I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion standing in my name.
Leave granted.
I amend the notice standing in my name by omitting Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 and I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013
Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
Order! The committee is considering the Maritime Powers Bill 2012 and a related bill and amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7348. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That government business order of the day No. 2, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, be postponed till a later hour of the day.
Question agreed to.
I would like to make a short contribution to this debate on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, which is before us today. The federal government is very proud of its record of assistance to the rural and regional sector of Australia. I am pleased to have with me here today in the chamber the minister responsible, Senator Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. This bill makes some amendments to the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980. As a South Australian, anything to do with wine has much importance to me and my home state. I would like to take the opportunity a bit later in the debate to make a further contribution, but I notice that Senator Colbeck has arrived in the chamber. I will be pleased to hear from him.
In rising to make my contribution on behalf of the coalition to the debate on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, which covers a number of different areas of the agriculture portfolio, I note that the coalition will be supporting the legislation. But there are a number of comments around the legislation and agriculture generally that I would like to make as part of my contribution.
This proposed legislation effectively makes some minor changes to a range of portfolio areas. As the government whip just noted, it makes some amendments to the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980. It makes some modifications to the Fisheries Management Act 1994 to explain requirements for directions to close a fishery, particularly a specific part of a fishery, and also to correct some grammatical errors and delete some redundant text. The opposition supports those amendments.
It also makes some changes to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow the departmental secretary to consider requests made by levy payers for remission of penalties. It also makes some further technical amendments to the Fisheries Management Act, the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act, the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act. But none of the amendments make any substantial changes in substance to the law.
So, in that context, the coalition is quite happy to lend its support to the legislation, but I think it is pertinent at this stage to look at the way that the government has actually managed the agricultural portfolio. There is a long history of legitimate concern from the primary industry sector about the way that the government has managed this portfolio, and I suppose prime amongst those concerns would be the carbon tax. We are seeing right now the very negative impacts of additional cost imposed by this government on the rural sector, the farming sector and the fisheries sector right around the country. For example, in dairy, I acknowledge that there are global issues in respect of the market price and that the dollar is high, and that is having the impact, but that is being exacerbated by the additional costs imposed by this government through the carbon tax. The government has been trying to convince farmers that they are not subject to the carbon tax, but you tell that to a dairy farmer who has a quarterly power bill of $40,000 that is going to receive, and has received, a 10 per cent increase due to the carbon tax, or you tell that to the same dairy farmer, whose processor is also subject to significant extra costs. If their milk, for example, is going into milk powder, 30 per cent of the cost of producing that product is energy. The global market is not going to carry the cost; it is being sent back to the industry. We know that that is the case, because a number of organisations, including the government's own ABARES, have done some work to indicate that those costs will be pushed back to the agricultural sector. The government really has not understood that. Its line is, 'Well, agriculture's not subject to the carbon tax,' but agriculture is subject to the impacts. That needs to be remembered and understood.
Of course, if you live in Tasmania, the cost of shipping is impacted by the carbon tax. The minister came to Tasmania and was asked on Tasmanian radio about the costs of freight and the impact of the carbon tax on the costs of freight. The minister ridiculed the person who was asking the question on the radio, saying, 'You don't know what you're talking about, because freight is not subject to the carbon tax.' The minister did not even understand the impact of his own tax. I am not talking about the minister for agriculture; I am talking about Minister Albanese, the transport minister, who does not understand the impacts of the carbon tax on his own portfolio, much less the impacts that flow back to the rest of industry.
So it is important for the community to understand that this government continues to make decisions that are not in the interests of agriculture. We talk about being the food bowl for Asia and about sending our produce all across the globe, particularly into South-East Asia. Yet for seven years—two under the coalition, admittedly, but also the last five years—what has happened to the progress of the China free trade agreement? New Zealand commenced at the same time as we did and finalised theirs in three years. As of the beginning of this year, we are at a 15 per cent disadvantage for our fisheries sector into the Chinese market because this government has not progressed a free trade agreement. There is a free trade agreement with South Korea sitting there waiting to be signed. At the NFF blueprint launch a few weeks ago, the head of the NFF was asked, 'If there is one thing that the government could do for you, what would that be?' The very quick response was, 'Sign the South Korea FTA tomorrow.' Where is it? What is going on with that? How are we supposed to be providing agricultural produce from this country into those markets—markets that are growing and are demanding our product—if we are at such a significant price disadvantage compared to a country like New Zealand, which already has significant cost advantages over us for a number of other reasons, currency being one of them, but also labour cost?
We are seeing our food processing and our food manufacturing businesses go offshore because the government is not dealing with these particular issues. What it is doing is imposing additional costs. And so for an exporter to get licensed and to have export access, what has this government done? It has removed a 40 per cent rebate that assisted with markets, market development and access into those markets; it has made it more expensive to export. That is the legacy of this government; that is what it has done. It is forcing businesses to make the decision on whether they might stay registered as an exporter or not. That is what is starting to occur.
In the fishing sector, we have seen an increase in fees for access to some of the fisheries from $7,000 to $14,000 per unit for access to the fishery. And after huge swathe of industry players said, 'We can't afford that, we'll bail out; we'll surrender our licences', what happened next? The government changes the cost structure completely and makes it more affordable for these businesses to get in, but these businesses, having conceded their licenses, have no entitlement to get them back. The complete inconsistency in the decision-making of this government really does not stand up. The lack of consultation, the lack of consideration of the impacts of its decisions have been a real drag on the agricultural sector at a time when the global market and the dollar, because of the resource sector boom, have had a negative impact. And what has this government done? It has added additional costs over and above those broader economic conditions.
We have coming to us the agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation that adds millions more to the cost of doing business for agriculture. How many more things can this government layer on top of all of the other impacts that it has had over the past four or five years? We have had a circumstance with access to markets where it just becomes slightly difficult to actually get into the markets. Lobsters into China has been a significant issue. I have to concede that the government, through the trade minister, has put into place a program to start dealing with lobsters and the supply chain project there, but that sat there for a couple of years while the industry suffered significant disadvantage. Bearing in mind that the New Zealand industry has a free trade agreement which gives it a 15 per cent advantage over the Australian fisheries sector, when you are talking about a commodity that is valued at between $65 and $95 a kilogram, then a 15 per cent disadvantage into that premium market is a significant one. That is having a major negative effect on our rock lobster sector, which is a major business for Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. We need to continue to work on the supply chain project, but where is the free trade agreement that is going to assist those industries getting into the country?
The relationship that we have with Indonesia has been so badly damaged by the decision to ban the live cattle export trade without notice. They heard about this on the radio after being told via our foreign minister the day before: 'Everything's okay. We'll continue to work with you. We'll sort something out here.' Then the next day a decision was made and the Indonesians found out about it on the radio. It is an absolute disgrace that we put countries and our trading partners through these things. How long is it going to take to repair the damage that has been done by that decision? Indonesia now says: 'Australia is a risk to our protein supply. We need to mitigate that risk.' And so from the situation where we were sending over more than 600,000 tonnes of product to them, we are now down to around 200,000 tonnes a year—and we will potentially receive further cuts. The relationship with China also needs to be managed. China is a huge opportunity for agriculture in Australia. In fact, it is one of the few really growing markets. If you go back to 2005-06, we were sending something in the order of $630 million worth of food to China. If you go forward to 2011-12, that is $2.1 billion. The growth in food sales from Australia to China was over threefold in that period of time. We hear complaints about the food imports from China which have grown by about $300 million in that same time frame, with imports less than doubling from China. How we manage our relationship with the Chinese has to be done in a way that continues to provide for that opportunity.
I think that some of the scaremongering that goes on in this country around the relationship with China quite frankly needs to be reconsidered very carefully because, at the same time as there has been that threefold growth in our market to China, countries like the UK and the US, for example, have actually halved the amount of food produce that they are taking from Australia. So who should we be working with and who should we be maintaining a positive relationship with? Should we be going to China and in their language telling them how to run their own country? Is that the sort of thing that we ought to be doing?
Look at the circumstances that occurred around the management of the incursion of Asian bees where the critical scientist was not invited to the critical meeting to make decisions around whether or not to declare them endemic and if we cannot actually deal with them. Why didn't he get invited? Because we lost his email address. This is the most eminent scientist on bees in the country. He did not get invited to the key meeting to make a decision as to whether or not we think we can combat or eradicate the Asian bee incursion in and around Cairns. There are just completely absurd decisions. Something like 65 per cent of our agriculture relies on wild bees for its pollination. An incursion of Asian bees with varroa mite could wipe out our native bee population in two or three years. What is the potential impact on agriculture from that? Australia is the last continent on the planet that does not have varroa mite. We need to ensure that our borders are secure in respect of that and yet here we are at the critical point in time not inviting the guy who has the most knowledge about the issue to the meeting. It is just absolutely absurd.
In respect of something that is pretty close to my heart, the way that the government has dealt with the forestry industry in Tasmania is nothing short of a disgrace. The deal that they have on the table right now is being debated in the Tasmanian upper house. It basically spells the end of the native forestry industry in Tasmania by 2030. That is the effect of the deal. It is simple to work out. All you need to do is to look at the wood supply projections. The wood supply projections say that if you lock up half a million hectares that the government is proposing to lock up and harvest 137,000 cubic metres of category 1 sawlogs from now on, the industry will be gone by 2030. There will be between 25,000 and 40,000 cubic metres of category 1 sawlogs left by 2030. Industry will look at that and the decline will start straight away. Who is going to invest in an industry where the resource has a 17-year life? Who will make that decision? Yet that is what this government is doing to my home state of Tasmania. While the industry might continue to 2030, the death of the industry has already been determined if the Tasmanian upper house passes this sham legislation that is in front of it right now.
The government claims that a deal was negotiated between the environmental movement and the industry, and that is correct; it was. But the industry was negotiating for itself, not for the rest of Tasmania. And this piece of legislation deals with more than just the forest industry; it deals with the mining sector, the tourism sector and the agriculture sector. The absurdity is that this government is looking to move the forest industry out of the forest and into a plantation industry, which puts it onto our farmland. The proposal says that 20 per cent of Tasmania's agricultural land is to go under plantations—130,000 hectares. How is Tasmania supposed to be the food bowl of Australia—which is what is being claimed by some people in Tasmania—if we are going to put 20 per cent of our agricultural land into plantation? Why are we spending $400 million in Tasmania on irrigation development to irrigate trees? The complete lack of logic from this government—albeit Greens driven, because of their partnership with the Greens in this place and in Tasmania—is absolutely absurd. But here they are, proposing to take out one of the pillars of the Tasmanian economy. What was a $1.4 billion industry is now down to about $700 million but by 2030 will be zero. The native forest industry will be dead, because there is no viability in an industry where the supply volumes are between 25,000 and 40,000 cubic metres. It just does not exist.
That is what this government is doing to the forest sector, but it also applies to agriculture. And when you look at what they have done to the fishing industry through their management of significant fisheries issues over the last 12 months, taking political decisions rather than science based decisions, you get the picture. So, in respect of the marine planning process, they are doing deals with people in this place—a little piece here for a vote over there—and taking the side of the environmental groups over industry. If people in agriculture do not think they are next, they are kidding themselves, because once the environmental groups are finished with the forestry sector, the mining sector and the fishing sector they will come after them on the land. You only have to look at what they are doing in New Zealand.
This government's record in respect of the agricultural, fisheries and forestry sector is completely and utterly dismal—remember, they did not even have a policy at the last election. Having said that, the coalition will be supporting this piece of legislation.
I rise to speak in support of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. This bill makes some useful technical changes to a range of acts under the agriculture, fisheries and forestry portfolio, including the changes to wine labelling, which will implement changes that the industry has been calling for. As you know, the Greens are very committed to truth in labelling, whether it can be seen in wine standards or in the accurate labelling of ingredients such as genetically modified organisms and palm oil. I suspect that the next biggest issue relating to accuracy and truth in labelling to confront the agriculture industry will in fact be genetically modified crops. Recently we have begun to receive reports that Monsanto's genetically modified corn has begun to fail in the USA. There is growing consensus that GMOs are not the silver bullet that it was originally thought they would be and that in the meantime our farmers are beginning to command premium prices for non-GMO crops.
GMOs are and will continue to be a big issue for our farmers. At the very minimum, we need the robust engagement with industry and the willingness to listen to alternative voices from industry that are raising concerns about the impact of GMOs and the effect on their ability to command premium prices and to protect themselves from contamination. We believe it is essential that we introduce legislative protections for these farmers and for consumers the way we are introducing these protections for wine producers in Australia. Consumers have a right to know what they are consuming. Farmers also have the right to be able to label their products as GMO-free. You will recall that the Greens' and Senator Xenophon's private senators' bill on palm oil labelling successfully passed the Senate chamber last year only to become entangled in the House of Representatives in free trade issues and lobbying from the Malaysian government. So I have concerns that, despite the promising signs we see before us with this bill, there is no appetite to take on the other big issues that need to be taken on in labelling. My colleagues and I remain committed to truth in labelling. We welcome the work that has gone into resolving this issue and hope that the momentum will continue with other labelling issues, such as support for the country of origin labelling bill of my colleague and Leader of the Greens, Christine Milne, which is currently in the inquiry stage.
This bill also takes steps to correct a drafting error that was introduced two years ago when this government sought to introduce the legislative powers that would give substantive decision-making powers over the fisheries management at AFMA to fisheries users under a scheme of fisheries co-management. I want to take this time to reflect on the current state of fisheries management in Australia and the challenges that co-management faces. We need to look at what is good co-management. AFMA reports that a primary benefit of legislative powers to enable co-management comes from more cost-effectively administrating the fisheries. Admirable though it is to desire to ensure that there is efficiency in our public administration, we do not believe that efficiency alone is sufficient grounds for shifting responsibility in administration away from government. It is critical that the benefits we do achieve from co-management are not in fact short-term budgetary cycle gains at the expense of our ocean but actually lead to better management of our oceans.
As the Centre for Policy Development reported last year, our oceans are worth billions of dollars annually in tourism, recreation, carbon capture as well as commercial fisheries. Just yesterday in this place we had the release of Marine Nation 2025, which again clearly articulated the value of our oceans and particularly highlighted the potential value of what they call blue carbon. It is also important to note here the impact of climate change we are going to be seeing on our oceans. In fact, we have just seen that off the coast in my home state of Western Australia where we have had a marine heat wave, which has, as the name implies, increased the temperature of the water and has already resulted in impacts on commercial fisheries in terms of abalone deaths, impacts on the rock lobster industry and impacts on recreational fishers who for the first time are catching subtropical fish off the coast of Perth. While that may seem a bonus in the short term for those fishers, it has very serious ecological consequences. They also think that might be one of the reasons for sharks being closer to shore. That issue has had very substantial media coverage. It also has very important implications for fisheries management.
What did the minister for fisheries in Western Australia, Mr Moore, say? 'Hopefully, it is an aberration.' Well, it is not going to be an aberration. He was minister for fisheries at that time. Hoping it is just an aberration is not good enough. We actually need firm policy changes in order to look at how we manage our fisheries in a changing climate. The initial research on that incident has indicated that we need to be investing a lot more in research to look at what impacts this is going to have on our marine environment and then we need to be researching what adaptive management changes we need to be making. Above all else, leadership and community engagement are essential for these co-management changes. We need to confront a worrying trend where strong leadership and consultation are abandoned in favour of pitting the interests of industry against the other stakeholders, be they recreational users or environmentalists. How many times in this place have I listened to a beat-up, particularly from the other side of the chamber and the coalition, about the damage that changes to ensure sustainable, well-managed fisheries will have on that particular fishery, sometimes in the short term, and not taking the long-term consequences of business as usual into consideration? This does not constitute leadership, nor does it facilitate the kinds of meaningful engagement that fishers and fisheries managers need to have in order to pursue and ensure better management. It does not engender a good environment for co-management.
