Tim Wilson
Goldstein · Liberal Party · Australia
“Now, we see even more immoral leadership as the Prime Minister and his ministers refuse to audit whether federal money has found its way into the hands of organised crime through the CFMEU Labor cartel.”
“The silence that we heard from our prime minister and our national leaders every step of the way led to horrific incidents like, on 10 November, the protests at the front of Central Shule in Caulfield South in the Goldstein electorate. It led eventually to the most horrific terrorist incident on our most famous national beach.”
“The idea that you would put the social solidarity of the most marginalised section of our community on a ballot paper knowing it would fail is an abrogation of leadership and responsibility and something I do not think this prime minister will ever be able to shake.”
“I've recently been spending a lot of time thinking about what moral government is and what type of government seeks to divide citizens, feed corruption and break trust within the community. The short and sharp of it is that it's an immoral government.”
“But to engage in citizenship stacking, where they deliberately went around and targeted electorates and got people to become Australian citizens on the eve of a national poll, is absolutely disgraceful.”
“There is hope. We can have a moral government again that's focused on uniting Australians and building trust and taking Australia forward together. But the only way we can do that is by seeing a change of government and the end of the Albanese government.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,081 lines we hold for Tim Wilson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 22.
“On one level, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 is straightforward. On another level, it tells a far more compelling story of the enduring connection to country, of land and purpose, of Indigenous Australians and of our modern management. Every nation has a story. Some are born in revolution; others are born in conquest. Some, like ours, are born in the quiet but profound weaving of traditions old and new into a single tapestry of purpose. In Australia we are blessed not with one creation story but with many. The oldest continuous culture in the world, our First Nations people, give us the Dreaming—a spiritual and moral framework that grounds land, law and life in sacred connection.”
“It's unfortunately focused on themselves rather than the Australian people, and we need to call it out because the consequences and the on flow to the Australian people will be significant. Now is the time for good people to stand up and call it out.”
“I say that with absolute sadness because, if anything, we come into this parliament, hopefully, with an esprit de corps that the objective of being elected to the federal parliament is to advance Australia and to ultimately 'Advance Australia Fair' for all. When you see a piece of legislation like this and like the one that is being flagged by the Attorney-General to shut down scrutiny of government and the behaviour of the government in the context of question time and the decisions of the Prime Minister—we're now seeing a pattern of behaviour which says that the 94 seats that this government has got in the House of Representatives suggests that a hubris and an arrogance is now distorting not just their behaviour but their priorities.”
“The extent to which you have ministers and the Prime Minister come into this chamber who increasingly won't answer questions or say, 'I refer to my previous answer,' which included not answering questions—we increasingly see decision-making by members of this government which is only to the benefit of 'cartel-ish' behaviour towards the benefit of those who donate to the Labor Party or to boost the benefits and the graft of the Labor Party. You realise that the priority of this government is not the Australian people. It is not to respect the Australian people and it is not to recognise how we use this parliament to advance the Australian people, but it is simply to achieve its own ends.”
“Look at the fact that they're shutting down the pathways for Australians to review the decisions of full recognition of our ADF personnel, then look at what they're doing around shutting down transparency of decision-making in Australian government decisions, around redacting documents and trying to keep secret information about government decision-making, around imposing a new truth tax to limit access to information to the Australian people and around denying staff to members of parliament to diminish the capacity for scrutiny of government.”
“I suspect most Australians would believe that it was better there was full recognition and, if necessary, a pathway of review and, in addition to that, would say to the government, 'Don't you have slightly better priorities than this?' The answer is clearly no. In addition to that, I would encourage every member of the Australian community to not just look at this legislation and reflect on it in isolation in what it says about the Albanese government in the context of the ADF, but to look at it in terms of the priorities of the Albanese government in the context of their broader legislative government agenda.”
“Of course, I encourage any member of our veterans community, and of the entire Australian community, to write to the Senate inquiry to have their views heard and ask if it is appropriate that the government is engaging in a pathway to limit the review of decision-making and the full recognition of the past service of former defence personnel. I doubt there are going to be many Australians who turn around and say the best thing for those wearing our uniform is to diminish or delete the pathways for recognition of their service. Maybe there are, but I doubt it. That just seems to be the priority of the Albanese government.”
