Leon Rebello
McPherson · Liberal National Party · Australia
“But it's becoming really frightening when there is nowhere else to go if i can no longer afford rent and health care too. Another person said: As a still working, self funded semi retiree (73years) old, I feel disillusioned and disgusted by our current govt, who seem to be hell bent on removing any incentive to be a self sufficient, hard…”
“I'm going to read out some of the comments that ordinary Australians in the 65-plus category have sent to me and give them a voice in this place, because those on the opposite side of this parliament are prepared to go against them. I quote one person: 'That's a joke, Leon. We currently struggle to maintain existing low cover.”
“A lot of them are hanging on by the skin of their teeth financially, when they need their insurance the most and after paying premiums for years with minimal claims. Labour will pay the price if they mess with older Australians … Another person said: So this is over $1200 for the two of us.”
“We received over 2,000 responses to those surveys, and most of the responses focused on the fact that these are older Australians who have worked for this country, who have done the right thing for so many years, and now they're finding themselves in a really difficult spot as a result of this government's characterisation of them.”
“And I say to those opposite, the ones who have contributed to this debate and those who are sitting in the chamber today or watching, you should really look at yourself and look at the content of what we're saying, because this is about your parents, it's about your grandparents and it's about people that you represent, or are supposed to…”
“I commend my friend and colleague the member for Gippsland for moving this motion in relation to the government's failure to govern for older Australians. I am livid.”
The complete record
Every one of 571 lines we hold for Leon Rebello, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“Higher income postgraduates and those from more advantaged backgrounds can gain the most, while borrowers who worked hard and finally paid off their debt before the end of the financial year receive nothing at all. If you made significant repayments throughout the year, your relative benefit shrinks. That's not fairness. That is an untargeted, inequitable, reverse Robin Hood approach that economists across the board have called out. Economist Ashley Craig described this as 'an exceptionally bad policy which favours the rich, doesn't help with current cost of living and does nothing to encourage higher ed.' Our HECS system is a national asset. It has enabled millions of Australians, including me, to gain qualifications and skills that are essential to our economy. Its integrity must be safeguarded.”
“I rise to speak on this motion because I believe that students deserve a higher education system that's fair, affordable and genuinely accessible. Young Australians are not fools. They know when a policy is genuinely designed to help them and when a policy is designed to help a government's polling and win an election. Unfortunately, the policy this government stands here seeking praise for today falls firmly into that second category. The government's policy on student debt disproportionately benefits those with the biggest debts, regardless of their long-term earning capacity. This means that a lawyer or a doctor who graduated last year receives more relief than a social worker.”
“Pick ideology over affordability and you get more insolvencies, fewer private sector jobs, lower productivity and a weaker economy, followed by higher government spending to clean up the mess. Labor's energy policies are fuelling inflation and fuelling the cost-of-living crisis. That's why we in the coalition are committed to an energy policy focused on affordability whilst lowering emissions responsibly, at a pace that technology and the economy can sustain. We want to accelerate new supply, keep existing generation online and allow investment to flow where it delivers the lowest, most-reliable prices, because when you reduce the cost of energy you don't just lower household bills; you ease one of the largest expenses facing small businesses. When energy becomes affordable again, that relief will flow through to the entire economy.”
“The government should clear the path, not block it. Yet, under Labor, small and family businesses aren't treated as partners in prosperity. They're treated like an ATM for taxes, a test case for regulation, and are punished for creating jobs and supporting local communities. Energy policy is no better. On the southern Gold Coast, businesses are doing it tough, and they're staring down higher power prices while ministers chase ideology over outcomes. The greatest cost increase for business under this government has been energy. Labor failed to grasp the basic economic understanding that when business costs rise so, too, do the costs for consumers. Their mismanagement of energy policy has driven power prices up by nearly 40 per cent, fuelling cost-of-living pressures for every Australian and every Australian business.”