In 2006 the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation formed a working group to report on co-management in Australian fisheries. The working group report reflected the increasing recognition among fishers and fisheries managers alike of the need for a cultural change away from an untrusting, often conflicted 'them versus us' approach to one of partnership based on joint responsibility for decision-making and implementation in fisheries management. That is what they were saying needs to be done. The report talks about the transitional nature of the development from a centralised model to a delegated model. It is a staged process of development and not something that can be implemented immediately. It involves building relationships and trust so that a stage is reached where negotiated outcomes have been decided and functions and powers may be delegated to relevant stakeholders who then take on the responsibility of seeing that these functions are implemented within the terms of the formal agreement. The report describes a natural progression from a centralised model to a consultative model, which matures into a collaborative model and then, finally, results in a delegated model, where the people using the fishery are the ones operating the fishery and making the rules for it. I do believe this is a desirable outcome, particularly in having the users take a much more active role and greater responsibility for ensuring that their behaviours adapt to changing circumstances in that fishery. Business as usual should not be the opening assumption, particularly in these days of changing climate and overfishing in fisheries around the world.
However, before this greater control can happen, there needs to be cultural change, not just so that fishers see themselves as the managers of a fishery but also so that fisheries managers, whether they are fishers, policy makers, bureaucrats—and I mean that in a nice, loving way—scientists or whoever is involved, see the bigger picture. There needs to be a bioregional approach. Fisheries management has to stop being about individual targeted species, bycatch issues and how many tonnes you can take out before you start to undermine the capacity to restock—it has to start being about how actions within a fishery change that ecosystem and how that fishery is adjusting to ecosystem changes that are beyond our control such as, as I said, climate change and a warming ocean. Bioregional planning is not a new concept for this place, although by the reaction of some people in this place you would think it is. Both this government and the previous Liberal government—yes, under John Howard—have been working away for well over a decade and a half to comprehensively survey our marine environment and set up a world-class network of marine reserves based on the concept of bioregional planning. As you are aware, the process of bioregional planning is almost at the stage of being implemented around the country. Although the government did not go as far as some of us would have liked in terms of the areas that are protected by marine reserves, I am pleased to see that we now have a nearly national network of marine reserves that will help protect our marine life into the future. Marine reserves are the basis of good fisheries management—the basis of an ecosystemic approach.
But bioregional planning is not just about marine parks. It is an important tool for ensuring that we are making the best decisions for our ecosystem, based on more than just the value of fish stocks that are targeted in particular fisheries. We believe it is essential for good fisheries management. The bioregional approach to fisheries management has been painted as antithetical to the interests and goals of fishers. But an interest in fisheries management that is focused on ensuring a flourishing stock for future exploitation is a completely different mindset to that of a marine scientist, who can take a broader view about the intrinsic value of our marine system and see it not simply as a resource to be exploited but as an important piece of a bigger system that sustains a complex web of marine life. That is where we need to be changing our mindsets in order to be able to progressively go through the process of establishing co-management.
The 2010 amendment that introduced co-management powers also brought in changes to enable AFMA to rationalise the number of management advisory committees from 12 to six. This was promised to provide a more cost-effective and efficient consultative structure that would deliver better decisions and simpler administration and to enable the implementation of a dual advisory model. This will separate the provision of advice to AFMA: MACs will provide advice to AFMA on community interest issues, and advice on fishing operations will be provided by peak industry bodies.
The success of co-management should not be judged on the dollars that it saves our government and the extent to which it can pass on administrative overheads to the fisheries users, because this can encourage an increasing spiral of cost-cutting, rationalisation and emphasis on the margins, rather than inspiring collective effort, good long-term decision making and harmonisation between different models. The efforts to make a living today and to act as good stewards to the fishery, to maintain the health of the fishery and to see the fishery within the broader prospects of the bioregion, which is already under threat from multiple directions, need to be at the forefront of people's thinking.
I expect that finally giving the proper effect to this 2010 amendment, correcting the drafting error at a time when the bioregional planning process is moving from the research stage to the implementation stage, will mean that co-management is a very effective tool for shifting thinking about our fisheries away from just stocks and towards a more ecosystem based management plan. That is why we support co-management, but we believe that it needs to be done within the framework of understanding that there needs to be an ecosystem based approach.
The bill also repeals the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement Land) Act 1952. The War Service Land Settlement Scheme commenced in 1945 to assist returned soldiers into farming after World War II. Many areas in Western Australia, particularly on the south coast, were released under that scheme. Unfortunately, some of those areas of land should not have been released, despite the fact that the community was keen to help the returned soldiers. The truth is some marginal country was released and we are now paying for the consequences of that in excessive land degradation, loss of native species and loss of biodiversity. That is why we need to keep investing in natural resource management programs such as Caring for our Country and, in the past, the national Landcare program. I had the good fortune quite a significant time ago to work on the south coast in agriculture and on Landcare and salinity management, so I know firsthand the impact that clearing of some of the native vegetation had on that fragile land. We need to remember that decisions taken with a lack of information can have long-term consequences. I am extremely concerned that we are making decisions now that will have long-term consequences—or, should I say, not making decisions now that will have long-term consequences. On the front page of the West Australian last Thursday there was a story about farmers in my home state of Western Australia who are struggling with drought. The south-west of Western Australia is being hit the hardest by climate change. We have had dramatic drops in rainfall and high temperatures. We have had season after season when farmers are in drought or in rainfall deficiency. We are now faced with many farmers potentially having to walk off their land in the next season or considering not being able to put a crop in because they cannot get the finance. This is partly a consequence of the fact that we do not have adequate systems for agriculture in a changing climate because we have not invested in the research needed to enable our agriculture industry to adapt to a changing climate.
Ross Kingston, an economist who was working for the Department of Agriculture and Food in Western Australia, pointed out a number of years ago that our farmers in Western Australia are some of the most adaptive in the world. They have adapted to a changing climate, but they reached a point a number of years ago where they were unable to continue to adapt without a significant investment in research. That research is coming far too late, if at all. The Western Australian government invested only half of the money that they had allocated in their budget for research and climate change issues.
It is essential that we develop an agriculture system that can better adapt to the changing climate. I am deeply concerned about the future of agriculture, and Senator Colbeck was addressing the issue of the future of agriculture. Well, the future of agriculture is at risk through climate change in Western Australia—dire risk—because we have failed to take the necessary steps to invest in research and to understand what impact climate change will have on our agriculture. Various governments in Western Australia and in Australia buried their heads in the sand about the impact that climate change would have on agriculture. I do not want to see farmers walk off the land as a result of drought in Western Australia caused by climate change and our failure to adapt. We need to be taking action now before it is too late.
I rise today to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. The coalition welcomes this bill as it attempts to simplify and remove some of the red tape associated with a number of agriculture related acts. It gives me great pleasure to join with Senator Colbeck in his comments and with Senator Siewert in her comments. I applaud the fact that the Greens recognise that we must remove costs, and I applaud the Greens' acknowledgement that farmers are struggling in Western Australia and in my home state of South Australia through what have been the vagaries of agriculture since we settled this land in 1788.
I think it is also an opportune time to talk about the fact that soil in this country has probably about 50 per cent less carbon stored in it than it did when we settled this country. That is an issue that we should be looking to address with our research and development, and trying to provide farmers in this country with tools of a scientific basis with which to improve their carbon. As we all know the Direct Action Plan of the coalition would seek to restore carbon levels in this country back to the levels of the time when we came here and to make it more productive.
This Labor government has certainly not been a friend of agriculture in this country so far. Those opposite may talk about Australia as being the food bowl of Asia but they certainly are not doing much to make it happen. Part of the problem is the actual representation on the other side of the chamber. Working for a city based trade union or spending time as a Labor staffer before getting the nod for a position on a Labor Senate ticket does not give a person much exposure to rural industries. Doing the numbers to eliminate factional rivals is a long way removed from meticulous circumstances with fishing, farming and fibre family businesses.
We on this side, however, have a strong rural and regional representation. Senator Colbeck himself comes from regional Tasmania, I from the Clare Valley in South Australia, Senator McKenzie from Bendigo in Victoria, Senator Williams from the bush in New South Wales, Senator Heffernan from Junee in New South Wales and my South Australian colleague Senator Anne Ruston from the Riverland in South Australia. All my colleagues, in some way or another, have a firsthand knowledge and understanding of agricultural issues and are able to successfully handle and negotiate those industry concerns.
This is clearly demonstrated by Labor's breakdown in Australia's free trade agreement talks with Korea. Senator Colbeck spoke so eloquently about the ramifications of having a trade barrier of 15 per cent on everything that is going into South Korea. How can agricultural industries grow and compete internationally when Labor's decision to ban live cattle exports and its about-face on the Abel Tasman fishing vessel are causing the international community to distrust the Australian government and remove opportunities for strengthening relationships and negotiation processes? With Australia's $1 billion-a-year beef export market to Korea, the coalition recognises the importance of signing an all-inclusive free trade agreement. The longer Australia delays finalising a free trade agreement deal with South Korea, the harder it gets for our beef exporters to stop the US trade push, which is outmanoeuvring this Gillard government.
Never mind the mess that Labor has made in Tasmania and the timber industry, also labelled a disgrace by Senator Colbeck earlier today, or the complete shambles in which its state counterparts in my home state of South Australia have mismanaged the forestry industry. The ongoing impact of the Forestry South Australia sale has led to job losses and small businesses downsizing or, worse, closing down. At all levels, Labor just cannot manage our productive industries in this country. It does not understand business. It is a 'tax and spend', not a 'support and grow', government.
Despite Labor's incompetence in agricultural industries, agriculture still contributes more than $5 billion annually in production to the South Australian economy, and more than double this in value-adding to Australia's small and medium-sized enterprises. On 13,475 farms, 31,400 people are employed in agricultural production jobs, with 146,000 in the food sector alone. Agriculture is very important to my home state of South Australia and it is one of our major export industries, so we need to make sure we have the right policy settings to allow it to continue to prosper.
This bill is a step, albeit small, in the right direction. It amends eight portfolio acts, including wine legislation amendments. There are a large number of small to large wine businesses in the regions, employing a large number of people, from grape growing through to tourism. The industry provides much-needed economic activity—specifically in my hometown federal electorate of Wakefield, where unemployment is approximately 9.4 per cent, nearly twice the national average. Outrageously, unemployment is up 50 per cent in the last 12 months across the entire northern suburbs of Adelaide.
This bill will make two amendments to the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980. The first of these amendments relates to the Label Integrity Program, which seeks to ensure the accuracy of label claims on vintage, variety and geographical indication of wine manufactured in Australia. These changes will reduce the record-keeping requirements of people who supply or receive wine goods that are packaged for sale to a consumer. These are positive changes which will be welcomed by retailers, wholesalers and wine industry representative bodies.
The second amendment alters the definition of 'vintage'. It is up to a producer to choose whether they include the vintage on the wine label. However, if they do, they must follow the rules relating to vintage labelling. Currently a vintage year on a label is considered to be the period 1 July to 30 June the following year, and it appears on the label as the second of the two calendar years.
The majority of harvest occurs from late summer and finishing before 30 June; however, sometimes winemakers leave their grapes on the vines for a longer period in order to cultivate different flavours and create a higher sugar content—you might know that, Senator Williams, as botrytis. To allow for more accurate labelling of these late harvest wines, this amendment will change the definition of vintage year to be the period of 1 September to 31 August.
Moves to simplify wine labelling are welcomed; however, there are moves to further complicate wine labelling and force winemakers to mandate unproven labelling requirements. For example, the Blewett review contained a series of recommendations that would significantly impact the wine sector. These included pregnancy warnings; mandating energy content; warnings as a part of broader health campaigns; minimum font size; contrast levels and boldness for warning messages and allergens et cetera; and clear 'Made in Australia' terminology and existing label compliance.
These and other spurious claims made by extremists made under the guise of health claims will only add regulation and bureaucratic red tape. How soon before the health zealots, emboldened by their success over the tobacco industry, start demanding similar so-called health warnings on the labels of wine containers? Make no mistake: well-meaning but poorly guided health groups will be pushing to get their way with their messages on labels. Backed by sympathetic academics wheeled out to speak for narrow-interest pressure groups, they will want wine and any other forms of alcohol to get the same treatment as cigarettes in terms of nonpromotion in an oversimplification of the debate which, if the wine industry does not respond to these insidious representations, it may face a campaign of misinformation and dumbing down of the facts.
Going back to the bill, it also contains some useful amendments to fisheries and levies legislation and some technical amendments. This bill will also repeal the now redundant States Grants (War Service and Land Settlement) Act 1952. Just as a point of interest, some 755,000 acres of land were acquired under the scheme in South Australia.
While this Bill may reduce some much needed red tape, there is so much more that this government could and should be doing in the agriculture portfolio. Of particular concern is educating our future work force—where are our trained and skilled agriculturalists going to come from? Only 800 agronomists are being trained in Australia each year when the demand is for around 5,000. What support is being given to agricultural industries to promote the increase of resources and opportunity for future sustainable practices?
There is an apparent disconnect between the need for more secondary school students to undertake science based courses, particularly those that have relevance to primary production and the information being provided to them when they are choosing courses for not only their late secondary years but also tertiary.
I have concerns that many school career advisers either do not mention courses with an agricultural component as a potential career or are consciously discouraging students from studying them. We need to increase the proportion but we need to be strategic about how we resource that increase to ensure that there are no gaps. Rural industries have concerns about their potential workforce in the future. Filling the increasing void between the number of jobs and the dwindling number of trained candidates is a worrying trend.
This issue needs to be viewed in light of Labor's crackdown on the 457 visa scheme and the concern amongst business leaders as to the damage this does to confidence, investment and ultimately economic growth, job creation and incomes. Increasingly, businesses are looking to bring in workers from overseas to fill the vacancies and, while I have no problem with bringing in skilled and unskilled labour, it is an issue when you have areas like Wakefield with 9.4 per cent unemployment and 42 per cent youth unemployment in its northern suburbs.
Thousands of people are in a position and want the opportunity to be working but they just do not have the right skills. Of equal concern, education and the support of careers in the agriculture sector are not given enough attention when developing industry growth mechanisms. It is important that a balance be struck in building agricultural industries in Australia. A holistic approach must be taken when considering developing local education, training initiatives and foreign labour opportunities.
Furthermore, of paramount importance with this approach, it is crucial that we continue to promote agriculture in this country. Agriculture is one of our great strengths. It is one of our areas of true competitive advantage. Our farmers successfully compete against other countries without the same kinds of subsidies or government assistance. This is why we must continue to reduce the red and green tape for our farmers, something which this bill thankfully does.
But it does not go far enough and that is why the coalition is committed to taking over $1 billion of red bureaucratic tape out of our economy, helping our producers and businesses to be more productive and internationally competitive. That is why the coalition in our plan of real solutions for all Australians has agriculture as one of core pillars in our plan for the economy. We will build on our comparative strength in food production and better manage our precious water resources to help our agriculture sector truly become the food bowl of Asia with food security in a world demanding more of our food resources. We will support our fishing industry and review the declaration of the marine protected areas. Unlike Labor, we will establish genuine consultation with the fishing industry on research and strengthen the connection between science and sound fishing policy. Most importantly, the coalition will provide policy stability and certainty to our agricultural and production exports, particularly live exports, unlike Labor, who so flippantly shut down the trade overnight that day in June 2011.