“My path forward is to write to the presidents of all the local RSLs in the Goldstein electorate—Thomas Concaig from Hampton RSL, James Steedman from Caulfield RSL, Jordie Burgess from Highett RSL, Simon Richards from Cheltenham Moorabbin RSL and Bentleigh RSL—and to Mark Schroffel, who is now the state president of RSL Victoria. I'll, of course, seek their input and opinion and encourage them to write submissions to the review, or to any inquiry that comes out of the Senate process, to make sure that their views are heard.”
“While I was sent to Canberra because people in the community had genuine concerns about their future, wanting security and confidence about their capacity to live their best lives, my priority is to seek to diminish the rightful recognition of Defence personnel.' I suspect most people, in their electorates, would turn around and say, 'You have very strange priorities indeed.' I've no doubt this will pass through the House of Representatives with the support of those on the other side of this chamber, with their gargantuan majority and distorted priorities.”
“It is, of course, going through the House of Representatives right now, but it will go through a proper review in the Senate. The question, in the end, is how can members of this government come into this parliament and stand by this legislation. I see the minister at the desk. We, of course, don't see many members of the government standing up and supporting this legislation by speaking in favour of it. To be fair, I can understand why. I wouldn't want to be attached to it either, if I were on the other side of this chamber. I think they would be mocked and ridiculed by the RSLs and many of the Defence personnel in their electorates for standing up and saying: 'This is my priority in the federal parliament right now.”
“In discussing the impact of several of Defence's proposals, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal said the original proposal would have 'rendered invalid 95 per cent of applications decided by the tribunal between 2020 and 2023.' The tribunal also said: … the Defence proposals, if implemented, would … abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans and families and others to seek external and independent merits review of Defence decisions refusing to recommend an ADF member or veteran for a defence honour or award. I simply cannot understand how this can be a priority of this government at this time. They have made their decision, and they are introducing this bill to this parliament.”
“There is a simple expectation from all Australians, I would hope, to properly honour our ex-service men and women, and that is what we, on the opposition benches, expect. But, clearly, the department have found a compliant government that is prepared to trade off that full recognition, because it is going to introduce a 20-year limit for the tribunal to review past decisions. It should, justifiably, be opposed.”
“By simply interfering in this process, we are removing a pathway for revision of the merits of past decisions. It's a simple expectation that there be transparency and that those decisions be reviewed if new information comes to light. We know that in the past they have been, and correctly so. The government is seeking a remedy but has given no justification or evidence of why this is the case beyond the department not wanting to go through the laborious task of wanting to honour our former defence personnel and give them full recognition. Frankly, I understand that it's bureaucratically problematic for the department, but, when we're talking about the legacy of honouring those who are prepared to sacrifice for our nation, I think you can put up with it at your desks.”
“This government wants to shut that process down, and I simply cannot fathom how this is its priority right now in comparison to the enormity of other problems—not just the problems that the Australian people face but, frankly, the bigger problems that the Australian Defence Force is facing around its capacity and its position to meet the challenges of the 21st century, which is our most strategic operating environment since the Second World War according to the Australian government's own white paper. The establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in 2011 provided a statutory agency for independent review of past actions and decisions. We know that military officers are not infallible and that errors of judgement can be made in relation to recommendations for medallic recognition.”
“The tribunal exists to make sure that there is proper and fair review of the decisions of the defence department to make sure there is proper recognition, because in the tragedy of the fog of war, of course, decisions are sometimes made based on information that is incorrect. We simply believe that information should be able to come to light so decision-making is fair and fully respects what actually happened on the ground. We know, sometimes, through court cases and other information provided, that what first appears to have happened can, in fact, be wrong. That's why we have reviews. That's why we have a pathway to make sure that new information can be provided.”
“While we have former state Labor premiers marching down the red carpets in Beijing right now and celebrating past military conflicts, we seem completely unwilling to fully honour and have pathways for review to honour the legacy of our own. There is something deeply worrying about the priorities of the Albanese government. The coalition proudly supports all men and women who have served in uniform and, in some cases, have had to, tragically, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our nation. We ultimately believe that anybody who has been prepared to make a sacrifice, to stand up and fight for our country, should have their courage and their bravery acknowledged and respected not just through the history and the stories of our nation but through medals, as is appropriate for their valiant service.”
“Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to go and vote for a re-elected Albanese government because they are going to be the most secretive government in Australian political history.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to impose a veil of secrecy.' Nobody, no Australian, walked into the ballot box and said, 'I'm going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to increase the cost of and diminish access to information.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'We are going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to redact more information available to the Australian people.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they are going to limit my capacity to scrutinise government decision-making.' Nobody walked into the ballot box and said, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government because they're going to reduce the number of staff for members of the opposition so they are less able to hold the government to account in this parliament.' And I am sure, as day follows night, that nobody walked into the ballot box and voted for the Albanese government, saying, 'I am going to vote for the Albanese government so they can strip away a pathway for review of decision-making around honouring our deceased war veterans.' For the government to make this one of their first, premier pieces of legislation says something brutal and, frankly, quite terrifying about their priorities as a government.”
“But, at the moment, we have a very different type of government embodied by this legislation. Gifted by the Australian people with this enormous privilege, its priorities at the moment are how it can strip accountability and scrutiny from its decision-making. It's not just about how they're stripping accountability from their decision-making but how they are also shutting a curtain of censorship over the departments and the decision-making of government, to impose a culture of secrecy on Canberra. I can say one thing for certain. Nobody walked into the ballot box at the general election this year and voted for that.”
“I would hope that in an environment of global instability we had a government that was focused on reassuring and strengthening our nation so that it can lean into the challenges of the 21st century. When I think about what artificial intelligence could do to our employment market and to jobs creation and growth, I would hope that the focus of the government was on skills and economic developments, to reassure Australians that we have a way forward to meet the future with confidence. I would hope that, at a time like this, we had leadership that was focused on building the strength of our nation—more importantly, that, when we have a government that has been given a gift of a majority, 94 seats, by the Australian people, it would be focused on steering the good ship Australia towards a brighter future.”
“This Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 raises a number of questions around the priorities of this government. When I think about the priorities of a government that's just been returned to office, at a time when Australians are feeling the most incredible degree of financial stress—when households are struggling to pay their mortgages and electricity bills or even goods at the supermarket, a simple basket of food—I would hope that the priority of the Australian government was on how to ease the cost of burden, the pressure, and alleviate whatever pressure there may be on households at this difficult time.”
“If the federal government helped, it would mean residents would get the cultural facilities they need and wouldn't be left behind. To take action, sign the petition at timwilsonmp.com.au. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Bayside, Glen Eira and Kingston residents should have decent infrastructure. Labor ripped $100 million out of our community, and we are still living with the consequences. Glen Huntly Road should be a vibrant shopping strip all throughout the year, but it lacks tree coverage. Before the election, we committed $125,000 to invest in an urban canopy to beautify the street, improve community amenities and act as a carbon sink. Glen Eira wants to invest in Glen Huntly's future. We want the federal government to help. It would mean the Glen Huntly community wouldn't be left behind.”
“If the federal government helped, it would mean Bentleigh would get the park they need and wouldn't be left behind. Take action and sign the petition at timwilsonmp.com.au. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Bayside, Glen Eira and Kingston residents should have decent infrastructure. Labor ripped $100 million out of our community, and we are still living with the consequences. The Billilla Mansion cultural precinct on Halifax Street is a majestic asset waiting to be converted into a cultural hub. With an ageing population, the community needs the assets to support community connection and cultural engagement. Assets like Billilla are there to be used. Before the election, we committed $3 million to bring the facility into the 21st century. Bayside is ready.”
“If the federal government helped, it would mean Bentleigh would get the park they need and wouldn't be left behind. Take action and sign the petition at timwilsonmp.com.au. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Bayside, Glen Eira and Kingston residents should have decent infrastructure. Labor ripped $100 million out of our community, and we are still living with the consequences. The Bentleigh Hodgson Reserve smart-lighting upgrade could enable the Bentleigh community to use the Hodgson reserve park all day. The Bentleigh community are living more flexible lives and need spaces to walk their dogs, exercise and meet all year round, but the Hodgson reserve doesn't have adequate lighting. Before the election, we committed $300,000 to invest in smart lighting so it could be used all throughout the day and all year round. Glen Eira is ready.”
“When one teal MP was asked why they broke this trust, they first said that it was 'misinformation' before begging forgiveness, saying that they'd have had strips torn off them rightly if they'd voted against it. If you get elected on a platform of climate action and then you vote for $2 billion in new coal and gas subsidies, you lose your integrity. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Bayside, Glen Eira and Kingston residents should expect decent infrastructure. Labor ripped $100 million out of our community in the 2022 budget and never replaced it. We are still paying the price. The Porter Road Park could be an amazing open park for Bentleigh. Glen Eira bought the houses to clear the land, but it doesn't have any facilities. Before the election, we committed $2 million to make it a modern park to promote healthy living. Glen Eira is ready.”