“In doing so, Labor is directly tilting the balance away from ambition in enterprise and towards big-business monopolisation and union power. The government abolished effective construction oversight, looked the other way as union militancy pushed up costs and drove down productivity, and then pretended it was all somebody else's fault. These decisions are not victimless. When projects are delayed or costs blow out, Australians pay the price. When the CFMEU's grip on residential construction inflates costs by 30 per cent, it's not just the developers who feel it; it's every family trying to build a home or every small business that's trying to fit-out a shopfront. These decisions drive up rents, price out first home buyers and deepen the housing crisis. Productivity is down five per cent. Our competitiveness has slipped.”
“As a result, Australia is falling behind in infrastructure, roads and housing. Among the thousands of collapsed businesses are hardworking tradies—Australians who backed themselves, took a risk and set up their own business to contribute to building our country. Instead of supporting them, this government is doing everything it can to hinder their growth. Why would Labor want a thriving small-business construction sector? That would hardly suit the interests of their big-business-aligned union mates at the CFMEU. Instead, this government piles on 5,000 new regulations, hundreds of new laws and nearly 3,000 pages of construction codes—enough to drown small operators and keep aspirational builders firmly at bay.”
“Many Gold Coast businesses do everything they can to shield their customers, but they simply cannot absorb every new cost and every new regulation imposed by this government. Those costs inevitably flow through to consumers, compounding the cost-of-living crisis. In Labor's last term, Anthony Albanese oversaw the worst rate of business insolvencies of any other prime minister since Federation. Let that sink in. During this period, Queensland recorded more than 4,500 insolvencies. Nationally, that figure was around 25,000, with businesses in the construction sector hit the hardest. What does that tell us? Construction is becoming less viable under this Labor government. Between union pressure, mounting red tape and higher operating costs, the sector is being strangled.”
“I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Goldstein because it is indeed a matter of the utmost public importance. Small and family businesses are doing it tough under this government. Across my community of McPherson, from cafes and pubs to local grocers, sole traders and manufacturers, it's becoming harder to operate and more costly just to keep the doors open. When small business succeeds, Australia succeeds. Creating the conditions for enterprise to flourish is critically important to repairing our economy, driving real private-sector wage growth, reducing consumer costs and building a more prosperous nation. Those opposite fail to understand that when they make life harder for small business they make life harder for every Australian.”
“Right now far too many people cannot access the services that they need. That is the measure that matters, and on that measure this government, the federal Albanese Labor government, is failing. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 28”
“Right now, there is a need for better funding for mental health support services in Australia. As I have mentioned, mental health needs to be a national priority. The test of a government's commitment is not the number of their empty promises, it's whether, in a moment of crisis, an Australian can get the support they need. When I was elected to this place I committed, in my maiden speech, to giving a voice to the people of the southern Gold Coast when they needed it. That moment is now. People in McPherson, people across the Gold Coast and people across Australia know well and truly that mental health is something that needs to be prioritised by this government. We, on the coalition side, will continue to make a noise, we will continue to represent our communities about this need for as long as this need remains.”
“It was well-received because people on the ground, the everyday men and women that I've had the opportunity to speak to and that I have the privilege of representing in this place, understand that this is a serious issue at the moment—not just in McPherson but across the country. The schools that I go into—with the rise of social media, we're seeing instances of very young people being affected by what they're seeing online, by the way they're being treated online, and that is transitioning into broader mental health issues for them. Something needs to be done. If there's one thing I know, from my engagement in my community, it's that what is happening in this building with this government is unacceptable. We need to step up and the government needs to step up and provide where there is a need.”
“And they, unfortunately, make up three-quarters of all suicides. The previous speaker on this subject, the member for Spence, mentioned everything the government should do, all of the responsibilities of government in relation to mental health and in relation to health more broadly. What I would say to that member is that the member forms part of the government. There is an opportunity here for the government to do something about this. We went to the last election committed to restoring the 20 subsidised places for mental health support sessions. That is something that was very well-received in McPherson. Why was it well-received?”