Labor continued to add insult to injury when Mr Kelvin Thomson, Labor member for Wills, was appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade. Mr Thomson told the ABC's PM program on 18 September 2012: 'We would be much better off if we transitioned out of live animal export altogether and moved towards domestic processing.' This is not the kind of talk live cattle producers want to hear from their Parliamentary Secretary for Trade. It doesn't provide the kind of certainty producers need and the coalition will provide. It does not provide the certainty that the bankers of cattle producers across northern Australia want to hear. It does not provide the security that the Indonesian government, looking to feed hundreds of millions of people, would like to hear.
Agriculture and farming communities deserve to be given a fair go and the coalition is committed to deliver opportunity so that industries can grow and successfully compete on equal playing fields both domestically and internationally. I will support the passage of this bill but lay at the feet of the Labor Party that it could have been more extensive reform. But it seems they are still burdened with the yoke of the Greens and their socialistic ways.
This bill, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment bill (No.1) 2012, makes a number of changes to the acts that relate to agriculture, fisheries and forestry legislation, including the Wine Australia Corporation Act on which we have heard from Senator Edwards some very detailed deliberation; and the Fisheries Management Act, with a direction to close a fishery under statutory fishing concessions. I should note that Australia is overwhelmingly now an importer of fish. I think about 72 per cent of our fish is now imported, which is a disgrace. It is absurd that we have countries outside our zone collecting vastly more fish than we do. Basically we are creating a mechanism to feed Taiwanese and Papua New Guineans and whoever else wishes to turn up with their fishing vessels. We should have a greater capacity to manage our own fishery and to provide for the Australian people more of their own fish. We have heard even lately the huge concerns out there about the use of excessive antibiotics in farmed fish, especially coming out of Vietnam. This causes real health concerns in Australia. The Australian people should be aware that if you want to create a mechanism for the consumption of a superbug you are going about it the right way if you are consuming fish that come from an area where there has been an excessive use of antibiotics, so that you basically create an environment where the only form of bacteria that will survive will be the one that is resistant to antibiotics and you have served it up with peas and carrots at your dinner table. I do not think that is a very clever way to do business. What I would be doing is consuming fish caught from the wild in Australia which has all the natural forms of challenge and response affecting its life as opposed to what you are getting when you are buying a product that is imported. It might look like the domestic product but I can assure you it is totally and utterly different. So we have a role in the future to start informing the Australian people about the fact that we have a better product, that there is the capacity for a better utilisation of our fishery resource and to make sure we using more of that to feed the Australian people with a product they wish to purchase.
The legislation also deals with the Fisheries Administration Act and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, which is basically going to enable the secretary to remit all or part of a penalty imposed for the late payment of the levy or charge. It also deals with the Farm Household Support Act to remove specific references to departments and secretaries. The coalition supports these changes because they streamline administration and reduce costs for the industry in some instances. But it is unfortunate that this bill is not reflective of the government's broader approach to our primary industries. Australia's agricultural exports still account for more than 20 per cent of our exports.
We have to realise that we should never get confused between the GDP argument and where the money in reality actually turns up. In the chamber here at the moment there are seven senators, eight with you in the chair, Mr Acting Deputy President. If we have a case where someone brings in $10 and spins it around to every senator in this chamber, they say, 'Whoopee, the GDP of this chamber is now $80.' That sounds great. They will say, 'That is $80 and around 88 per cent of it came from all those people inside the chamber, who are the service sector. Therefore the service sector is incredibly important.' But the reality is that if the gentleman in the chair had not put his $10 forward first then no-one in the chamber would have any money, because it is that money that has been spun around. So the actual delivery of money into the economy, the actual delivery of funds in a primary source, is vitally important for the economic sustenance of this nation, and 20 per cent of that comes from the agricultural sector. Then you have mining, obviously Australia's biggest export. It is for our own survival as a nation that we must be cognisant of where primary industry is going and we must make sure it is sustained. I know the farming sector has always been the harbinger of people who have generally got a gripe. I grew up in that sector and I am still part of that sector. But now there really is a problem. We are losing farmers. They are going out the back door. I went to Western Australia and spoke to farmers there. I went there as a politician and I came away feeling like a psychologist. It is quite disturbing how much under the pump they are. In the wheat industry they have been frosted and they are dealing with the corruption of global world prices by reason of a manipulated global currency. In Western Australia they had the live sheep trade, but of course those in the radical environmental movement want to shut down the live sheep trade. We are just making people destitute. We are making them poor. We are destroying their quality of life—and, in so doing, we are doing it to ourselves.
There are 134,000 farm businesses in Australia and there are 307,000 people employed in Australian agriculture. That is vastly more than is employed in the mining industry—vastly more. People are always thinking that the farm sector does not pull its weight, but from 1974-75 to 2003-04 it grew just shy of three per cent per annum. It was consistently outperforming other sectors. So, when you are looking for productivity increases, the farming sector—when it has the right government policy surrounding it—will actually deliver it. When I started in the cotton industry, we used to budget on 2.7 bales to the acre. There are 2.471 acres to the hectare, but we were still working on acres. So it was about 2.7 bales to the acre, and with that it was thought that you were doing the job well. Now it is four bales to the acre. Imagine if we could do that in other sectors of our economy. The economy would boom. We have been doing that in agriculture.
I remember when there was a discussion about GPS. They were going to GPS for the delivery of the chemical requirements of the land, because we needed to save money. If you look at the scope and structure and carcass size in the abattoirs, you see that it has gone up immensely. The marbling content has gone up immensely. The quality of the product has gone up immensely. There have been real productivity increases, but we cannot be constricted by certain regulations which are more emotive than realistic. The inclusion of buffel grass into the pasture in red soils has given us an incredible increase in the capacity for the delivery of protein per acre off country which otherwise is not able to deliver an outcome. There have been watering issues. In my own family hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on piping and boring groundwater to save that resource. That is why we get so hot under the collar when we hear about coal seam gas and other people utilising the resource without the same sanctity with which we hold that water resource. These are the things that agriculture has been delivering.
This has been one of our strengths for so long but we are now losing farming families. There are 100,000 fewer farming families now then there were 30 years ago. Even the size of our agricultural area is reducing. In 1980 we had about 496 million hectares of farming land. In 2010 there was just shy of 400 million hectares. We have lost about 100 million hectares of farming country. If we look anecdotally at one of the industries that was at one stage the key of the providence of this nation we see that in 1980 we had 136 million sheep and in 2010 we had 68 million sheep—and it is going down even more.
This is a sign that our policy structure is not correct. There is an epiphany we have got to have as we go stammering and tripping along to an election, who knows when. If we want to have a real debate—something that the Australian people will be engaged with—another area that we should be looking at is farm policy. We need to look at how we make sure that we keep these people on the land, how we make sure that we give a fair return to people on the land and how we make sure that we are part of a process that actually deals with issues. Anybody can have empathy. Empathy is easy. Just stick on a pair of elastic-sided boots, put on an akubra and talk out the side of your mouth and you have got empathy all worked out. But that just does not cut it.
What people are looking for now is policy that is going to address the needs and requirements of the industry to bring a future back into agriculture. The only way that you will get a future in agriculture is if you are determined to bring about a fairer outcome at the farm gate. There are a range of things that have been working against us at the farm gate. First and foremost we have the dollar. We have the United States which is in a period of quantitative easing; we have the Chinese who have basically manipulated their currency and tied it to the Americans who are printing their own dollars; we have the Europeans who are in a period of quantitative easing and subsidies; and we have England quantitatively easing.
We have to starting asking the question: are we going to be pure in debt? Are we going to be the people who never broke a rule but we all went broke? The return at the farm gate is getting smashed by the global corruption in the currency market. What is the government's policy for this? How are they going to deal with this? Coming up with a constructive outcome in that area would be vastly beneficial. You can do that in a Giorgio Armani suit with Jimmy Choo shoes on, and that is going to be a vastly better outcome than wearing an akubra hat and elastic-sided books and not having anything really to say.
There is also the exploitation of the farmer by an overcentralised retail market. In the past it was like: 'Oh, we can't talk about that.' Well, we have got to talk about that. It is just unnatural. We are the only place in the world that has the form of centralisation that we have got—except North Korea. It has probably got more centralisation than us. But, apart from that, we are it. There is nothing wrong with a company being powerful—good luck to Coles, good luck to Woolworths; well done—but there is a problem if they use that market power for the exploitation of the farmer. We have a Competition and Consumer Act that talks about the competitive stresses between two competitors in a market, but it does not properly address the exploitation between the supplier and the retailer. It does not properly deal with that relationship. We should have a policy discussion—the coalition has a root-and-branch review, but that is a policy discussion that the government should also be engaged in. How do we go about bringing a fairer term back to people?
The obvious example out there is $1-per-litre milk. You cannot produce milk for a $1 a litre—not on the farm. By the time the processer has had a chop at it and the retailer has had a chop at it, it is corrupting the marketplace. The retailers say, 'We're not affecting the farm price,' and they are right, because they buy it off the processer. The processor says, 'We can't do anything about it because we're supplying the retailer.' And the farmer just suffers. We have to go into the space and say that we want Coles and Woolworths to survive, prosper and thrive, but we cannot do it at the cost of exploitation of people on the land. We cannot have people turning up with the unilateral variation of contracts. If we did it to a wage and salary earner there would be an outcry. Imagine turning up to a wage and salary earner and saying: 'You know how I was paying you $800 a week last week? This week I've decided I am going to pay you only $300 a week, and I know you have nowhere to go.' If we did that to individuals people would be disgusted, but that is happening to farmers and we are all sitting back and saying: 'Oh, that's shocking, but we can't say anything about it. We can't interfere in the market.'
When there is exploitation it means that the market principles are not at work. The situation is devoid of the market principles, and when it is devoid of market principles then you have a role for bringing about fairness. If there were ease of entry, ease of exit, transparency in negotiations, multiplicity of players—with those sorts of terms you could say, 'I'll walk,' but farmers cannot do that, especially in the horticultural sector. Tomatoes, peas, carrots, onions—those farmers get held over a barrel. They are terrified to talk about it because they know that if they talk about it and the major retailer finds out about it then they will get cut out and go broke. We found out that the average price a dairy farmer is working for is $7 an hour. Who in this building would work for $7 an hour? Who in Australia these days would work for $7 an hour? If you want to look after working families then where is the policy that deals with that?
We need new infrastructure and we need to open up new areas of irrigation. We need to have a future. There is a great capacity, especially in the north of this nation and with the utilisation of genetic modification in some areas, for the advancement of agriculture in these areas. You cannot say: 'I'm a friend to the farmer but I don't want any new farming areas. I'm a friend to the farmer but I don't believe in the live cattle trade. I'm a friend to the farmer but I want to make life even tougher for the people of south-west Western Australia who are dealing with the live sheep trade. I'm a friend to the farmer, but I believe it is morally justifiable that some Australians today, in the year of our Lord 2013, are getting paid $7 an hour.' That is not being a friend to anybody. If we are going to be fair dinkum about this we have to have an holistic view and say, 'Right, we're going to walk into this space and before this election we will make sure we are not talking about who said what to whom, and having some peripheral personality discussion in the election, but that we will be having a discussion about concrete policy issues that involves the Australian people and that brings us to a conclusion that is a betterment to the agricultural sector, because the Australian people need the agricultural sector.' We really do need it.
We have to look at the ethos of it. In my own small way I am trying to be part of the dams task force to build dams and create another mechanism of investment in agriculture, and I think that is positive. We have to touch base with the marketing department in trade. We are having real problems. It is no good going over to Beijing, Taipei, Tokyo or Seoul and coming back with photos full of happy, smiling people drinking cups of tea, but with no contract. You have to come home with something hard, something that shows you have opened up the market, something that shows a new form of advantage. We cannot develop new agricultural areas if we cannot move the product. We have to be able to follow that through, and that is something that needs a succinct group of people who work as closely with the Prime Minister as possible, who have the capacity and the runs on the board to deliver trade outcomes. We have to get them to work.
Minister Craig Emerson is supposed to be the trade minister, but what has he ever brought back? What has he ever delivered as a trade outcome? What is a deal that he has structured for us? If he were good at his job then farmers would be doing it better, but they are not—he has failed. Whenever I think of Dr Craig Emerson I have a picture of a man doing a dance in our courtyard. I cannot get it out of my head. I cannot see how he could be the trade minister. Now we have Minister Kelvin Thomson assisting him. The last thing I remember about Minister Kelvin Thomson is that he wanted to shut down the live cattle trade. In fact, he was playing his banjo at the Midwinter Ball and shutting down the live cattle trade. This is not much use to us. This is not much of a help. To give him his due, in the past Minister Simon Crean was not a bad agricultural minister, but we do not have him now. And Minister Burke has enough problems of his own at the moment.
We have to engage in this discussion about how a farm sector that is truly under the pump can be picked up and moved forward. All Australian people look to the farm sector as representative of how competent we are. They empathise with people on the land because they know they do it tough—and they do. They recognise that every farmer is also an agronomist, a veterinarian and a diesel fitter, and they do it for nothing. People recognise that they have done what the nation has asked of them: they went out west and scratched a living out of the dirt to provide a providence for this nation. We owe it to that farm sector to go back to that space right now and start coming up with a farm policy to bring forward at the election so that we can deliver a better horizon for them right now.
I also rise to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. I would like to congratulate the government and the department on a bill that aspires to do such fantastic things, some of these things we really support not only throughout the agriculture, fisheries and forestry legislation but right throughout the government's work. It reduces red tape, creates clearer Commonwealth laws and improves the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation. I would encourage the government, having taken this very small step, to take some giant strides using this same underpinning principle right across its portfolios. It shows that the department has been listening to industry with the future in mind. The coalition obviously will be supporting measures by the government to reduce regulation and make things simpler for those who live outside capital cities and work in agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries.
The bill before us will make minor amendments to eight portfolio acts to improve the operation of the existing legislation and make some technical amendments. As I have mentioned, the bill will reduce red tape. This is fantastic considering that the current regulatory ratio for this government is 200 to one: 200 new regulations in, one out—quite a poor performance. So we are absolutely going to be supporting some streamlining efforts here today. It is going to reduce complexity and unnecessary regulation, and I welcome that. I particularly mention a group within the agricultural sector: the chemical suppliers. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 is another bill we have been debating lately. The inquiry that we have been having in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committeehas shown that the government's changes under that particular group of new regulations is going to be quite significant to industry.
The regulatory impact statement of that legislation called for 'better regulation of agriculture and veterinary chemicals'—better for whom? The Deloitte Access Economics report showed there had been increasing costs of $8 million per year to product registrations. How does that actually help farmers compete globally and become the food bowl for Asia? There is no clear cost-benefit analysis done, but then again this government has form. Maybe it almost has an aversion to cost benefit analysis. When we think of the NBN, if only it had done one it might tell a different story today. Chemical registration has increased by nearly a third, increasing not just the cost but also the time. This is the time that it takes people working in the sector to do the audit. As it is reviewed every five years, they are going to have to redo this.
One of the acts that will be amended is the wine legislation amendments. Schedules 1 and 2 of the bill make two amendments to the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980. The first amendment relates to the label integrity program. We know how important having integrity and truth in labelling laws is, particularly to the agricultural sector. Research shows that Australians want to buy Australian products. They need to know that it is an Australian product. There needs to be no deception about what proportion or percentage of the product before them on their supermarket shelves is home-grown, homemade and owned by Australians. We need to be supporting labelling laws that give truth in labelling.
It is useful to know that these changes to the wine legislation amendments are supported and agreed to by the retailer, wholesaler and wine industry representative bodies. As Senator Joyce mentioned, it would be great to get all of those players around the supply chain on the same page when it comes to dealing with issues, particularly around supermarkets. There are significant issues in our community right throughout the supply chain in how suppliers and processors are dealt with all in the name of chasing a cheap product for the end consumer. I am sure that, if consumers were made aware of what was occurring further back in the supply chain, they would be more than happy to adjust their spending habits.