“Deputy Speaker Freelander, I note some MPs are questioning Australia's commitment to net zero. As you know, I've got a long-term interest in this area and that know delivering long-term emissions reduction depends on trust, and nothing will corrode that trust more than price increases and outages, which takes us to the teals. They were elected on a platform of explicit trust and integrity in politics, so it is fair to hold them to account to this standard. So, when the member for Kooyong was elected on the basis of climate action and reducing fossil fuel subsidies but then voted for $2 billion of new coal and gas subsidies, it was a direct betrayal of their commitment to integrity in office. They have tried to sweep it under the carpet, hoping no-one would notice.”
“Bayside, Glen Eira and Kingston residents should have decent infrastructure. When Labor ripped out $100 million from our community, we are still living with the consequences. The Dendy Park pavilion at Dendy Park has been waiting years for an upgrade. Despite serving Brighton Little Athletics Club and Hampton East Brighton Football Club, it doesn't have facilities for women's athletics or soccer nor disability toilets for people with a disability. Before the election we committed $900,000 to bring the facilities into the 21st century. Bayside is ready if the federal government helped, it would mean women and people with a disability would get the facilities they desperately need and wouldn't be left behind. It is time to take action and sign the petition at timwilsonmp.com.au.”
“How do we position it so that it's part of the success of small business in being able to get money paid on time? If there's any exposure for small business, it is that they do not get paid on time, unlike large companies or those who do simple things like drive transactions, like with a payment system, because cash flow is king. Have you heard that expression, Deputy Speaker Georganas? I'm looking for a nod; give us a nod.”
“We fundamentally believe that this nation is best governed from the citizen, the family, the community and the small business up, not from big government, big unions and big corporates down. That is the clear cleave between the Labor government and a coalition government. We believe in a nation governed from citizens, families, communities and small business up, and that is why, like with citizens, families, communities and small business, we make decisions with them at the core of our focus, not the best interests of big unions, big governments and big corporates, as the Labor Party does. That's going to be the basis on which we make decisions about things like the payment system—how we strengthen it, make sure it's got integrity and make sure it backs and enables small business to succeed and thrive?”
“This was a topic that was discussed recently between myself and the Minister for Small Business in a speech we recently gave up in the mural hall about the launch of a report about digital payments, sponsored by Square but hosted by COSBOA, the small business advocacy body. The Minister for Small Business, who I have very fond affection for—she's a lovely lady amongst many things—made a very important point in her speech, being that, for this government, small business is part of their consideration and part of their decision-making. I remarked in my speech that that is a very good thing to have, but it also is a reflection that this government see small business as something to be considered. In my speech I said, in a coalition government, small business will be at the fore of decision-making.”
“This is one of the things that the prudential regulator, APRA, and ASIC and the banks regularly stress test, because they're mindful of the exposure they have and what it can go on to do for financial stability. As the previous speaker spoke about correctly before, it's also one of the biggest pathways of exposure to things like scams. We all know people who, even with the best of intent, have found themselves exposed to scams, partly through the payment system. The payment system isn't just one of the pathways where people get exposed to scams; it can also be one of the best ways to protect Australians against scams. Banks and other financial institutions with the resources can invest in stopping that. We have to get this right. In addition to that, we need to work with the platforms, the providers and small businesses.”
“I just had somebody come to my office and argue that there should be compelled least-cost routings forced through to the provider as well as other limitations on how the system should operate. Nobody wants to pay merchant fees and transaction fees, and they want somebody else to pay. At the same time, we need a robust payment system because it's integral to cash flow. It's very important around keeping prices low. But we also need a system with integrity, because sitting behind that is one of the most important exposures we have around cybersecurity and risk. If we don't get that right, we expose our entire economy to components of risk.”
“They then aren't in a position to step up and get their next job, potentially for a larger business, while they go on and study or go on, of course, into full-time work. The consequences of this government's policy are real. If we get the payment systems wrong, the impact on cash flow is also real. That's the sort of thing that the Reserve Bank is looking at right now in its consultation around payment systems reform. They're looking at the balance of who is going to pay for the different components of the payment system. At the moment, their consultation paper has put out the idea that they're going to ban transaction fees because they think that's going to be the best policy outcome. A robust number of people are coming through this building making different cases about what should happen.”