“But, under Labor, their services are cut and support is scarce, and those who are struggling are left out to dry. We're seeing psychologists, counsellors, nurses and GPs all burning out. Clinics are understaffed, and families are falling through the cracks. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to thank the many people in my community of McPherson, on the southern Gold Coast, who are involved with the provision of mental health services for young people—for people of all ages and people of all backgrounds. They do incredible work keeping our communities' mental health where it should be and encouraging it to go in the right direction. I also point out, in particular, the fact that the mental health record for men in this country is shocking. Men are three times more likely to die by suicide than females.”
“I'm reminded of another one of my constituents, a single mother whose daughter had been dealing with mental health challenges for some time. When Labor halved the Medicare subsidised psychology sessions, it left her in an impossible position. She simply cannot afford the extra cost, and so her daughter goes without. Australians deserve better. They deserve a system that meets them where they are with compassion, flexibility and trust. And it would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that this mother spoke to me about the difficulties that her daughter has accessing mental health support services because of the unique situation they are in, where her father attempted to commit suicide and, thankfully, was unsuccessful. Because of that, this person was unable to access support that was needed. Australians, as I said, deserve better.”
“But, under Labor's welfare system, the moment he earned a few dollars, support was cut off entirely. It is what we mean when we say Labor policies are backwards. We know that work, routine and social connection are some of the best ways to support recovery and mental wellbeing, yet Labor's system punishes people who try to do the right thing. It traps them into dependence rather than helping them move forward. Why would this Labor government design a system that disincentivises Australians from beginning their journey to easing back into working, contributing and reconnecting? Why don't they trust Australians to make their own choices about gradually transitioning back into work and community life? If they had their own way, no-one who'd been disadvantaged would ever get a fair go at getting back on their feet.”
“Deputy Speaker Small, as you will well and truly know, in this role we have the opportunity to meet with people from across our community, to hear their stories, to understand their experiences and then, ultimately, to represent them here in this place. Soon after I was elected as the federal member for McPherson, I met with a local family from Palm Beach who spoke to me about the fact that they will never forget the day that their world fell apart. A father who had been battling depression attempted to take his own life. He survived, but the impact on his wife and his children was immense, and that remains to be the case. When he was released from hospital, he wanted to rebuild, he wanted routine, he wanted connection and he wanted a sense of purpose. He tried to find a part-time job, something small to get him back on track.”
“Children are waiting months for appointments, and families are being pushed to breaking point. Communities are crying out for help, but under this Labor government the system is going in reverse. The system under Labor is completely backwards. We saw it when Labor cut Medicare subsidised psychology sessions in half, a lifeline that thousands of Australians relied upon. They took away something that was working, leaving vulnerable families to fend for themselves. In my own electorate of McPherson, the need is undeniable. Nearly eight per cent of locals live with a long-term mental health condition and more than one in five report a mental or behavioural disorder. Behind each statistic is a person, a family or a community trying to hold it together.”
“I rise today to speak on this important motion. Mental health is one of the defining challenges of our time. It reaches into every home, every school and every workplace, and it is something that government simply cannot afford to get wrong. We all know someone who has been or is struggling. It's the young person who can't get the right support at school, the parent quietly carrying a heavy burden or the colleague who suffers in silence. Our country is facing a mental health epidemic. According to the ABS, around one in five Australians experience a mental or behavioural condition each year. Rates of psychological distress have never been higher, and yet access to help has never been harder. Despite billions in federal investment, outcomes are going backwards.”
“Don't just listen to the Greens but listen to those Australians whose livelihoods depend on these decisions. Let's get serious about reform, not about red tape. Let's protect our environment while protecting our future. We can do both. There is this fallacy that seems to be spoken about by the opposition where we can't, but we can. McPherson deserves a government that balances both, not one that sacrifices our prosperity to appease ideology. (Quorum formed)”
“It's about having the courage to design laws that do both—protect what we love and enable what we need as a community, as a state and as a country. I know the people of the southern Gold Coast. They are practical, forward looking and deeply connected to the land and sea around them. They want fair laws not fast politics and, importantly, they want results not rhetoric. They want us to do what the government should—bring industry and community together and get it right for the next generation. So I say to the minister and to the government: scrap the rushed timelines, fix the flaws and start listening. Start listening to the people of Australia. Start listening to those on this side of the House that represent a very large cross-section of the Australian community, from the cities to the regions.”