The second area that is going to be amended under this bill is the fisheries legislation amendment. Schedule 3 of the bill before us will amend theFisheries Management Act 1991to explain requirements for directions to close a fishery or a particular part of a fishery to fishing. The government has form in that area too. Whilst tightening regulation and reducing red and green tape is commendable in this bill, there are issues around fisheries legislation with this government that need putting on the record. We have argued this time and time again in this place over recent times.
We have the best managed fisheries in the world. We use science to manage those fisheries. It has been quite interesting how this government has chosen to be a subscriber of scientific method and scientific outcomes when it suits them. The Abel Tasman decision was a triumph of politics over science and one that increased our sovereign risk as a nation. If you go out into the community and talk to our fishers right around the country about this government's track record in supporting them, you will find a very different story.
The third area that will be addressed in the bill before us is the levies legislation amendment. Schedule 5 of the bill will amend the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow the departmental secretary to consider all requests made by levy payers for the remission of penalties. It actually is providing recourse for those who are paying levies and for the variety of levies as we have moved to a user pays system across various aspects of our agriculture, forestry and fishery industries. At the moment, the provision applies only if the levy is over $5,000. This change will actually allow anyone who is paying a levy to make a request to the departmental secretary for the remission of that penalty. That is a good decision, because whilst $5,000 might not seem a lot of money to some people, for small businesses that are working within these industries and paying these levies that amount can be quite significant in terms of their operating costs.
Schedule 6 of the bill makes technical amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989, the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act 1908. We support this bill and we welcome the changes the government has made, but when we talk about research into agriculture, yes, we can fiddle around and make technical amendments, as we are doing in this bill, but this government has not supported agricultural research. We have seen cuts to CSIRO funding and cuts to agricultural R&D over time and all the time. If we are going to develop and drive further innovation in our already highly efficient and effective agricultural sector then R&D funding is essential. Senator Edwards, in his contribution, made reference to the lack of undergraduate students in our agricultural education degrees, and that is a huge concern for those of us who have a passion for agriculture and sustainability of our local communities in regional Australia. We need to get more young people interested in and studying agriculture. If they are not going through at the undergrad level, we are not producing any great researchers at the postgrad level. I notice Senator Siewert nodding, as a proud holder of an agricultural science degree. We need to be producing a high proportion of undergrad ag scientists so that we can have the skills and expertise that are specific to our nation, to our farming methods and to our land and that will allow the research and development required to drive innovation for our agricultural industries. This government has poor form in that area—a lot of talk but no action.
The bill also contains amendments to modernise the language in two acts. Talking about modernising language reminds me of something I have been thinking about which does have a regional perspective. In looking at legislation around education—which I have been doing this week—I note that the government wants all schools to teach one of four Asian languages to all students in our nation. It can be Hindi, Mandarin, Japanese or Indonesian. My issue is that we are not graduating enough teachers from university who are specialised in these languages as it is now—let alone enough to be putting them right across the country. I am thinking of places like Wycheproof and Echuca, and right throughout regional areas. If we cannot fill our LOTE requirement in our capital cities, I am really struggling to understand how we are going to do it out in the regions.
The bill will also be amending the Export Control Act. That brings me to another Labor failure in the agriculture portfolio, and that would be the live cattle exports. I am sure that others have made worthy mention of this government's poor track record in dealing with that issue, such as the damaged relationships with our Indonesian neighbours and the crisis that is occurring on farm, even today, as farmers deal with the fallout of decisions made for political reasons, as a reaction to public pressure rather than in a leadership-focused manner.
The Quarantine Act 1908 will also be amended by the bill. When I think about the Quarantine Act and agriculture, I think about the New Zealand apples issue from last year. In my own home state the Goulburn Valley produces 80 per cent of the national pear crop and a significant amount of our national apple crop, and the biosecurity issues around the importation of New Zealand apples had a severe impact on that community in terms of confidence and in terms of what this government understands about how they live, how they work and what they require in terms of leadership from a government out there in the regions. This was all going on at the same time that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan consultations were happening right across that area of northern Victoria, and it led to huge uncertainty and a huge lack of confidence. If this government were serious about supporting agriculture, fisheries and forestry, it could do more around quarantine and biosecurity. It could do more to support our potato growers and our ginger growers. We have so many inquiries into biosecurity issues within the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee at the moment, it seems that this whole area needs to be looked at and the government needs to get serious about supporting our industries and protecting them—and I am not afraid to say 'protecting our local industries from international threats.' When I go back to Shepparton I think of the closed shops right around that area as a result of a combination of this government's response to environmental watering and their relationship with the Greens.
Schedules 7 and 8 make some other amendments. Schedule 7 will amend the Farm Household Support Act 1992 to remove specific references to departments and secretaries in the act so that when changes are made to the administrative arrangements orders the act will not require amendment. With respect to the Farm Household Support Act, I am still waiting to hear from the minister on an act of grace payment around farm exit grants. So, when we are talking about supporting farm households, they are doing it tough. As Senator Joyce outlined, they are not just dealing with a decrease in income; the increase in input costs for farms is ridiculous.
I was out at Tongala with the dairy farmers with Senator Joyce a few weeks ago, hearing their direct tales. This carbon tax was not actually going to affect agriculture, but the impact on our dairy farmers has been significant. There are people who cannot pump water because of the carbon tax. There are people who have to pay exorbitant electricity costs to keep their milk fresh and safe for human consumption, costs that have just risen exponentially under the carbon tax.
It was not just increased electricity costs and input costs; they were talking about increased labour costs and increased costs of fertiliser—right across the board, their inputs are increasing. You just cannot keep doing this. You cannot keep absorbing. Across the way says: 'It's only a one per cent increase. It's only a 0.5 per cent increase'. But, when your margin is less than four per cent, that very quickly adds up to an unsustainable business, and that is what we are dealing with. It is as a result of an increasing number of green and environmentalist agendas right throughout this government.
The coalition is interested in reducing not only red tape to our small businesses but also green tape. It is very disappointing that the federal government has walked away from negotiations with the states to streamline the assessment and approval processes under the EPBC Act. There was a commitment that all levels of government would work together to ensure that our environment is protected and our businesses can still make a dollar. It is not rocket science; we have just got to make it simpler, without sacrificing the environment. It is possible if we work together and worry less about the fallout in Brunswick and more about the actual outcomes.
I am reminded of the Prime Minister's visit to Western Sydney last week. I mirror the concerns of the National Party leader, Warren Truss, when he very sensibly asked the Prime Minister to spend a week in regional Australia, living and working with us, seeing firsthand the frustrations that we experience. No, we are not congested with traffic, but we have a lot of other challenges—don't we, Senator Ruston, out there—challenges that the Prime Minister would do well to actually see and feel firsthand—not just fly in for the photo op, for the flood or the fire, but to actually come and see how we live and work, and understand us. And then maybe this great bit of legislation before us, making minor amendments to a variety of bills around the agriculture, forestry and fisheries portfolio, would become a cause for the Prime Minister; maybe she could encourage the minister to seek other ways, more significant ways, to assist agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. She is welcome down my way, if she wants to come down to Victoria. But I am sure there are multiple communities right throughout Australia that would love to host the Prime Minister for a week.
At the end of the day, regional Australia does produce the wealth. The agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries contribute 20 per cent, as Senator Joyce said, to our economic future. They are innovative; they are world's best practice. The way we are able to manage our environment and our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries together and ensure best outcomes for both is world leading and we need to be celebrating that and supporting that. This government has—in the examples I have outlined for you—a poor track record over its time.
Despite the government, the department is very capable of taking action in this area. I would really like to commend them and encourage them to go further. It also shows this government is capable of reducing regulation, despite the modesty of the ones before us. I support this bill and commend it to the Senate.
A number of the things raised by Senator McKenzie are fantastic examples of where the agricultural sector in this country is overburdened by the weight of compliance regulation and red tape.
I stand to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012. This bill seeks to make a range of amendments on a range of different bills. I would like to briefly comment on the wine legislation amendments, but I would like to reserve the majority of my comments today for the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952, which is to be repealed as part of this bill.
I was involved in the development of the wine integrity program that the wine industry developed a number of years ago. It is a very good example of a labelling program. However, nobody in this place should be fooled that that was the most extraordinarily difficult program to put together. The Winemakers' Federation, the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and their state affiliate associations went through an inordinate amount of trouble trying to get some sort of consensus position about just developing that one homogenous product, the labelling program. So I think we would be well advised to take on some of the examples and the experiences of the development of that program when we have a look at some of the wider labelling programs that we are looking at.
Certainly, labelling has been the perennial issue, particularly with regard to identification of Australian product and Australian produce and the differentiation between our clean home-grown product in Australia and imported products. The debate is obviously further confused when we get out into the wider marketplace: 'product of Australia', 'made in Australia', 'packaged in Australia'; and the issues of seasonality, consistency of supply and ingredients that are not available in Australia. I would suggest that we would do well to have a look at the experience of the wine industry's Label Integrity Program in the process of trying to develop a labelling program for the benefit of Australian producers. And, in remembering this, we certainly need to have a look at the Greens bill that has been put before this place. We will see that it is fraught with a lot of danger if we try to go forward and make a one-size-fits-all labelling program, notwithstanding the fact that there is an urgent need for such a program.
It is actually with a level of sadness that I am here today to witness, I assume, with the passage of this bill, the repealing of the State Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952. The region that I was born in, that I was brought up in and that I now, again, live in was built as a soldier settlement. Post the First World War a number of soldier settlers came and lived in towns such as Cobdogla, Waikerie, Berri, Cadell, Chaffey and the town in which I live, Renmark. Some horrendous mistakes were made by these soldier settlers because they certainly did not have the kind of information about irrigation technologies and the things that we now so take for granted. They had no idea how to get access to market, to move their products to where they were to be purchased. Obviously, the tyranny of distance, following the First World War, was quite significant in comparison to our ability to quickly move product and produce as we do today. And bear in mind that a lot of this product was perishable, so it was not a case of putting it on a truck or a dray being pulled by a horse and letting it wander off to Adelaide in due course, because the product just would not get there. So there were many mistakes in the first soldier settlement in the region in which I live.
But, following the Second World War, we had another influx of soldier settlement properties, particularly in the town of Loxton, which was developed post Second World War and which is probably the major town we are referring to today with the repealing of this act. A number of other areas in South Australia were also developed as soldier settlements following the Second World War—places such as Parndana on Kangaroo Island and Padthaway in the south-east of our state. These were thriving regional communities. They had extraordinarily strong cultures. They were built on a sense of 'can do' in the face of extraordinary adversity. They had wonderful organisations of people who got together—the foundation of organisations such as the CWA, Civil Defence and RSL, which were all hugely active participants in the community. They built these communities into very strong, self-sufficient communities. They had no reliance on the outside world for what they did.
As a child I can remember that, if there were a bushfire in the surrounding area, my father and everybody else's father would all jump in somebody's ute. There would be 10 guys with shovels in the back of the ute. They would go off and they would dig firebreaks. Nobody put up their hand and said: 'Where's the government funding? Where's the front-end loader or the grader that is going to turn up, that somebody else will provide?' They just went out there and did it themselves. This pioneering spirit that was developed in these communities following the soldier settlements, I think, is intrinsic in the culture that still largely exists in these communities.
Another great thing that was born of the soldier settlements was the cooperatives. The growers, by necessity, got together and formed cooperatives so that they could actually market and sell their products. Of course, in those days it was difficult to sell individually from the farm gate. We did not have the tourism drive-bys where you could pop in and buy a bottle of wine at the cellar door. Farmers had to have a way of getting their products into the marketplace. So they saw the wisdom of forming cooperatives and, in the process of forming those co-operatives, they also retained control of their product well past the farm gate—something, unfortunately, that is being eroded over time. We now see our farmers not having the control over their product that they used to. Most of our co-ops have folded, they have been corporatised or they have been bought out by big players. The big end of town now has a huge amount of control over our farming communities and it is probably one of the great reasons that our farmers out there are possibly struggling. But, as I said, the spirit of these communities is still alive and I think it can be rekindled. But the fabric of this is slowly being eroded and we would be very well advised to take a good look at it now and try to resurrect it before it is completely gone. The productivity of this country has been built on the back of these communities, which are self-sufficient and which did not rely on government handouts, which they are now being forced to do simply because of the overburden of things that are being forced on them.
There is no doubt and we have to acknowledge that things such as exchange rates and the globalisation of the world marketplace and commodity prices are all having a major impact on our farmers at the moment. There is probably not a great deal we can do about that. But in looking at that we also have to realise there are a number of things that are under our control. I commend this bill today because it actually seeks to improve:
… the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation, reducing red tape and creating clearer Commonwealth laws, the proposed amendments will reduce complexity and unnecessary regulation, provide consistency, amend outdated or unclear provisions and reduce the likelihood of reader confusion.
Those are very admirable aims that are being sought in this particular bill. We commend it for that. But the reality is that it really does not go very far when you consider the enormity of the things that this bill is seeking to achieve out of the five acts that it is looking to work on. It really does not go very far. Senator McKenzie outlined an absolute myriad of different burdens that are currently placed on our farmers and a myriad of different acts and regulations. I commend the bill, but I certainly suggest that we need to go a lot further.
Just this morning I was dealing with an issue where red tape and compliance costs and the unnecessary overburden of government regulation and involvement in a process, which I do not necessarily think the government needs to be involved in to the kind of degree that it is, have seen a small Riverland grower lose a lucrative export market. Why? Because of the cost of export certification. Mr Punturiero, who is a small Riverland grower—he and his wife have a small citrus orchard in Renmark—has been exporting a few pallets of very high-quality limes every year into New Zealand. He does it for a very small period and exports only a very small number of pallets. Last year the cost of certification for his shed, because New Zealand is a market that requires certification much the same way as we require certification for products coming into Australia, was $500. This year he will have to pay $1,800 because he will have the benefit of a rebate of almost $6,000. Next year he will have to pay $8,350 to export the same small quantity of limes into New Zealand that he paid $500 for the privilege of exporting last year. The reality of all this is that he is not going to export them. He cannot possibly afford to pay $1,000 a pallet to AQIS, or the department, just so that they can come in for a couple of hours and say that his shed meets the phytosanitary requirements that are demanded by this market. Last week, along with Senator Xenophon, I moved a motion in this place to ask AQIS if it would review this particular licensing system, because it is totally and utterly discriminatory and discouraging to small- and medium-sized growers like Mr Punturiero.
Cost-saving reforms were supposed to have accompanied the move to cost recovery that was agreed to by both sides of the House when it was brought in, but what we have seen here is that the cost recovery activities have been introduced but we have not seen those cost-saving reforms that were supposed to overlay those changes. So, instead of seeing a situation where there might have been a small increase in the amount of money that was necessary for Mr Punturiero to pay for his certification, we now see a situation where it is now so exorbitant that he plainly cannot afford to pay it, and in the process of doing that has now lost—at least for this year, until we can get this matter sorted out—a very lucrative, albeit small, market into New Zealand.
It is not just horticultural industries that are being faced with this burden. I have had calls from people in the meat industry and the vegetable industry—it is across the board that the little guys are just not able to afford this amount of money. The really stupid part of all this is that we, as a country, end up being the net loser. Small growers, seasonal exporters, niche market exporters and growers who see a market opportunity will all be excluded from being able to export their products. These exporters—along with the big guys, who I acknowledge are obviously very important in the marketplace, but even the little exporters—earn export dollars. They are the ones who give us the plus side on our balance of trade, and let us not make too fine a point of it: those people that export are the ones that we really need to be looking after. We also need to realise that often a dollar spent in encouraging an export market to be developed or to be pursued ends up with a huge multiplier effect in terms of the money that is returned to the Australian economy by virtue of that.
