supported the bill, noting it aligns with longstanding coalition support for modern copyright laws that balance access with protection for creators. In its additional comments, the coalition noted it would continue to monitor stakeholder issues throughout the bill's implementation. This includes concerns that ongoing use in exchange for court-determined compensation could weaken deterrence or bargaining power if not carefully managed. It also noted the need for clearer guidance on reasonably diligent search and compliance burdens for businesses and, as mentioned, the issues around recorded lessons, particularly for regional, remote and special-needs education.”
“This bill does not alter that principle in any way. Most stakeholders support the bill, but several have raised concerns that the reforms are too incremental. The education sector welcomes the remote-learning clarity but argues further reforms are needed. Independent and Catholic schools have called for broader fair-dealing exceptions and a modernised approach to digital content, technology and AI. The copyright and publishing sector largely supports the orphan work scheme but wants clearer guidance on diligence requirements so small institutions are not exposed to risk or inconsistency. These concerns are precisely why the opposition supported the Senate inquiry process. The Senate inquiry, which reported on 19 December last year, allowed stakeholders to provide detailed evidence regarding these concerns.”
“It is also important to be very clear about what this bill does not do. The orphan work scheme cannot be used to justify large-scale AI training on copyrighted material. The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that this would be impractical and inconsistent with the requirement for an individual, diligent search for each work used. The Attorney-General ruled out a text and data mining exception in October 2024. The coalition strongly supports that position and, in fact, has been calling for such since the beginning of 2024. I should give a shout-out to my predecessor, the former shadow attorney-general the member for Berowra, for his good work in that space. Australian creators must not have their work scraped, copied or monetised by AI companies without permission and fair payment.”
“The opposition will continue to monitor whether the contemporaneous instruction requirement strikes the right balance between providing educational access and protecting creators' rights. Schedule 3 is largely housekeeping, but it matters for the clarity of the law. The bill modernises appointment processes for the Copyright Tribunal, shifting some functions from the Governor-General to the minister or the Federal Court CEO. It updates the definition of 'archives' to align with current state and territory archival bodies. It replaces outdated references to the Gazette with modern notifiable instruments and clarifies the interaction between Crown copyright and part VII of the act. None of these measures are controversial. They streamline administration and they remove redundant provisions.”
“Importantly, the bill also ensures that parents, guardians and community members assisting instruction are protected under the exception, provided they are not doing so for commercial gain. This is especially relevant for children learning from home, for students with disabilities, and for regional and remote families. However, the exception is not intended to apply to delayed viewing of pre-recorded classes. Copyright holders strongly opposed extending the exemption to recorded or delayed instruction. This issue was explored further by the Senate inquiry and remains a pressing concern. In their additional comments, coalition senators noted the need to balance copyright holders' rights with the needs of regional, remote and special-needs educators.”
“Schedule 2 clarifies one of the most important issues arising from the pandemic: the copyright status of remote education. Section 28 of the Copyright Act currently allows teachers to perform or communicate works in the presence of students. This language made sense in 1968; it makes very little sense in 2025. The amendments make it clear that the exception applies to educational instruction delivered in person, online, through hybrid teaching or through real-time digital platforms. These changes reflect the way modern classrooms operate. Teachers no longer stand in front of a blackboard with chalk. They teach via Zoom, Teams, interactive whiteboards, learning portals and live streams.”
“For too long, these institutions have been unable to digitise, preserve or make available materials simply because a rights holder from 60 years ago cannot be traced. This bill provides a lawful path forward. At the same time, the scheme safeguards the rights of creators. A diligent search must occur, records must be kept, notice must be given and any payment demanded by the rights holder must be reasonable and fair. However, the Senate inquiry heard stakeholders' concerns about lack of clarity in defining terms such as 'reasonably diligent search' and 'reasonable payment', particularly in commercial settings. These questions are not insignificant, and clarity will be essential to avoid unnecessary litigation. The opposition will keep a keen eye on how these terms are considered in practice.”
“Under the bill, a user is protected from infringement remedies in such a situation only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, if they have undertaken that search within a reasonable period before use and if they've maintained records of that search and provided clear and reasonably prominent notice that they are using the work under the orphan works scheme. If the owner later emerges, they are entitled to a reasonable payment or to negotiate terms for its continued use. If an agreement cannot be reached, a court may set terms or issue an injunction to prevent the ongoing use. These protections are set out in new division 2AAA of part V of the act, including sections 116AAD to 116AAF. This scheme unlocks enormous cultural value for galleries, libraries, archives and educational institutions.”