“Our approach is collaborative, and it builds capacity and confidence. All Labor's does is build bureaucracy. Labor's bill fails on multiple counts. It undermines natural justice through unlimited stop work powers. It cripples enterprise through excessive penalties. Our local industries and environment groups deserve better. The government must go back to the drawing board, consult properly, remove the overreach and deliver balanced reform that supports both jobs and the environment. In McPherson, on the southern Gold Coast, we do not believe that prosperity and protection are opposites. We believe they can and they must work together. This is not about choosing between growth and greenery, between jobs and biodiversity.”
“Our contribution in this debate is about ensuring that that balance is maintained. Under the previous coalition government, Australia achieved record renewable investment while cutting waste, improving recycling and protecting threatened species. That's the model that works—practical action, not ideological overreach. Under the coalition, Australia had the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes producing their own clean energy. We delivered the $250 million Recycling Modernisation Fund that turned waste into opportunity and invested in reef protection and threatened species. Again, that's practical action, not ideological overreach. These were outcomes achieved through cooperation not confrontation, working with industry not against it. That's the difference.”
“They have key performance indicators, reporting obligations and a chain of accountability. The EPA model in this bill has none of that. It's an agency with unchecked power and the ability to impose decisions that can cripple industries across the country, including in my seat of McPherson. And there is no real avenue for appeal either. Australians deserve environmental oversight that is effective, not authoritarian. Accountability is not a barrier to environmental protection. It's the foundation of public trust. We all agree the environment matters, and my community takes pride in our conservation efforts, but environmental law must protect nature without strangling opportunity. The coalition has always believed in balance between protection and productivity, and between sustainability and jobs.”
“This is consistent with what we're seeing across this 48 Parliament from this government. What we've seen, as I've said previously, is a sense of 'emboldenedness' from the election result turning into a sense of arrogance. It's a dangerous concentration of power and one that Professor Graeme Samuel's review never recommended. I know that before me was a speaker who time and time again referred to Professor Graeme Samuel. That review never recommended this set up. He called for a commissioner a model: accountable, transparent and limited to compliance and enforcement, not an agency that acts as judge, jury and executioner. If we look at other statutory bodies—the ACCC, the eSafety Commissioner and even the Ombudsman—they all operate within clear frameworks, answerable to ministers and the parliament.”
“For my seat of McPherson, what does that mean? It means fewer local jobs and slower growth. Small business confidence is already fragile. These reforms would tip the scales against investment in tourism infrastructure and green energy projects that our region depends on. Even local councils could be caught up in compliance uncertainty when trying to deliver coastal protection works or new projects. This isn't just theoretical; it's real impact on real people right in my community on the southern Gold Coast. Another alarming feature is the creation of an unaccountable EPA CEO, answerable not to the minister but effectively to no-one. The CEO can issue binding orders, halt operations and impose massive penalties, yet cannot be dismissed by the minister. Where is the accountability?”
“We are home to small developers, tourism operators, surf-lifesaving clubs and marine industries that rely on clear, consistent environmental approvals. Under the proposed Labor plan, projects will face longer assessment times, compliance costs will skyrocket and the uncertainty created by indefinite stop-work powers will stall investment on the southern Gold Coast. We've already seen industry confidence waver. The Business Council of Australia CEO, Bran Black, warned, 'Without significant changes, this bills risks embedding a system that's even slower, more complex and lacking the clarity and the certainty needed for investment.' He's right. These reforms more red tape than reform. Every extra month of delay on an approval means another month that builders can't start, apprentices and tradies can't work and businesses can't expand.”
“Environmental protection should be about partnership, not punishment, yet Labor's reforms send a chilling message: 'We don't trust you.' It's a system designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats, not for the people who actually build our nation. The Business Council of Australia has said plainly that we need clarity, consistency and common sense in enforcement, not overreach. The government's approach will make compliance so costly and complex that small business operators will simply give up. We need an enforcement model that encourages cooperation, educates small operators and focuses penalties on deliberate, environmental harm, not paperwork errors. That's how you build a responsible environmental culture. For my community, the consequences of these reforms are real and immediate.”