When we pass this legislation today—which I am assuming we will—we need to be very aware of the consequences out there on the ground of putting in place legislative change, compliance and the burden of bureaucracy. As has been mentioned previously, one of the great things that we need to be doing is to encourage our research and development, which is something we have been cutting back on again. We need to encourage research and development, because it is our only competitive advantage in Australia. We certainly are not going to be able to compete in international markets on price, so we need to make sure that we are the smartest, the cleverest and the most innovative, as we have been in the past. I refer to this in terms of taking it back to the soldier settlers of the community, in which I grew up in. Those guys were innovative. We used to sell our irrigation technology into Israel. We now see that Israel has a huge irrigation technology business, and they are now selling to the rest of the world. We need to get back to a position where Australia is at the forefront of leading in technology, innovation and making sure that we take advantage of selling to the rest of the world what we do so fabulously well.
There were bills referred to this morning such as the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 that was supposed to decrease the amount of burden on growers for compliance. It seems a little odd that we can have an extra $2 million that has to be picked up by cost recovery to growers and that is not considered a burden. The Biosecurity Bill 2012 is another example, where the burden is on industry to prove. If we put as much effort into making the people who import into this country comply as we put into making our exporters comply when they send product offshore, I am sure we would see a better balance. I am not going to go on about the carbon tax and the increasing costs and import costs, but it is fair to say they are very real and, when you own a business in rural and regional Australia and you are fighting all the other things you have to fight, the increasing costs that we have seen, particularly in relation to those people who require refrigeration, have been exorbitant.
While I am very happy today to support this bill as it does, in some small way, address the red tape, it highlights to me the huge job we have to unravel the bureaucratic burden that farmers have to deal with every day. So, with a great deal of sadness, I acknowledge the need to repeal the act in relation to the soldier settlements from the community that I grew up in, and I hope that, maybe, in the amending of this bill, we will see further amendments in further bills to get rid of the burden and the red tape that face our growers so that maybe the soldier settlements in the communities—the strong and vibrant communities which I and many other people from the country grew up in—can be restored for the future.
I endorse the remarks of Senator Ruston. Just this morning, we were both on Leon Byner's program on Radio FIVEaa to talk about the plight facing Mick and Tanya Punturiero—salt of the earth people, lime growers. They are innovators and hard workers in the Riverland of South Australia who are now in a position where they cannot export to New Zealand, a niche market that they need and that has been denied to them because the AQIS inspection fees have gone up from $550 to something like $8,530, a 1,300 per cent increase. I know there are rebates involved, but there is bureaucracy, paperwork and red tape involved in that. The fact is that it should not be that hard to be a farmer in this country. You have a situation where there are so many obstacles and barriers, particularly for smaller producers—for the Mick and Tanya Punturieros of this world, who are the innovators and have done the right thing. I and Senator Ruston know Mick and Tanya well. They have been overseas and they have looked at the latest technologies in terms of water-saving techniques. They have looked at ways of producing limes that are world quality—they are clean, green producers—yet they are missing out on an export market because these rules have been put in place that just do not make sense. We also have to look at the context of how important agriculture is to this country. The gross value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production in 2010-11 was $51.8 billion. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs were created as a result of that, and yet we are making it more difficult for our farmers. Whilst I welcome this legislation, it does not address the fundamental issues and the fundamental challenges facing our farmers.
I note that Senator Colbeck in his contribution made reference to Asian honey bees. There was not adequate consultation and an opportunity was lost to eradicate the Asian honey bee when it was first discovered on a ship near Cairns. I note the work that Senator Milne has done in relation to this and her similar concerns. It is also worth mentioning, in terms of the context of labelling, that we are talking about wine labelling and improvements in respect of the integrity of our wonderful wine industry.
Senator Siewert made mention of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, and how there are reports coming out of the United States that Monsanto's corn crops, which are GMO crops, are failing. I think that is very, very significant. We need better labelling of GMOs in this country not just so that consumers can make an informed choice as to whether they want to buy a product containing GMOs or not, but also to protect those farmers that want to be GMO free and that want to keep export markets in Europe, in Japan and throughout the world where there is a clear preference for non-GMO crops. That would mean that those farmers would not be prejudiced as well.
I note that Senator Edwards made reference to the forward selling of the forestry contracts by the South Australian government—a stupid, stupid decision that will prejudice the vitality and the economic development of the south-east of South Australia in particular. It does not make sense. One issue I have is not with Senator Edwards but with the endorsed Liberal candidate for Barker—we have had a bit of an interchange in the media about what a state Liberal government could do to cancel that contract. The advice I have sought and had from constitutional law experts such as Professor John Williams, the Dean of the University of Adelaide Law School, is that there is no constitutional prohibition in the South Australian Constitution to stop any future government tearing up that contract and saying, 'We will go back to our original position.' Of course there are issues of sovereign risk, but there is no legal impediment to any future South Australian government to say, 'We will take back a particular contract and keep it in state hands.' I maintain that position is technically and legally correct. There is an issue of sovereign risk, but I would have thought that the risk to the people of the south-east—their jobs, the future of the timber industry and associated industries—is too great as a result of what the government has done.
This bill also looks at wine labelling. There is another issue that has not been touched on, and that goes to fraud. That goes to winemakers, particularly in overseas markets, where there is counterfeit wine. I was involved in the case not so long involving Emanuel Skorpos, who runs the Flinders Run Winery. He is an award-winning winemaker on the Southern Flinders Ranges Estate. He had to spend his own money and chase up the counterfeiting of his labels in China. I think more needs to be done on this. We need to give as much support as we can, particularly for small producers, in respect of that.
The Blewett review has also been mentioned in the context of this debate, and I note that Senator Joyce made a useful contribution. Several years ago, in a very unusual unity ticket, Senator Joyce, then Leader of the Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown and I introduced a bill. We co-sponsored a bill in relation to the issue of food labelling and country-of-origin labelling. That shows that this is an issue that transcends party politics. It transcends ideologies and it is about common sense. We need to have effective food-labelling laws in this country in order to assist, as Senator McKenzie said and as Senator Ruston made the point in her contribution, people who want to be able to make a choice about buying Australian produce. Right now our food-labelling laws are an absolute disgrace. You have a situation where 'Made in Australia' just means that a product has been 'substantially transformed' by 51 per cent in the production process. What does that mean? It means that you can buy orange juice that says 'Made in Australia', yet 90 per cent of the concentrate of that juice could have come from Brazil, for instance, and consumers are none the wiser. The label says 'Made from local and imported ingredients'. That is an insult to consumers.
The Blewett review was a long time coming. It made some recommendations to improve the system. I thought the Blewett review was weak in many respects and that it did not go far enough. But at least it made some constructive recommendations, and I commend the work that Dr Blewett did in relation to that. But what did the government do? It ignored it. It ignored it to the cost of consumers. It ignored it to the cost of our farmers. Last year I went to a property in the Riverland where 50-year-old orange trees were being ripped out because the price of oranges was so terrible. If you talk to Ron Gray in the Riverland—a stalwart of and an advocate for strong food-labelling and country-of-origin labelling laws—he will tell you about the trees that he has had to rip out having turned off the water. His neighbours have done the same thing. Prices are so low, in part because our food-labelling laws are so weak. This bill does not address that and we need to address that.
Biosecurity was touched on by Senator Colbeck. It is worth mentioning that we have a situation where apples have been allowed in from New Zealand. AQIS says it has risk matrixes in place, but I do not know whether they are that effective. I am concerned that we are looking at bringing in potatoes from New Zealand which will potentially have a huge impact because of the zebra chip disease in New Zealand. If we get that disease in this country, we will never get rid of it. It is the same with fire blight. I really wonder whether the people in biosecurity are more interested in pursuing a free trade mantra than in pursuing what their core activity should be, and that is to guarantee the clean, green reputation of Australian produce and to keep it disease-free.
Senator McKenzie made a point about buying Australian products and how we need to have truth in labelling. We need to have truth in labelling because, if we do not have truth in labelling, Australian farmers will not stand a chance. This bill really just touches on the edges of that for wine labelling. It is worth reflecting on the issue of foreign ownership of our farmland. Despite my name, I am certainly not xenophobic, but I think there is a real need for appropriately balanced and appropriately targeted foreign investment in this country, particularly in greenfields sites. Our current foreign investment laws are so vague and so imprecise in terms of a national interest test. Also, the threshold is so high—something like $244 million before the Foreign Investment Review Board will even look at something. It is not in the national interest.
We could learn, and it pains me to say this, from the Kiwis across the Tasman. The New Zealanders have an Overseas Investment Office where there is a more clearly defined national interest test, where they look at any transaction involving more than five hectares of prime agricultural land. I am not suggesting we go down the path of five hectares—though that was initially my view—but a $5 million threshold would seem to be more realistic and in line with the consumer price movements from the 1970s when the test was just $1 million.
We need to revamp our foreign investment rules, not in a way to discourage foreign investment but to encourage transparency. It also begs a number of big questions about sovereign funds—funds owned by other governments, effectively controlled by other governments, where the threshold is zero dollars, as it should be. Our national interest test is so vague and so imprecise as to be useless.
It is worth reflecting on what was said by David Farley, the chief executive of Australian Agricultural Co., whom I think is widely respected in the industry and who knows his stuff. He gave very useful evidence at an inquiry on foreign investment, which was instigated by Senator Heffernan. An opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review in June of last year stated, 'Why should China be given the inside running on a very promising agricultural project?'—and this was talking about Northern Australia—and Mr Farley said:
Our political and business leaders are arguing that we need to pay more respect to China and put more effort into our relations with the Chinese at the expense of our neighbouring South-East Asian countries.
I would say more respect should be paid to the expertise contained in our own agricultural industry and more effort put into making sure that Australia is equipped to play its role in the global demand for food.
I agree with what Mr Farley says and that is not to say that we should not have significant investment from China and other countries in our agricultural sector, but we need to ask some fundamental, seminal questions. One of those questions needs to be: are there enough incentives for farmers and for superannuation funds to invest in agriculture? I do not think we have the relevant taxation and superannuation investment vehicles and incentives in this country to drive that investment, to drive R&D and to drive the changes that we need to be a powerhouse for the region and for the world in food production.
Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you are probably well aware of the article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 23 February this year by Cameron England which talked about a Qatari government owned company, Hassad Australia, that bought a $9 million cattle property near Bordertown and is understood to be negotiating with several farmers on the Eyre Peninsula to buy prime property and grazing land. The reason that Hassad Australia is doing that is the government of Qatar on behalf of the citizens of Qatar understand the potential of Australian agriculture. They get it. They understand that Australia has the potential to be the food bowl of the region, and indeed of the world. But we have a situation where our own farmers are driven out of business because we do not have the food labelling laws, the investment rules and the taxation rules to encourage investment. To me, we must redress that and this bill does not do that.
If I could just mention coal seam gas. The government have made some announcements on that and I congratulate the work that Senator Larissa Waters has done in this area, and it is an issue that Senator Joyce has raised on many occasions. There are going to be rules for coal seam gas and about the aquifer, but I worry that it might be too late for some of the developments that have been approved. Unless we give appropriate priority to our prime agricultural land, that is a real issue. I am hoping that it is not too little too late in terms of what the government announced only yesterday.
Finally, I want to comment on the Murray-Darling Basin. I note that Senator Hanson-Young, who is in the chamber, has been a very strong advocate in relation to ensuring the health of our river system. I think there is a real issue here concerning the early adopters of water-saving measures. Senator Ruston, who is from the Riverland, knows well that our producers in the Riverland had to be more water efficient much earlier because they are at the tail end of the river system. After the 1968 drought, a number of measures had to be implemented to ensure the survival of our food producers, the farmers and irrigators, in the Riverland. I do not believe there is anything in the current Murray-Darling Basin plan that gives adequate recognition to early adopters. It does not do that and that is a fatal flaw in this plan. You must of necessity, for the sake of equity and for the sake of rewarding good behaviour many years ago, give something back to those farmers whether it is encouraging research and development or whether it is providing a specialised fund for those farmers who have already done the hard yards and who can only access a tiny, tiny fraction of the $5.8 billion in water infrastructure programs. They cannot access those funds, by and large, because they are already too water sufficient to qualify. That is an anomaly and it is not just in South Australia's interests but also in the national interest to acknowledge those early adopters.
This bill does address some issues but it needs to go much further. If we are going to be serious about ensuring the viability and the strength of an industry worth over $50 billion a year to the Australian economy, with massive flow-on effects and with massive job impacts, we need to do much, much better. This parliament and this government, and future governments, must take up the challenge so that we can be the food bowl of Asia and so that we can also give our farmers a fair go.
I thank the senators for their contribution to this debate. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2012 will reduce red tape and make portfolio legislation clearer. This bill is an example of the government working with industry for more practical and effective regulation. It responds to industry requests for reform of regulation and streamlines administrative procedures. Some examples are amendments to the label integrity program which address concerns raised by retailers and wholesalers and amendments to the definition of 'vintage' which address concerns raised by some wine producers who harvest their grapes later than the normal harvest period. In addition, amendments to the fisheries legislation will simplify administration for business. It will also ensure that, when it is necessary for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to issue directions to close a fishery, the requirements are clear for fishers. A further example is amendments to levies legislation which will provide an improved response time for our industry levy payers when they submit requests for the remission of late levy penalties. The portfolio continues to identify redundant legislation for removal from the statute books. The repeal of the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952 is a further example of the portfolio's efforts towards deregulation. Importantly, this bill provides a cost-effective opportunity to clean up portfolio legislation; the various technical amendments will improve readability, update references and remove redundant texts, resulting in clearer legislation. I commend bill to the Senate.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Before I start talking on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, I find it disappointing that, after debating a piece of legislation that was supported across the chamber with some technical changes, we did not see the minister for agriculture dealing with the final stages of the last piece of legislation.
He does not care.
I think that actually sums up to a T the discussion and issues that were put on the table by members of the coalition during the debate this morning on that agricultural bill. It is really a disappointment that the minister did not seen fit to be in the chamber to deal with that piece of legislation. It was not making major changes—I do understand that—but, given the very little that has been done to agriculture during the last two terms of the parliament, it would have been nice to see the minister available to look after the piece of legislation that he has responsibility for instead of having one of his colleagues do it.
Senator Farrell interjecting—
While recognising the good parliamentary secretary's understanding and commitment to agriculture and fishing—as we talked about the other night—it is disappointing that the minister was not here to be able to deal with his own piece of legislation.
In respect of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, again, we are talking about a piece of legislation that makes some important changes to the Fisheries Administration Act, particularly around the management of e-monitoring. I am aware and the coalition is aware that trials of this technology have been underutilisation for a period of time and they do have the capacity to reduce costs to the industry by replacing observers while providing a high level of coverage across the fishery. As the coalition indicated under last piece of legislation, one of the concerns we have had is additional costs applied to agriculture, fisheries and forestry in the last two terms of government through things like the carbon tax and about ensuring that we provide some measures that can reduce costs in some way. In the circumstance where observer coverage is required—and there are a number of fisheries where, for good reasons, the Commonwealth does require full observer coverage—a mechanism that provides the capacity to reduce those costs where observers currently cost quite a bit more than $1,000 per day to the industry is welcomed. This piece of legislation is supported by the opposition. Just as we have concerns with the management of agriculture and forestry more broadly, we have concerns about the management of fisheries. The amendment to the Fisheries Act also deals with some definitions around the closures of part of a fishery and relates to directions on how those might now be defined. It also deals with levies and liabilities of corporations and other principles. The opposition welcomes these but we expressed concerns about the government's management of fisheries—and of agriculture more broadly—in the last piece of legislation.