“We have record small business insolvencies right now because they have cash-flow problems, and they have cash-flow problems because the dead hand of the Australian Taxation Office is coming after them to take away their revenue and what little cash they have or because of the rising cost of inflation. The government haven't been able to control inflation, because they keep stimulating the economy to cover up the fact that there isn't private sector job growth. Whatever it is, this government is failing in the economy. The dead hand is increasing the costs on small business to the point that they are closing. When you think about that, that means a kid doesn't get their first job in their community. They don't get their first foot on the ladder of economic opportunity.”
“You hear that little beep when you buy a coffee at your local cafe, and so many of them are using a terminal from a bank or another platform like Tyro or Square. Those terminals are the digital embodiment of small businesses then engaging with the entire global economy. That's the basis on which they then have the capacity to manage their supply chain, their payment systems and often then their tax, and the back-end systems and operations that empower small business to be successful are so critical. It's every single one of those transactions played out that enable the revenue, liquidity and cash flow for a small business to succeed. This stuff really matters. We currently have record small business insolvencies. It's one of those things which the government doesn't like to talk about in question time.”
“It disappoints me that the government has been arrogantly dismissing the potential for a disallowance motion in this legislation, because it would improve their legislation, it would build confidence and it would be better for tempering the enthusiasms of the Treasurer in his ambition not just to be Treasurer but to do things that are going to be good for the Australian economy rather than for his own political ambition, trajectory or whatever term we're going to use these days. At the end of the day so many Australian businesses and small businesses are dependent on payment systems today. We all deal with it. I started my speech by referring to that little sound that we know when we tap our phone, credit card or debit card.”
“When you're giving very large powers to the Treasurer to decide things like payment systems, we have mechanisms within legislation to create disallowance motions where the parliament, if it disagrees with the decision the Treasurer makes, can come in and challenge the decision of the Treasurer, simply to say these matters should be brought back before this parliament and the status quo should prevail. This exists in lots of pieces of legislation. It's an entirely reasonable proposition, and I would have thought that, when you're giving the Treasurer this volume of power, that is an appropriate place for a disallowance motion to deal with the extent that power is being given to the Treasurer in these laws. That would build a much greater sense of confidence in this legislation.”
“This government has become completely addicted to its powers by regulation to bypass this parliament. Only in the motion prior to this debate we talked about the government's new truth tax where it's trying to shut down or limit access to information by the public and scrutiny of this government by putting financial as well as scrutiny barriers over government deliberations. We've had in other pieces of legislation what they call a Henry VIII tax proposal, which after legislation has passed gives powers to the Treasurer to dictate the terms of tax rates, but really it's a lawless tax. That's what it actually is. It is a tax that is introduced that has no legislative coverage and oversight. This legislation has its own similar problems.”
“There's always a balance between how much you give powers to the Treasurer by regulation—or any minister, I might add because I know there are a couple of them sitting at the table—versus how much you give power to the Treasurer through forms of legislation which force things to come back to this chamber, to the assent of the representatives elected by the people of this Commonwealth. Of course, by and large, we should always seek to do things through this parliamentary process—it adds proper scrutiny, accountability and deliberation—and also because we want to get to a position where, when a rule is imposed, it's uniform and goes through proper processes so that there's a broader degree of acceptance and understanding about the consequences of it, because, once the law is imposed, the consequences are often hard to undo.”
“We don't want to stifle that innovation and have regulators come down with the heavy hand of government and limit their potential for growth. We want to back them, we want to encourage them, and we want the operating environment to be open so that, where innovation can occur, it is an Australian first wherever possible. Of course, they need to be steered and guided, but that is to make sure that the system is as open as possible rather than it being too burdensome with regulation. In addition to that, it's extended the powers of the Treasurer in a way that is increasingly by a form of regulation.”
“It's overreaching because it's seeking to extend the RBA's powers into areas that perhaps go well beyond what it should be covering—going beyond components of payment systems and looking at certain types of fintech and even certain types of block chain technologies and digital wallets—where it doesn't necessarily have the appropriate skills or capacity to do so and could limit the capacity for financial innovation. That has actually been one of the great growth areas of Australian innovation in recent years. Financial technology has put Australian small businesses at the fore, has put us in a position to grow and be successful and has often gone on to be sold internationally if not just domestically.”
“No-one is disputing that there's a need for it to be done in a way that is consistent with Australian law and Australian regulation by the appropriate oversight powers to the Reserve Bank of Australia and to be done with the need to make sure that it's done so that it integrates successfully with Australia's payment system so that we can build out a stable financial environment with confidence. That doesn't mean the government has got everything right in this legislation. We know that the government is, in one sense, overreaching and, in another sense, not doing enough.”