“That's not protecting the environment; that's punishing local jobs and small-business confidence. The second major concern is the sheer scale of penalties that are buried in this legislation. We're talking about fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars—in some cases up to $825 million—for breaches that might include administrative oversights. For large corporations, it's another cost of doing business, but, for smaller tourism and eco businesses in McPherson—boat operators, local quarries and community groups—these penalties could destroy livelihoods overnight. To make matters worse, the bill includes strict liability provisions, meaning intent doesn't even have to be proven. That's not fairness; that's a trap for honest Australians trying to do the right thing.”
“The coalition believes stop-work powers must be time limited, appealable and transparent. Otherwise, they threaten investment confidence and local jobs. I can only imagine the consequences for my community on the southern Gold Coast. A stop-work order on a small civil worksite could hold up dozens of tradies, including apprentices, concreters and electricians—everyday people trying to make a living. A prolonged suspension on foreshore renewal projects or surf club upgrades could leave construction zones fenced off through peak tourism season. This would hurt local cafes, surf shops and accommodation providers. Even a short delay in approvals for new housing estates would send ripple effects through supply chains. Timber yards, surveyors and local suppliers would all feel the pinch in my electorate.”
“For our local industries, from small marine operators at Currumbin Creek to construction firms building new houses near Elanora, this means a single bureaucratic decision could halt work indefinitely. These orders could hang over projects for months, even years, without compensation or procedural fairness. In my electorate, where small and family owned businesses drive our economy, this isn't environmental management; it's regulatory paralysis. It risks turning compliance into punishment.”
“With an underresourced opposition, they are once again running away from scrutiny. Why are the Prime Minister and those opposite so allergic to accountability? Let me be clear: we all want strong environmental protection. We live it every day on the Gold Coast—in our beaches, our hinterland and our estuaries. But environmental protection must go hand in hand with economic sense in order to maintain its social licence and sustainability. Labor's plan fails that test. Under these reforms, the new Environmental Protection Agency CEO will be granted sweeping powers to issue stop-work orders, with—and here's the catch—no end date. There's no clear timeline, no defined process and no guarantee of review.”
“I rise today on behalf of the people of McPherson—from Clear Island Waters at the top to Coolangatta, and from Burleigh Heads across to Tallebudgera and Currumbin—to speak against Labor's deeply flawed environmental protection and biodiversity conservation reforms in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills. These reforms, some 1,500 pages long, have been rammed into parliament without the consultation or the balance that our communities deserve. It's another example of this government's emboldenedness, as a result of its election result, turning into arrogance—1,500 pages! Does the government really believe, in dropping the bills on us at five minutes to midnight, that five days during a sitting period is adequate time to meaningfully review 1,500 pages? This just reeks of arrogance.”
“It's for all these reasons that the coalition will oppose the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. I ask the government to take a serious look at itself in the way that it's gone about moving this legislation.”
“I've taken the parliament through the various schedules and spoken about the issues and the ways in which this bill would compromise integrity, transparency and open government—the things that we in this place should be working towards. This bill represents a step backwards for Australia as a country, and the government should be absolutely ashamed of the way it's progressing this bill. We here in the coalition will continue to make noise. We will continue to make sure that Australians have the right to engage with their government and to engage with the information that is owed to them. Where there are national security concerns, we on this side of the House will work with the government and we understand that. But, as I stated, there is no example that the government is able to provide.”
“Those of us on this side of the House that regularly engage with our communities, that regularly engage with the Australian people, need to be the ones to stand up against this government and what they're doing. Freedom of information is not just a law. It's not just a concept that we talk about and give lip service to. It's a principle. It's a cornerstone of democracy. It's something we need to continue to fight for and advocate for on behalf of our communities. It's so disappointing that this government has chosen to go about this bill in the way it has. Once freedom of information is weakened, once secrecy takes hold, it is very difficult to restore. I've outlined in the course of this speech a number of issues with this bill.”