I mentioned the significant increase in levies and fees in the trawl fishery in my contribution earlier today where the cost of a licence in the South East Trawl Fishery went from something like $7,000 to $14,000 and a whole heap of players moved out. The opposition at that time moved a disallowance motion to try to bring the attention of the government to the fact that there was a level of concern. After negotiations with the government, we withdrew that motion but then there was a complete change in the way that the levies were structured—I think probably in a better way but without consultation with the industry. That seems to be a benchmark of the current government: lack of consultation.
I talked earlier today about the impact of the carbon tax. Talking to participants in the fishery in South Australia recently, there are huge concerns about the impacts of the carbon tax on the cost of refrigerant. Of course that refrigerant is a vital part of them getting their product to market as a fresh and premium quality product. They are genuinely and understandably concerned about the impact of the carbon tax on refrigeration for their industry. It is a vital part of their industry. They are dealing with a product that will deteriorate very quickly if it is not managed properly, and the additional costs imposed on the industry through the carbon tax on the cost of refrigerants is considerable.
I turn to the subject of the management of fisheries more broadly touched on by some of my colleagues. We have seen in the last six months one of the most disgraceful examples of how not to manage a fishery, and that was done through the management of the freezer trawler, the Abel Tasman. The cost of refrigeration and recharging that vessel is very significant. That whole venture was about harvesting the fishery sustainably but then managing the harvested product by freezing it immediately so that it would be in premium condition for a food-grade product rather than a fishmeal product.
Rather than maintaining a situation where they managed the fishery based on the science, we now have fisheries management by GetUp! in Australia. We know that GetUp! is effectively a lobbying arm of the Greens—they are now campaigning in the ACT for their former director Simon Sheikh even though they promised that they were an independent organisation and would not be engaging in that. They are now engaged in lobbying directly for the Greens, and so the Greens' influence on the Labor Party and their management decisions around fisheries, forestry and agriculture are becoming more and more apparent.
Over a period of years, this government, having followed on with the development of our fisheries management system from the very good work started by my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald and then Senator Abetz by putting in place a world-class system of fisheries management, have completely capitulated to fisheries management by GetUp! Forget the science. Forget everything else: they just don't want the boat. That is what the argument has come down to, regardless of the fact that a harvest strategy has been put in place for the entire Australian fishery—and individual harvest strategies for a number of fisheries, including the small pelagics. They take into account all of the needs of the different elements of the food chain—large animals, large fish species, predator types—and then set a very, very conservative by global standards quota to access the fishery. Yet this government does not have what it takes to stick to that scientific process. It has to put in special legislation. It costs the business hundreds of thousands of dollars—$10,000 a day to have the vessel tied up doing nothing—and then they wonder why people start talking about things like sovereign risk.
I have spoken to people who have said, 'We are reconsidering our investment in the fishery here in Australia, particularly in Tasmania, because of that decision.' They are concerned that the government, having spent years developing a science based strategy for the management of a fishery, could then make a political decision to completely change the rules and say, 'We're now stepping back. We're reconsidering our decision-making process.'
I spoke to a fisheries manager from New Zealand last week. They are concerned about the impact of that decision-making process on their fishery in New Zealand. That is the scale of the debacle that this government has wrought on the fishing industry in Australia. We are globally recognised as having one of the best managed fisheries in the world—No. 2 for sustainability behind Germany; top three, four or five in nearly every other category—and yet there is concern amongst fisheries managers, not only in Australia but also in other countries, because of the win that this government gave to organisations such as Greenpeace—an organisation which is happy to break into the CSIRO and destroy property—that they are now utilising that as a tool against the industry in other jurisdictions. That is how poorly this government has managed Australia's fisheries
Then of course we go to the marine parks process, where the consultation has effectively been a show and tell and this minister has capitulated any support for the industry to the former minister, Tony Burke. There has been nobody in this government who has been prepared to stand up for the users of the resource in this marine parks process. In fact, it has been used as a political tool without access to the science, and we know that for a fact because that has been admitted. It has been admitted by Minister Burke when he has been talking to recreational user groups and commercial user groups, and by the department. I was in Brisbane on the day of the meeting. I asked if I could have access just to listen; I did not need to say anything and did not want to say anything. The fishing industry representatives asked for the science on which these marine parks were to be based. They were told there was none. Tony Burke will come out with a pile of books saying, 'Here is the science.'. There is none. It could be anything in that pile of books that Tony Burke hands up in display of what the science says. The reality is that Minister Burke has made a series of political decisions: lock up the Coral Sea, reduce the number of marine park areas out of New South Wales because that is where the worst politics are. He thinks he can get away with a bit more in the south-west, so he will make larger marine parks over there. One of the only places where there was any real modification through the final management plan process was out of Mr Katter's seat, where they traded votes against the Abel Tasman for some modifications to the management plans.
We will do everything to make sure that there is a decent process in place. We will do everything within our power to make sure that there is a decent process; that there is proper consultation and you do not have a lot of different sectors played off against each other; that there is somebody within government who is prepared to stick up for fishing sectors within Australia that are globally recognised as responsibly accessing the fishery. We will ensure that that occurs, not the show and tell consultation process where Minister Burke and his department went out and said, 'Here are the maps, this is what is going to happen.' When the zones were declared—and the consultation period followed the declaration of the zones—it was not about whether they might change, it was not about improving that process; it was about whether they happened or not. We all know that the answer from Minister Burke's perspective was that they were going to happen. But where was Minister Ludwig in all this?
It is a bit like the Abel Tasman situation, where you have one of the most eminent marine scientists on the planet come to Tasmania and say, 'You are a global laughing stock from that decision.' Professor Ray Hilborn is the scientist who led the global fish stocks process, so when Boris Worm came out and said the oceans would be devoid of fish by 2047, which the environmental groups all jumped on and started campaigning on, Ray Hilborn went to Boris Worm and said, 'I disagree with your hypothesis. Why don't we conduct a project to review it?' They agreed to do that and along with 23 or 24 marine scientists from across the spectrum they did a global project which actually put the true picture on the table. There is someone who is prepared to provide real leadership in fisheries and fisheries management. That is why he is one of the most respected fisheries scientists on the planet. When he comes to Australia and says, 'You are a global laughing stock because of your decision around the Abel Tasman because of politics over science,' I think we ought to be taking notice of it.
You have also got the minister who has committed the southern bluefin tuna industry to a new process of counting fish as they go into their nets, a stereo video. The industry do not have a problem with that, but the problem is that the technology is not mature and it is not automated. It actually diminishes their capacity to properly manage their fishery. Why would a minister agree to something that took an industry backwards? Why not do the work to get the technology up to speed and provide what the systems they are using now already do for stocking densities within the pens? Why not have that work done before you impose it on the industry? Yet that is what this minister has done.
Then there is the minister's non-appointment of the FRDC board. It is not the first time that has happened. Previously the Grains Research and Development Corporation, one of a larger research and development corporations, was left without a board. Twelve months later the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation is also left without a board. When will the minister do something that is of positive benefit to the industry? Why aren't there changes being brought forward by the minister to the PIERD Act, for example, where for a change the industry has got themselves together about what they want to do on marketing. The prawn industry, for example, has a brilliant proposal for marketing. You have the wild prawn fishery and the aquaculture sector of the prawn fishery come together wanting to market Australian prawns. That is not possible under the PIERD Act as it stands. Why isn't the minister doing something to help the industry help themselves? It is not a big deal. They have done the work and it is sitting there ready to go. Yet there is no support from the minister, as there has been no support from the minister in a whole range of other areas in his portfolio. He stepped back and allowed others to take the lead, to take over his portfolio. It is a huge disappointment that the minister is not providing the leadership that this industry desperately needs, particularly in the critical areas around fisheries management. I await with interest the review that is being conducted of Fisheries Management Australia. I think that is an important move although it does come out of the complete debacle of the freezer trawler episode. But it would be nice to see that progressed. I acknowledge the minister asking that the opposition be consulted as part of that process. I appreciate that. That was a positive from my perspective. We certainly do appreciate that but I would like to see the results of it. Let's help the industry move ahead with its own marketing through the PIERD Act. Let's do some of those positive things that we can do for the industry. Let's support that. Having said that, the opposition will be supporting the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012.
The Greens will also be supporting the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, particularly because we think this is an improvement on the way that observing and monitoring will be undertaken. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out when this legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives:
E-monitoring can include cameras, global positioning systems and sensors and can generate a range of visual and non-visual information for monitoring fishing and related activities.
Of course the issue around the monitoring is that it needs to be used—and it needs to be used for better fisheries management. Unless we see the information that is generated and requested from the fishers being taken up by AFMA, and then effectively used to improve fisheries management and to monitor what is going on—we can have all the monitoring in the world—it could be an investment that does not actually generate better fisheries management.
I talk specifically about the need to use information that is obtained and where monitoring is in place. For example, an issue that I have been following very closely is sea lion deaths. In my home state of Western Australia, conditions are a bit different to those that apply in South Australian fisheries. We have the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery. This fishery was given renewed export permission last year by the federal government and conditions were imposed on that fishery. Likewise, conditions were imposed on that fishery previously and the Western Australian government did not implement them. One of those conditions involved monitoring and observing.
We know from experience in South Australia that, when observers were put in place and monitoring was undertaken, they suddenly discovered that there had been 374 sea lion deaths and 56 dolphins killed as a result of the use of gillnets. When these are used in the fishery in Western Australia those same conditions are not imposed and observers have not been put in place. So we actually do not know what impact that fishery is having on sea lions and dolphins. I believe this is critically important, because there are only around 12,000 Australian sea lions left in the world. I hope that, with this bill going through, there will be an added incentive for the Western Australian government to require those fishers to use e-monitoring.
I would also like to point out that the 2007 research paper on the benefits and costs of e-monitoring did point out the benefits of e-monitoring and the differences between observers and e-monitoring. They pointed out that e-monitoring 'may be more useful for documenting TEP interactions, especially with large marine mammals such as porpoises or seals, than for documenting catch.' They also pointed out that:
and—
They also pointed out that some of the problems with observer monitoring included:
The paper also referred to observer bias. It pointed out that, because some of these difficulties are in place, it is difficult to circumvent observer bias and that e-monitoring 'can provide better unbiased data, regardless of cost, than can observer programs unless the observer program has 100 per cent coverage'. The researchers go on to say that 'observer data is not pure and can contain errors' and 'physical limitations, such as bed space, can act as a constraint' for putting observers on vessels. Also, as has been pointed out by Senator Colbeck and in other information, e-monitoring is much more cost effective.
We think this bill is worthy of support and we do support it. But, as I said, it is very important that we make sure we use the information that is obtained and that important fisheries, that can have an impact on such things as Australian sea lions and dolphins, do have e-monitoring in place. This is particularly important so that we can develop better fisheries management—which takes me to the issue of the Borthwick review.
In answer to questions in estimates in February the department and the minister confirmed that the Borthwick review had been completed and was currently with the minister. That was in the second week of February, and the minister had received it sometime before that. That was a month ago, and I am wondering when that review is going to be released. I know that there are a lot of people who are deeply interested in seeing that review and seeing the government's response. So I ask the government when that report is going to be publicly released and whether it is a correct understanding that, when that is released, the minister's response will be released at the same time. It is particularly important that we look at fisheries management, as I alluded to in my contribution to the bill we have just discussed, in the context of ecosystem-based management, in which marine protected areas play an essential role. Senator Colbeck talked about the need for science and about ignoring science, and I ask the question that I have asked in this place many times: how much more science do people need to understand that marine protected areas and reserves play a key role in fisheries management and in the protection of ecosystems? There is science to show that, but they care not to take it into account. You could look at not only the science but also video monitoring and e-monitoring. Hopefully, this will help convince people into the future that reserves play a key role in ecosystem-based management and that we need to ensure that our areas of high marine biodiversity and value are protected into the future.
Speakers also referred to the lack of science in these new marine parks under the very thorough bioregional planning process that has been undertaken. Over a decade and a half some fishers have been complaining in my home state of Western Australia that they would not be investing in increasing their fishing capacity on the south coast because marine protected areas down there were going to significantly impact on fishing capability. People further up on the west coast have said similar sorts of things when they have not even looked at the maps properly. They do not take into account the significant changes in fishing regimes or fishing regulations that have had to be brought in on the west coast of Western Australia because areas close to Perth have been overfished. They do not bear that in mind. I have not heard them talk about the need to ensure that the marine science is up to date with the marine heatwave we have been suffering off Western Australia. I have not heard them complain loudly about the fact that we need to significantly increase our surveillance of marine invasive species—because, with the increasing warming of the water around Perth, that is a potential risk, and there has already been one outbreak at Garden Island. Where is their response to ensuring that we have sufficient flexibility in our fisheries management to cope with the marine heatwave and the fact that we may have to change our management practices? We will be seeing species there that we have not had before, and we will see the disappearance of other species.
Just before our rock lobster industry started crashing, just before we had a major decline in that industry, just before we had a major impact from the marine heatwave, it was claimed that the industry had world's best management practice. That is where we need to be investing in our attention and our resources in marine research and marine science. We need to use the science in a way that ensures that we really do have the world's best practice in marine management. It is no good to sit back on our laurels and say, 'Australia has the best fisheries management practice in the world.' That does not mean a jot if our fisheries are still not being properly managed. If the baseline is poor it does not mean that we should be sitting back on our laurels and saying, 'No, we shouldn't be changing our fisheries management practices because we have the best in the world.' It does not mean that we should not be improving it. It does not mean that we should keep our practices static in the face of climate change, which we know is already having an impact on our marine environment. We are already seeing the effects off the west coast of my home state of Western Australia, for example. This nonsense of saying, 'We've got world's best practice so we don't need to change,' is, as I said, nonsense. We need to be constantly updating our fisheries management practices. We need to be making sure that they are the best that we can have into the future in the face of constantly changing marine environment as a result of the impacts of climate change and warming waters.
We do not know what the likelihood is of having more extreme heating events in Western Australia across our unique environment. We do not know how often we are going to have these extreme events. We do not know where they are going to impact. We know that, globally, there are wellings that are being influenced by climate change. We know that is having an impact on fish species and fish populations. Globally, we know that we have fisheries that have been overfished. Australia and Western Australia are, I agree, some of the best-managed fisheries in the world, but that is not an excuse to do nothing. That is not an excuse to say, 'We're getting it right; we don't need to improve.' We have already seen in Western Australia the impact just one extreme event can have on our fisheries, our fish species and our ecosystems.
We support this bill. We think e-monitoring is going to be an effective and useful tool. But it is only effective as to how what it finds is incorporated into management responses. We will be watching the implementation of e-monitoring very carefully, and we urge the government to engage in further discussions with Western Australia fisheries around the temperate demersal gillnet fisheries in Western Australia to ensure that those fishers are required to carry out the same practices as the South Australian fishers are. Given that we know the management practices there were having adverse impacts on Australian sea lions and dolphins, I do not believe there is any reason to think that we may not be having impacts on sea lions and dolphins in the gillnet fisheries in Western Australia. Because that condition around observers was not implemented, we do not know. There were claims in South Australia that the fishery was not having an impact on sea lions and dolphins—until they looked. When they looked, they found 372 sea lions and 56 dolphins had been affected. This is why monitoring is so essential in fisheries management. The Greens will be supporting this bill.
Seventy-two per cent of seafood products that Australians consume are imported from overseas. That will continue to be the case while we have a minister for fisheries who has no interest in the Australian industry and no interest in the science around the fisheries.
I just heard from the Greens political party senator, a typical harbinger of doom for our country, and I cannot avoid the opportunity of talking about global warming. I think the UK Met Office has said there has been no warming for 17 years now, so the rhetoric is now 'climate change', and I see it is now a 'marine heatwave' we are talking about.