“As a consequence of the COVID pandemic a few years ago and as a result of the integration of EFTPOS many years ago and the expansion of credit cards and other forms of payment systems, it's very much now fully integrated into our lives. Of course, the laws were designed at a time when payment systems were relatively straightforward. We all welcome this updated legislation to address the modernisation of our payment systems. It reflects a technical capacity to reflect how we use the payment systems today and to give government appropriate legislative coverage, particularly with the emergence of multinational payment systems with things like Apple Pay, Google Pay and Afterpay and for crypto and block chain systems as well.”
“We all know the experience these days—going into a shop, whatever it is, and buying coffee—you're looking very healthy these days, Deputy Speaker Georganas, perhaps you're not buying the muffin! Nonetheless, you're going in with your phone, credit card, debit card, whatever it is and hearing the sound—beep!—and knowing the transaction has just gone through. That is the modern payment system that so many of us engage with on a day-to-day basis, as most of us barely even carry cash anymore. Cash, as much as it is an important part of our economic security and the liquidity of our system, isn't actually how most of us engage. Most of us use digital transactions for the little things because it's become part of our day-to-day routine.”
“We are seeing a government that is becoming increasingly drunk on their own power, because they throw out arguments about why they need to limit access to information with no substantiation and no evidence. This truth tax must be defeated.”
“But the answer, despite the promises of this government—they said they'd be the most transparent in Australian political history—is pulling the curtain of secrecy down behind them so that people cannot see deep into the heart of this government, and they're putting up cost barriers to limit the capacity of everyday Australians to see what this government is doing. Of course, big corporates will be able to afford the fees, but it will be average Australians, already struggling under the daily pressures of the rising cost of living, who will not be able to hold their government to account. This is the problem, and, of course, it sits against a backdrop of everything else this government has already done, from cutting the staff of the opposition so there can be less accountability in this chamber.”
“I understand that the Prime Minister likes to come into this chamber, throw his weight around and give his Castro-like responses to basic questions about the operations of the healthcare system or the aged-care system or how his government is operating. But the reality is that we live in a democracy. The parliament of the people of Australia is not the National People's Congress. The job of members of parliament—whether they are opposition members, Independents or members of minor parties, they have a right to ask questions and simply hold the government to account, just as journalists have a right to ask basic questions of government and to submit freedom of information applications so that there can be proper scrutiny of how a government is making its decisions.”
“We have seen an active choice wherein the Labor Party is seeking to impose a new cost to limit access to information for Australians in relation to simply knowing, so that there can be proper scrutiny and accountability, what ministers who sit on government benches are doing and the information that's being provided to them as part of normal government decision-making. I understand that, when they're in government, they're sitting there and they do not want to be questioned. I understand that they do not want people to ask for basic bits of information. I understand that they do not like questions at question time.”
“In 2022-23, more freedom of information requests were denied than granted, showing a shameful position of secrecy, and a cloud of secrecy has now descended upon the Albanese government. There is a clear pattern of deception and a pay-for-play approach to information under the Albanese government. That is why this truth tax must be defeated. It's a direct attack on the transparency and information available to the Australian people. The truth tax that's being put forward by the Albanese government is one of the most corrosive things that we have seen in our parliamentary democracy.”
“It will expand the range of confidential documents, shielding ministers and, of course, bureaucrats from scrutiny of information. This is not some sort of subjective comment. The Centre for Public Integrity has found that, in the year 2011-12, 59 per cent of documents were available unredacted; now, it is just 25 per cent. This is not a change that is being introduced to try and boost transparency or information about government data or policy advice. This change is clearly about covering up government activity. And they're imposing new taxes to limit access to information, to limit the capacity of Australians to ask basic questions of their government. That's why the Albanese government is introducing a truth tax, because what they're doing is denying information to Australians.”
“The Albanese government is introducing a truth tax. A federal Liberal government introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 1982. Since then we have had transparency in government so that Australians can access information about themselves, governments and government programs. But the Albanese Labor government is betraying its commitment to openness and transparency by now introducing new provisions which make it harder for Australians to access information about government programs and insight into how their government is conducting itself. The Albanese government is seeking to hide information about its deliberations from the public and from journalists to minimise scrutiny. Freedom of information laws are under attack, making it harder than ever to access basic information about government documents.”