“They want representatives who are going to give them access to information because it is the information of the people. This bill erodes those principles and it must be opposed. When the original Freedom of Information Act was introduced 40 years ago, it marked a turning point. It recognised that transparency strengthens democracy, that access to information empowers citizens. We on this side of the House know that that is true—that government must be accountable to the governed. This bill moved by the Australian Labor Party would undo that progress. It would make secrecy the norm and openness the exception. We here in the coalition stand firmly against it, and we will continue to hold the government to account. We will continue to fight for transparency, integrity and the public's right to know.”
“Freedom of information exists so that Australians can hold their government to account, so that power cannot be exercised in darkness. Those of us on this side of the House know that when you limit what citizens can know you limit what they can decide, and when you limit what they can decide you limit democracy itself—something that we as a nation have worked towards for so many years. Labor's bill puts secrecy before service. It puts control before citizenship. The coalition believes in open government. We believe in a free press and we believe in the people's right to know. Over the course of the election campaign in McPherson, I had the opportunity to speak to so many individuals across the southern Gold Coast who shared that view.”
“The coalition opposes it, the crossbench opposes it, every major stakeholder opposes it—everyone except, of course, the bureaucrats who would gain new powers to refuse information. Once again, the government is abusing parliamentary procedure, just as it's done with the environment protection and biodiversity bills. Debating this bill before the Senate report is finalised is a travesty. It shows contempt for due process and for the Australian people. Yes, the government was elected with a very large majority in the House, but that has emboldened them and that 'emboldenedness' has now turned to a sense of arrogance. Freedom of Information is not a privilege granted by government; it is a right owed to every citizen in a democracy.”
“Even the way this bill has been handled demonstrates the arrogance of this government. This bill was not meant to be debated this week. It was not on the draft forward program. The government has brought it on suddenly, ramming it through without the courtesy of waiting for the Senate committee's findings. That is not respect for process; that is abuse of process. The government even withdrew a promised security briefing for the former shadow Attorney-General—first offered online, then cancelled and then never rescheduled. The new shadow Attorney-General has not been briefed at all. This is not how serious national security concerns are handled. This is political theatre designed to create an illusion of urgency when none exists. The truth is this bill does not have a friend in the world.”
“We welcome the fact that this bill is now before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. That inquiry will report in early December. Given the complexity of these changes, it's absolutely extraordinary that the government is pushing ahead with the debate before that report is even tabled. We in the coalition will continue to engage constructively through the committee process. We will support or move amendments that restore transparency, including retaining anonymity to protect whistleblowers, ensuring any new fees are subject to parliamentary disallowance and removing the most restrictive provisions in schedules 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. Our goal is simple: to defend the principle that information belongs to the public not to the government of the day.”
“I'd also like to note that—I'm pleased to see many of the independents speaking out against this, but I do hope that the Climate 200 movement remembers this when we get to the next election, because they seem to exclusively target the Liberals—this is a clear example of the fact that it is the Labor government that lacks transparency. The Albanese Labor government is proving every day why they are the most unaccountable, secretive government in recent memory. Freedom of information was never meant to be comfortable for government; it was designed to make them accountable. This bill does the opposite. It shields ministers and officials from scrutiny, it entrenches secrecy and it weakens the rights of the everyday Australian citizen.”
“When governments hide information, trust evaporates. Democracy depends on informed citizens. You cannot make informed choices if you are kept in the dark. The coalition will vote against this bill, because it ignores the recommendations of the 2023 Senate inquiry, which highlighted resourcing and cultural change as the real issues within the FOI system, because it imposes barriers that discourage legitimate applicants and because it expands the grounds for refusal and secrecy. It has no credible stakeholder support outside the bureaucracy, and it reverses four decades of progress towards open government.”
“The bill's new cabinet and deliberative exemptions are quite breathtaking in scope. Agencies will be able to classify factual briefings as deliberative, simply to keep them hidden. Agencies already fail to meet statutory deadlines, and this bill rewards that failure by extending timeframes and reducing oversight. Delays will become the norm not the exception. No major integrity or transparency body supports this bill—none. Every independent voice from media organisations to civil society groups have warned it will weaken democracy and impede investigative journalism. This government came to power promising transparency. What have we seen instead? Secret estimates manuals, refusals to release departmental documents and non-disclosure agreements at every turn. This bill is just the latest step in a broader pattern of secrecy.”