“These reforms are incremental, but they're sensible and widely supported by a broad range of stakeholders. These amendments do not alter the fundamental rights of creators. They do not diminish the value of copyright, and they do not introduce the highly contentious text and data mining exception that many artists and creators feared. Schedule 1 introduces a long-awaited statutory framework to deal with orphan works. Evidence suggests that as much as 70 per cent of library collections may include works where the copyright owner cannot be identified or located.”
“It's about balance, clarity and fairness, and it's about making sure our laws keep pace with how Australians learn, teach, share and create today. Australia's Copyright Act 1968 is more than 50 years old. It has been amended often, but it has not always kept up with new technology, new learning environments or new cultural expectations. This bill makes two sets of reforms. Firstly, it establishes a statutory orphan works scheme to allow responsible use of materials where rights holders cannot be found. It clarifies education exceptions for remote learning, ensuring teachers and students are protected when classes are delivered online or in hybrid form. Finally, it makes a series of technical and administrative amendments to modernise appointments, tribunal processes, archival definitions and notification methods.”
“I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a largely technical bill, the product of several years of consultation, roundtables and review work undertaken by the government in 2023. It's also been the subject of examination by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. While the coalition will not oppose the bill in the House and is likely to support it in the Senate based on the outcome of that inquiry, it is important that this parliament understand what this bill does, what it does not do and why its reforms matter. Copyright is not an abstract legal concept. It is about protecting Australian creators, teachers, students, libraries, museums, small innovators and the cultural and economic value of the material that they both produce and preserve.”
“Taking those steps earlier would have reassured Jewish Australians and strengthened the safety of all Australians. It is time for the government to put politics aside and confront antisemitism and radical Islamic extremism with seriousness and resolve. The coalition will continue to fight for the safety of Jewish Australians, and all Australians, and I call on the government to finally do the same.”
“There is much more to do if we are to stamp out antisemitism once and for all, and no-one in this place would suggest that what we are putting together today is a set-and-forget solution with nothing further to do. While it's prudent to await the royal commission's findings, that has never been an excuse for inaction, particularly when clear recommendations already exist. Within days of the Bondi attack, the coalition's Taskforce on Antisemitism, Extremism and Counter-Terrorism put forward targeted, practical measures, including implementing the special envoy's plan, strengthening counterterrorism laws, stripping citizenship from terrorists and hate preachers, and ending Labor's reckless policy of self-managed returns for ISIS brides.”
“This is the same government that allowed individuals from Gaza to enter Australia without adequate vetting, while cancelling the visas of democratically elected Israeli members of parliament. That sent a deeply troubling signal about what conduct is tolerated and what views are punished. These powers must not become a political weapon used against our allies or against voices the government simply disagrees with. They must be confined to their stated purpose—dealing with radical Islamic extremists and those who promote antisemitism—not punishing lawful political expression. The measures before us today are ones that could and should have been taken after 7 October 2023. Instead, the government delayed, it dithered and it ultimately produced a failed omnishambles bill that had to be dismantled.”
“These new grounds relate to hate-motivated conduct and offences involving the spread of hatred and extremism where the minister is satisfied of the relevant considerations. Part 2 provides that a person whose visa is refused or cancelled on these grounds may also be subject to a permanent exclusion period unless the decision is revoked or the minister personally intervenes. These amendments are sensible in principle. They give the minister clearer authority to refuse visas to people who pose a genuine risk to public safety, including radical extremists. But there is a glaring omission. The provisions do not expressly refer to radical Islamic extremism or antisemitism, despite this being the stated focus of the bill. While these measures are an improvement, we cannot ignore the government's record.”
“Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned or restricted in multiple jurisdictions, including being terrorist-listed in the UK. Following Bondi, there is a pressing need for Australia to act. These groups contributed to the climate of hatred and radicalisation that resulted in Bondi. The regime provides a practical and immediate mechanism to act, where inaction is no longer acceptable. In that context, it is a necessary response to the clear and present threat of radical Islamic extremism to the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. Turning to the migration amendments, schedule 2 makes amendments to the Migration Act to expand the character grounds on which the Minister for Home Affairs may refuse or cancel a visa.”
“Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir glorify terrorism and act as incubators for Islamic extremist radicalisation yet have not met the threshold required for terrorist listing. That gap has also been exploited by Neo-Nazi organisations, allowing them to operate openly, to recruit and fundraise and to radicalise supporters, while remaining technically lawful. The prohibited hate group regime is designed to close that gap. While Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to portray itself as a non-violent ideological movement, its record demonstrates a very different reality. That includes consistent promotion of antisemitic hatred, public praise for the October 7 attacks and a well-documented role in acting as a conveyor belt to terrorism worldwide, with former adherents or supporters progressing into terrorist organisations.”