Go and talk to WA.
Senator, it is all the difficulties of a change in the climate. I just want to make it clear, as I always do, that of course I believe in climate change. I read the stories about the fish fossils that are found in the middle of Australia, in the middle of the desert. I am also conscious of the fact that the centre of Australia was once a rainforest. I also know that the world was once covered in ice. So of course the climate is changing, and that is something I have always acknowledged.
My concern on Ms Gillard's broken promise on carbon tax is that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of carbon in this world. I do not know whether it was man's emission of carbon back in the dinosaur's time that caused the climate change then. I always concede I do not have the scientific knowledge to make a view on that. But what I do know is that, even if carbon is the cause of climate change, even if the people who say that man's emission is the cause of it, even if they are 100 per cent correct, Australia is taxing itself with the largest tax in the world for the less than 1.4 per cent of carbon emissions which we emit. Even under the Labor Party projections of the carbon tax, carbon emissions are still going to go up, so why are we doing this in advance—
Senator Macdonald, I have been listening to you patiently for three minutes and I have not heard you mention the bill before us, dealing with fisheries. I ask you to come back to that bill, please.
This is a debate, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I am responding to some of the things that the previous speaker mentioned, without interruption from the chair, I might add.
You have to respect the chair, Senator Macdonald.
Senator Wong is telling people to respect the chair. What a joke. You should have a look at question time, Senator Wong, and see how disrespectful you personally continue to be.
You are such a charming individual.
The point I am making—and I know it is a sensitive point for the failed climate change minister, Senator Wong, for me to talk about climate change and her complete failure in the ministry and her complete failure at Copenhagen. But I want to make the point in response to Senator Siewert: why does Australia penalise itself and the fishing industry and every other industry for no gain? Senator Siewert talks about the 'marine heatwave' and all the difficulties there
She did not, of course, mention that there have been new coral reefs forming in Western Australia as the southern waters get a little warmer. I acknowledge that is a question of colder waters getting warmer, and so new coral reefs are growing, but what the Greens and the Labor Party never understand is that this is going to happen. The climate will continue to change. What we have to deal with is climate adaptation. We should be spending money researching how we deal with, how we adapt to, whatever change happens in the climate—as it certainly will, and as it has done since time immemorial.
I notice Senator Siewert also spoke about the Western Australian rock lobster industry and said there were claims that it was world's best and now it is not. Senator Siewert knows as well as I do that that fishery was certified by the Marine Stewardship Council as being properly run—and the Marine Stewardship Council, as we all know, is a WWF sponsored organisation. Senator Siewert in those days thought that was pretty good. Now it is not the world's best fishery, according to Senator Siewert.
Senator Colbeck in his address—a contribution to the debate that I would urge all interested parties to read and reread—went through the whole gamut of fisheries in relation to this legislation. As Senator Colbeck quite rightly said, this is legislation we support because it will help the way we can assess the strength and health of the fisheries. But the problem with the Labor government is that they make decisions on our fisheries not based on science, not based on this data, but on the basis that Ms Gillard needs the Greens in order for her to stay as Prime Minister. The Greens rattle the can; Ms Gillard says, 'Whatever you say, whether it is backed by science or not, I will do it provided you continue to keep me for a few more months in the job I am desperate to keep, and that is the job of Prime Minister.' So we have marine bioregional plans. And Senator Siewert from the Greens political party suggests: 'Labor are good, Greens are good, for having marine bioregional plans. Liberals are bad because they challenge some of the decisions that are made.'
Senator Siewert never acknowledges, of course, that bioregional plans were an initiative of the Howard government under its world-first oceans policy. The first marine bioregional plan we had in Australia's south-east—I am proud to say it happened while I was fisheries minister—was a plan on which there was full consultation with all the stakeholders. We came to a resolution on that plan that 85 per cent of the people were 85 per cent happy about. It was not a bad outcome. The fishing industry was able to continue to employ Australians, we were able to continue to eat Australian produced fish and a lot of areas were set aside for conservation.
Contrast that process with this farce of a consultation process that the Labor Party and the Greens have embarked upon. It is absolutely farcical. Labor only consulted with the Greens and the Pew organisation, that American environmental group that came into being on the back of oil money from some American oil barons who wanted to salve their consciences. The Pew foundation wanted this; the Greens jumped when they were told by Pew to do this; and then Ms Gillard, wanting to retain her office as Prime Minister, also jumped. So we have had this farce of a consultation process.
The prawning industry, one of the few continuingly successful industries in the Gulf of Carpentaria, was at risk of destruction through the marine bioregional plan. I, Senator Colbeck, many in the industry and all the stakeholders in the Gulf of Carpentaria have pleaded and petitioned for a better outcome for that plan. I just hope that Mr Burke will, at last, at least take notice of the submissions that Senator Colbeck and the industry have made on that marine bioregional plan so that we can not only have good conservation outcomes but also protect and sustain what is a very sustainable industry that, as I said, is one of the few that continues to operate in Australia.
To come back to what I said at the beginning, the difficulty for Australians eating locally produced fish is that there is no confidence these days in the fishing industry because of what investors see as a sovereign risk problem within Australia at the moment. Mr Acting Deputy President Furner, you will remember that Mr Burke, when he was the fisheries minister, actually encouraged fishermen in Tasmania to bring in a supertrawler. He did that because the science at the time—and the science currently, I might say—said that was a good way to harvest the fish. Lo and behold, with some of the ructions in the Labor Party, time moves on and Mr Burke is no longer fisheries minister but becomes environment minister. Having encouraged Australian and some foreign investors to put money into this supertrawler as fisheries minister, Mr Burke as environment minister then stops that boat from operating. And you wonder why there is no confidence in investment in the Australian fishing industry! Why did Mr Burke do that? Because Ms Gillard likes her current temporary job as Prime Minister, the Greens said they would do awful things if the supertrawler was allowed in—again, the populist politics of the Greens without any consideration of the economics or investment implications of their action—and the trawler was banned.
We have a fisheries minister who in this legislation is doing something positive. It is probably the only positive thing I can recall the government doing with fisheries legislation. But, contrary to that, there is green tape and red tape that is shutting down the Australian industry and making it necessary for Australians, if they want to eat seafood, to import 72 per cent of what we consume.
I move on to another aspect of fisheries legislation which I thought the Greens might have mentioned but, alas, they have not. That is, that we have in Australian waters the Patagonian toothfish, a quite rare but, if it is managed properly, a sustainable fish that is very valuable. Some years ago there were pirates who knew the value of the fish and who came in from all over the world to take Australia's Patagonian toothfish. I am pleased to say the Howard government by very firm action acquired a vessel to go down into the Southern Ocean and capture, arrest or chase away those pirate vessels from all over the world. We cleaned out those pirate vessels in the Southern Ocean. Now we find that the Labor government has no interest in that anymore. The vessel that was acquired for that is up running a taxi service for illegal arrivals in the north-west of Australia. It was supposed to be helping the French protect the Southern Ocean from pirates but is no longer working there. When you ask the Labor government about this it says, 'Oh, but the French are there, and we put Australian officers on French vessels.' Yes, we do—but how long is this one-sided approach going to last? How long are the French going to say, 'We'll keep taking your guys around, but we never expect you to reciprocate by putting our people on your vessels'? That is what is wrong with Labor's approach to fisheries management and, I might say, to border protection as well.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 12.45 pm, I call on matters of public interest.
I wish to raise as a matter of public interest Senator Sinodinos's statement of private interests. As senators may recall, Senator Sinodinos entered the chamber in the dying moments of the previous sitting week to confess to omitting several company directorships from his statement of private interests, and to attempt to clarify his very murky dealings with the increasingly infamous company known as Australian Water Holdings. Not only was this a cynical attempt from Senator Sinodinos to deflect attention away from his dodgy dealings but it is not how—
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator is reflecting on another senator. That is plainly in violation of the standing orders and she should be sat down.
I find no point of order at this stage.
Thank you Mr Acting Deputy President. I was not reflecting on Senator Sinodinos, but indeed reflecting on the content of his contribution to the Senate in the adjournment speech of last sitting Thursday.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator has now explained why it is she is reflecting on Senator Sinodinos. She used the phrase 'dodgy dealings'. That implies impropriety, and you should, applying the standing orders, require her to withdraw that imputation. If it were said outside this chamber it would be plainly actionable.
What I heard was that there was no reflection on Senator Sinodinos himself but on the content of his debate.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. What I was about to say—and to remind Senator Brandis, as he full knows—is that this is not the way the Senate usually deals with personal explanations. But I will come to that in a moment.
It was, however, a remarkable confession, received with great scepticism by senators on this side of the chamber. Senators would be aware of the significance of honouring the very important obligation to maintain a complete and accurate statement of private interests. Holding office as a senator is a privilege that carries with it an obligation to behave at all times with the utmost integrity and to act in the public interest. I am sure that none of my Senate colleagues would argue with this very important statement of principle, even those on the other side of the chamber. I am sure we would all agree that a critical component of our ethical obligations is making a full and frank disclosure of our private interests so that the Australian people can have confidence that our private interests do not conflict with our official duties as senators.
It is indisputable that those who hold leadership positions ought to be held to an even higher—I stress, an even higher—standard than normal. Senator Sinodinos, for example, is the shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, a position of great trust. The Australian people expect those of us who are privileged to hold such positions to lead by example, and they will rightly condemn us when we fail to conduct ourselves appropriately. Political life is littered with sad tales of those who lost office because of impropriety, maladministration or indeed misconduct.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator has now plainly reflected on Senator Sinodinos. She has accused him of impropriety and dishonesty. I take you to standing order 193, substanding order (3):
(3) A senator shall not use offensive words—
it is not possible to dispute that the words Senator Collins has used are offensive—
against … any member of such House, … and all imputations of improper motives—
the senator herself used the word 'impropriety'—
and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.
Senator Furner, I am inviting you as a neutral chairman to rule that the assertion of impropriety against the senator, which was Senator Collins's very word—
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Order!
is a plain and, indeed, flagrant breach of standing order 193.
On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I was listening to Senator Collins's contribution and have just listened to the first point of order that Senator Brandis raised and to his second point of order—I was listening very carefully. Of course, Senator Brandis would be right if a senator had been accused of impropriety; that would be disorderly. But, as I heard Senator Collins comment, I would respectfully suggest that she used words to the effect—I cannot say I can recall precisely the language used, but they were effectively words to the effect—that 'political life is littered with examples of impropriety'. That is the context in which Senator Collins used the word 'impropriety' and I suggest that it is actually a statement of fact. If it were applied to a senator or, as Senator Brandis says, to any member of a house of parliament in this country, that would be disorderly. But I think that in the context it was used it was not disorderly. I tend to be a stickler for these sorts of things, so I would respectfully make that submission to you on the point of order in this case.
Senator Brandis, you were on your feet first.
I will yield to Senator Macdonald for the moment, but I do want to address what Senator Faulkner had to say.
Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order—
I have not given you the call, Senator Macdonald. I am ruling on the point of order: I find that at this time no disorderly language was directed at Senator Sinodinos, so I call Senator Collins.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on your ruling. Where a point of order is raised, you take debate on that to help you assess the issues. I was on my feet to do that and I was going to assist you by pointing out that, when the opposition accused Senator Conroy, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, of failing to properly do his duties in not reporting that he had stayed at a house with Mr Obeid, the President at the time said that that was not appropriate. I am suggesting to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you should follow that precedent.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a new point of order. Senator Furner, you refused to allow Senator Macdonald to continue to address you. The time limited for Senator Macdonald to address you had not expired. No senator had objected to the remarks made by Senator Macdonald, but you of your own volition, at a time when a senator was within his time period and not out of order, simply brayed at him—
Senator Brandis, there is no time limit—
I have not finished, Mr Chairman.
with regard to what you are referring to.
Indeed. No time limit had expired. That is what I said.
Once again, I have made a ruling on this and I intend to call Senator Collins. Sit down, Senator Brandis!
I have a new point of order. Senator Furner, when you ruled, as you did a moment ago, that I should sit down, I had not finished addressing the point of order that I was raising. In fact, I had not even made my point of order. You sat me down without ruling the point of order not to be a valid point of order, and therefore you prevented me from exercising my rights as a senator to make a point of order and, further, you did not discharge your obligation as the presiding officer to deliberate on the point of order. Senator Furner, I have no objection—no senator could have any objection—to the presiding officer ruling the point of order out of order, but you did not do that. First of all, you did not hear the point of order; secondly, you did not deliberate on the point of order; and, thirdly, you did not rule the point of order out of order.
I am afraid you are wrong there, Senator Brandis. I did all those things.
On a point of order—
There cannot be a new point of order now, George.
On a new point of order, Senator Furner, I request that you state the reasons for your ruling on my earlier point of order.
I have already made my reasons—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Excuse me. I have made my reasons clear: that there were no improprieties directed to Senator Sinodinos made in the address in this speech by Senator Collins.
I have a new point of order.
Well, you cannot, George.
Senator Brandis, can you make the point of order you are intending to make.
Yes, I will, but I ask to be heard, not interrupted before I finish my point of order.
I will allow you to be heard, providing you address a new point of order.
The new point of order, Senator Furner, is this: when you indicated in response to my previous point of order that you had in fact given a reason, the reason you then recited did not relate to the point of order I had taken. It related to an earlier point of order on which you had already ruled. So I ask you to give the reason for your ruling on the point of order taken by me most recently before this, which you have not ruled on.
Senator Brandis, I think I have covered off in terms of the point of order I made in regard to the earlier point that was made. In terms of what you were discussing subsequent to that point—it was a matter in terms of sitting you down—I made the decision on that basis due to the fact that there was no time limit, as you were referring to in your point, and it is not a matter of time to have that point of order relate. Therefore, they were the grounds on which I sat you down.
It seems as if Senator Brandis's ailments from question time are extending into other components of debate in this chamber, because Senator Brandis needs to listen to what I actually say rather than what he fears I might say. So I will repeat the point that, roughly, Senator Faulkner relayed quite correctly. The point I made is that political life is littered with sad tales of those who lost office because of impropriety, maladministration or misconduct. So I suggest that Senator Brandis actually listens to what is being said here rather than what he fears is occurring and not interrupt the debate for 10 minutes with spurious points of order.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator is reflecting on Senator Conroy for not putting in his register of interests that he stayed with Eddie Obeid.
I do not think that is a point of order. Resume your seat, Senator Macdonald. That is not a point of order.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Macdonald raises one example, but perhaps I could give him another. Senator Bernardi, Senator Sinodinos's predecessor as shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, resigned from this position after admitting that he had failed to meet the standards of conduct expected of those holding high public office.
The circumstances of the Senator Sinodinos's confession are very concerning and they leave several important questions unanswered. Senator Brandis, I am not seeking to answer those questions or, indeed, imply what the answer may be. I am raising before the Senate that there are many unanswered questions.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order relating to standing order 193 about imputations. It has been resolved many times by presiding officers that imputations may be cast both by assertion and by question.
You cannot raise questions in the Senate now, George?
Just as in a court of law, an interrogative statement may contain a defamatory imputation—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I ask all senators to come to order. Senator Brandis, continue with your point of order.
An interrogative statement may just as easily be a breach of standing order 193 for carrying an imputation as in a court of law an interrogative statement may be held to be defamatory if it contains a defamatory imputation. Senator Collins has now said that she considers that she is at liberty without violating standing order 193 to ask any questions she chooses.
I did not say 'any'!
The fact is that, although of course a senator may ask questions, it is possible, by the manner in which a question is phrased and the context in which it is asked, to be in violation of standing order 193 and, given the context that arises from what Senator Collins has already said, which you may or may not have heard, she has violated standing order 193.
I am prepared to rule, but if you want to speak to it, Senator Collins, I will allow it.