“For 40 years, the principle has been simple: that government information belongs to the public unless there's a good reason to withhold it. Labor's bill replaces that presumption of openness with a presumption of control. Australians will be left to see only what the government wants them to see—the polished announcements, not the messy debates that led to them. By charging fees for applications and reviews, this bill creates a new barrier to access. Transparency will depend on your bank balance. The right to know will become a privilege for those who can afford it. By banning anonymous requests, this bill endangers those who seek to expose wrongdoing. Whistleblowers, journalists, advocates and even public servants who are acting in good faith will be deterred from seeking or sharing information.”
“The coalition will oppose this bill because it strikes at the heart of democratic accountability. The bill has been rushed. There was no genuine consultation, no serious engagement with the 2023 Senate FOI inquiry and no credible explanation for how these changes would protect national security or improve administration. We on the coalition side remain open to arguments about national security. We always have been and we always will be. But no-one has yet explained how making it harder for citizens to ask for information makes Australia safer. No-one has identified any instance of a leak or a breach that could only be prevented by banning anonymous requests or capping processing time. This bill flips the presumption of the FOI Act on its head.”
“In practice, that's a delay of two extra weeks or more in a system that's already plagued by delay. Schedule 5 changes review processes to limit third-party participation, weakening the independence of the Information Commissioner's role. Schedule 6 introduces application fees, which is the truth tax I was talking about, and citizens will have to pay for access to information that should already belong to them. Schedule 7 expands exemptions for cabinet and deliberative processes. Agencies will be able to refuse requests without even searching for the documents. Schedule 8 allows successor ministers or agencies to respond if the original minister leaves office, which is a seemingly technical measure that risks blurring accountability. Schedule 9 contains transitional provisions that mask just how sweeping these changes are.”
“These are not minor procedural tweaks; they're major structural changes to how Australians access information from their government. There are nine schedules in this bill, each eroding openness in different ways. Schedule 1 rewrites the very objects of the act, shifting the emphasis from the public's right to know to the proper functioning of government. That's not freedom of information; that's freedom from scrutiny. Schedule 2 bans anonymous requests. This will silence whistleblowers, journalists, advocates and ordinary citizens who fear retaliation. Schedule 3 introduces a discretionary 40-hour processing cap, which is a bureaucrat's dream. Agencies can now stop once something becomes too difficult. Transparency should never depend on convenience. Schedule 4 extends decision timeframes, turning 30 days into 30 working days.”
“It proposes a long list of sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act and the Australian Information Commissioner Act. Among them, it would require all FOI requests to include verified identification, banning anonymous requests; it'll impose a 40-hour cap on processing requests, allowing agencies to simply stop searching if they decide a request is too hard; it'll allow new application fees for requests and reviews, except for personal information, which would effectively tax Australians for seeking the truth; it'll expand exemptions for cabinet and deliberative documents, making refusals easier and transparency rarer; it'll extend the time agencies have to respond from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, further delaying public access; and it will give the Information Commissioner the power to remit reviews back to the very agencies that made the decisions in the first place.”
“I rise today to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, a bill that, despite its title, does not expand freedom of information in Australia. It does the opposite. It narrows it, it entrenches secrecy and it weakens the fundamental right of Australians to know what their government is doing in their name. This bill represents a profound step backwards for transparency, accountability and open government. The government tells us the bill will modernise the freedom of information framework, streamline processes and improve efficiency. But when you actually read it and you listen to those who understand the FOI system—journalists, integrity experts and transparency advocates—the truth becomes quite clear. The bill is actually about control; it's not about modernisation.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the ABS, there are now 34,000 more unemployed Australians than a month ago; inflation is soaring above the RBA's target band, leading to concerns about stagflation; and every month the average household is paying $1,800 more on their mortgage under this Labor government. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he promised, 'No-one will be left behind'?”