On the point of order, I just do not think that Senator Brandis can continue like this unchallenged. It is starting to get ridiculous. Not only is he hearing things that have not been said, but now he is anticipating his fears, not through any question that I have raised that makes any imputation, but that I might. This is just absolutely ridiculous. You are time wasting and you should allow us to continue with this debate.
On the same point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I believe on this that you should rule that all senators are obligated to conform with all the standing orders of the Senate, including of course standing order 193. I believe that whoever is presiding should be referred to by title and not by name, I would suggest, and whoever is presiding is obligated—and in this case it is you, Mr Acting Deputy President—to ensure that those standing orders are adhered to.
I am prepared to rule. I have been listening carefully to what Senator Collins is saying even though that has been difficult with some of the interjections coming across the chamber. I do not think that she out of order at this point. Senator Collins, continue.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I indicated, Senator Sinodinos's statement leaves several important questions unanswered. Senators should ask themselves whether Senator Sinodinos's last-minute confession complies with both the letter and the spirit of the requirement to fully and frankly disclose their private interests.
Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order. You just heard Senator Collins say, 'Senators should ask themselves whether Senator Sinodinos's last-minute confession complies with the letter or the spirit of the standing orders.' Although dressed up as a question, that is plainly an imputation and I ask you to rule accordingly that it is a reflection on a senator in flagrant breach of standing order 193(3).
I think that is more of a debating point and I do not believe that there is a point of order.
Back to these questions: To begin with, Senator Sinodinos did not make his last minute confession of his own volition. Rather, he was dragged into it kicking and screaming—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator Brandis, this is unacceptable behaviour. Your yelling and screeching across the chamber is totally disorderly and you will desist from it.
Indeed, I was making the same point that Senator Sinodinos made in his contribution. He came forward after questioning from a journalist who had covered the holes in Senator Sinodinos's story. One wonders whether—
Senator Collins, just resume your seat. Senator Brandis on a point of order.
On a point of order, that was not a question. That was—
What is your point of order, Senator Brandis? I am not having you get up and simply start debating the issues before the chamber. If you have got a point of order, raise it.
I am raising it.
Well then raise it.
Okay. That was not a question; it was an assertion.
What is your point of order, Senator Brandis?
The point of order is that the words 'the holes in Senator Sinodinos's statement'—
Again, I think we are getting to a debating point, Senator Brandis.
That being a statement to the chamber is a reflection of Senator Sinodinos under section 193.
Senator Brandis, there is no point of order. Resume your seat.
One wonders whether Senator Sinodinos may have ever corrected the record if the forensic research necessary to uncover these failings had not occurred. In addition, Senator Sinodinos did not make his confession in an open and transparent manner—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator Brandis! Again you are screeching across the chamber. This is completely disorderly and I again ask you to desist.
Senator Sinodinos did not make his confession in an open and transparent manner, instead waiting until five minutes to midnight to enter the chamber at the last moment—
Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order. Senator Collins just said, 'Senator Sinodinos did not make his disclosure in an open and transparent manner.' That is the verbatim of what she said—
Are you making a point of order or are you debating what Senator Collins is saying?
That is a reflection on Senator Sinodinos, plainly in breach of standing order 193(3). To say that a senator's statement to the Senate was not made in an open and transparent manner is a reflection!
You were just screeching that I was a liar, George!
I just asked a question.
Look, you have even got the grace to blush on that.
Again, I believe that the point of order you are raising is a debating point, Senator Brandis. Are you raising another point of order, Senator Fifield?
On the same point.
I have already ruled on that point of order, Senator Fifield.
I was making the point that Senator Sinodinos's disclosure was presented in the last sitting week, at the very last moment likely to attract the least possible attention before the chamber and offered no opportunity for any other senators to respond. Senator Sinodinos's decision to execute this mea culpa in this regrettable fashion robbed the Senate of the opportunity to promptly address his behaviour, because the Senate did not sit again, as we all know, until approximately a week and a half later. I have heard it remarked that this was a cynical and manipulative measure, but I will leave that to the commentariat to reflect on.
You are a grub!
Order, Senator Brandis!
Withdrawn.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Importantly, I ask the Senate to consider whether Senator Sinodinos's explanation for his failure to declare his interests is plausible. Senator Sinodinos essentially said that he had forgotten several company directorships and insinuated that this failure was due to an ignorance of the rules for declaring private interests. I seriously question whether Senator Sinodinos's assertions pass the person-in-the-street test or indeed any test that any senator in this place might seek to apply. Senator Sinodinos is a seasoned corporate operator and a career capitalist, with executive experience with some of the world's largest corporations, including the National Australia Bank, Goldman Sachs and JBWere. I question whether it is plausible that an experienced corporate executive would simply forget several company directorships. I also question Senator Sinodinos's feigned ignorance of the rules relating to the declaration of private interests. Senator Sinodinos should be well versed—
Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order in relation to standing order 193, 'Rules of debate', at item (3), which says:
A senator shall not use offensive words …
Fair enough; she is not being offensive, but it goes on to speak against 'all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections'. Accusing a senator of 'feigning' something is the same as saying that a senator is lying. You cannot construe it in any other way. In relation to what was a very serious, sober and thoughtful contribution by Senator Sinodinos, saying that Senator Sinodinos was feigning something is a reflection on him.
I think I have heard your point. Senator Collins, using the word 'feigning' may be something you might want to reconsider and potentially withdraw at this point.
I will withdraw the words 'feigned ignorance', but I will continue to ask senators to make their own conclusions on the quality of the contribution, because Senator Sinodinos should be well versed in the private interest obligations that apply to all senators. It is well known that Senator Sinodinos was a longstanding chief of staff to former Prime Minister John Howard. In this role, Senator Sinodinos was responsible for disciplining coalition MPs and senators for failure to comply with private interest rules and other scandals that may have occurred. What is more, Senator Sinodinos ascended to the office of chief of staff after his predecessor, Grahame Morris, was forced to resign in disgrace after it emerged that he had covered up failures by Howard government ministers to meet their private interest obligations under the Standards of Ministerial Ethics. Senators might recall that so many ministers—
Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I seek your guidance and assistance in this matter: the reference to Mr Morris resigning 'in disgrace'. I know that there are clear standing orders in relation to reflections on senators, but I just seek your guidance on reflections on those who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in this place.
I cannot see a point of order at this stage, Senator Fifield.
I was indicating just now that senators might recall that so many ministers fell foul of the Howard government's ministerial code that Mr Howard was forced to further water down his already weak standards for fear that he might otherwise be left with no cabinet. That is how many casualties there were during that time.
I remind the Senate of the sorry tale of former Senator Santo Santoro, who resigned as a minister and left the Senate under a cloud of deep suspicion after his gross failure to properly declare scores of share trades was revealed. This is a scandal that has haunted Mr Santoro to this very day, and I would not be surprised if it remains burned in the memory of Senator Sinodinos. It has been reported that Senator Sinodinos, as John Howard's chief of staff, was intimately involved in responding to the ethical crisis that Mr Santoro's regrettable behaviour sparked within the coalition. In these circumstances, I question whether anybody could sincerely expect the Senate to believe that Senator Sinodinos is ignorant of private interest rules. Further to this let us consider the detail of the multitude of company directorships that mysteriously slipped Senator Sinodinos's mind. These are not just a couple of not-for-profit directorships as suggested by Mr Abbott. That simply does not stand scrutiny. First we have Senator Sinodinos's directorship of Move to Live Pty Ltd, which the senator described as a healthcare company. I believe there are unanswered questions about Senator Sinodinos's involvement in this company. These are serious questions indeed and they relate to the much-maligned Santo Santoro.
What Senator Sinodinos did not volunteer to the Senate during his late-night mea culpa was that Santo Santoro was deeply, intimately involved in Move to Live. Senators may be interested to learn that the now-infamous Mr Santoro,who, as I previously mentioned, was forced to terminate his own political career as a result of drastic failings of judgement, was also a director of this company. Senators opposite complained, but indeed I am not even quoting the former Prime Minister John Howard on this matter, which would certainly add some more meat to these bones. But, I return to Senator Sinodinos. It turns out that Senator Sinodinos and Santo Santoro sat around the Move to Live board table. Why did Senator Sinodinos fail to mention Santo Santoro's involvement in this company? Given Santo Santoro's own history with private interest matters, are we to believe that Senator Sinodinos thought Mr Santoro's involvement was not a legitimate matter of public interest? Was Senator Sinodinos concerned that revelation of his involvement with Mr Santoro would raise damaging questions about his own political judgement? Was Senator Sinodinos trying to hide something? Is Senator Sinodinos hiding any other aspect of his involvement with Move to Live or the operations of the company?
There are serious questions that must be answered about Senator Sinodinos's corporate links to this disgraced former politician. As Senator Brandis is fully aware, this is not the first time that Senator Sinodinos has been caught out exercising poor judgement and establishing murky associations. The committee of privileges—
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. This was not a question. Senator Collins, in breach of standing order 193(3), reflected upon Senator Sinodinos by saying this was not the first time he had been caught out, implying wrongdoing in relation to murky associations. The assertion 'caught out' implies a person has been exposed in wrongdoing. That is plainly a reflection on the senator.
On the point of order, I did not say that he had been caught out and exposed of wrongdoing but rather of poor political judgement.
Thank you. I think, Senator Brandis, you have raised a debating point and I do not see a point of order that this point. Senator Collins.
I was about to remind Senator Brandis of the work of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges into how Senator Sinodinos was heavily implicated in the Godwin Grech affair.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator Brandis, I would ask you again to stop screeching across the chamber. I do not really care what you are pointing out, Senator Brandis; it is disorderly to yell across the chamber, and again I ask you to desist. Senator Collins.
During that time of the Godwin Grech affair, Senator Sinodinos was in a private sector job with the National Australia Bank, emailing as the Regional General Manager Government Business Performance and GoNASB Professional Development, according to the documents that were tabled in the Senate with the report. One questions why Senator Sinodinos—Mr Sinodinos at the time—was conspiring with a senior public servant who was leaking false information to the press. We know that is what Godwin Grech was doing. Was this core business for the National Australia Bank? Senator Sinodinos was also implicated in Mr Grech's making special effort for a strong financial donor to the Liberal Party and he also knew of Mr Grech's lies to the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. These are all matters that have been tabled before the Senate. Senator Sinodinos has, it seems, a long history of blurring the lines, exercising poor judgement and acting in his and the Liberal Party's own interest, yet this is the man Tony Abbott trusts for advice.
My next set of questions relates to the intricate web of Liberal Party entities to which Senator Sinodinos has belatedly declared his directorship. As the former president of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party, what role did Senator Sinodinos play in the establishment of these entities? Why is it necessary for the Liberal Party to operate such an impenetrably treat complex corporate structure? What tax benefits does the Liberal Party derive from this structure? Can Senator Sinodinos guarantee that the Liberal Party has not utilised this tricky corporate arrangement to evade its tax obligations or its workers compensation, insurance, superannuation or other obligations?
Senator Sinodinos was appointed to a casual vacancy in late 2011. Shortly thereafter, he submitted a statement of private interests that omitted directorships of several companies: Move to Live, Firestick ICT, Bunori, Liberal Asset Management (Custodians), and Liberal Properties Ltd.He had failed to declare directorships— (Time expired)
I rise to draw to the attention of the Senate the conduct of a member of the Senate: Senator the Hon. Bob Carr, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In addressing the conduct of Senator Bob Carr I will be very, very mindful of the rulings you have lately given on the points of order I took and Senator Fifield took concerning Senator Collins's reflections on Senator Arthur Sinodinos. Before I direct my remarks to Senator Bob Carr, however, let me say that the personal attack on Senator Arthur Sinodinos AO—a person of absolutely unimpeachable integrity who has served this country as a senior Treasury official, for many years as the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister and as a member of this Senate and, I might say, is likely to serve this country in even higher office in the years to come—on the basis of innuendo, snide insinuation and assertions dressed up as questions which contain innuendos of a most despicable character, reflects both on the personal character of Senator Jacinta Collins that she would deliver such a speech and on the baseness of the people who wrote that script for her.
The matter that I wish to raise in relation to Senator Bob Carr is this: Senator Carr has recorded on the Register of Senators' Interests a shareholding in a company called RJ Carr Pty Ltd. In doing so, he of course observed the obligations cast upon him to register that interest. But the issue that is of concern concerning Senator Bob Carr—who is, of course, Australia's face to the world—is the nature of the shareholding and the nature of the business. Senator Carr is, according to the register, the sole shareholder in that company, and that company—a private company which is the corporate alter ego of Senator Bob Carr himself—is a lobbying business. It is a political lobbying business. And Senator Bob Carr, by his registration of that interest on the Register of Senators' Interests as a current interest, has declared to the Senate that he is currently engaged in and is the owner of a political lobbying business.
My goodness!
It might seem a shocking thing, Senator Fifield, that the same man should be a member of the cabinet—a member indeed of the National Security Committee of the cabinet—and a registered political lobbyist. If that is not a conflict of interest, I do not know what a conflict of interest is. May I direct the attention of senators to section 2.9 of the government's own document, the Standards of Ministerial Ethics. Section 2.9 of the Standards of Ministerial Ethics says:
… these Standards require that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business …
Plainly, Senator Bob Carr is in breach of that requirement of the Standards of Ministerial Ethics. But furthermore, because of the nature of this business, a political lobbying business, he has kept himself in a position of conflict between his private interests—both as a lobbyist for a commercial company and in his obligations to the clients of that company to prosecute their private interests as a lobbyist—and his public duties as a senator, as a minister of the Crown and, indeed, as the holder of one of the most senior portfolios in the government and, as I said before, as a member of the National Security Committee of cabinet.
This issue was raised by Senator Ryan in Senate estimates about three weeks ago. Senator Carr asserted that everything was in order. He attempted to dismiss the conflict of interest as a bit of paperwork. Those were his words. He said, 'This is a bit of paperwork'. Now we have heard an ugly and sententious speech from Senator Jacinta Collins attacking the integrity of a very great Australian, Senator Arthur Sinodinos—a very great Australian. And yet Senator Collins shares the ministerial benches with a person who openly displays defiance and contempt for the very standards that Senator Collins asserts were not observed by Senator Sinodinos. The difference is that the assertions made against Senator Sinodinos were false—disgracefully false, disgustingly false—whereas Senator Bob Carr himself, by his own words, dismisses those standards as a bit of paperwork while being in open and flagrant and contumelious violation of them.
The place of business of RJ Carr Pty Ltd—because, as you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, when a company is registered one of the particulars required in the registration is its place of business—was changed. It was changed on the 24th of May 2012, on the afternoon of that day. The 24th of May 2012 was the very day on the morning of which Senator Scott Ryan, in Senate estimates, exposed this matter.
Oops!
As Senator Fifield, with his usual eloquence, ejaculates, the same day that Senator Scott Ryan exposed Senator Bob Carr's conflict of interest, mysteriously, the particulars of registration and in particular the place of business recorded in the corporate register were changed. What is even more alarming about this—if one leaves aside the blatant double standards we have seen on display this afternoon from a member of the Senate, if one leaves aside the contempt with which Senator Bob Carr dismissed his obligations to this place by dismissing it as a bit of a paperwork, if one leaves aside that fact that one of the most senior ministers of this government is caught in an obvious conflict of interest between his private interests and his public obligations, if one leaves aside the suspicious fact that no sooner was this fact revealed by Senator Scott Ryan than Senator Bob Carr sought to suddenly change the location of the place of business while not divesting himself of it, and even if one leaves aside the fact that Senator Carr continues to be in flagrant and, it would seem, proud violation of the government's own standard of ministerial ethics; not only is this a serious matter, leaving all those considerations to one side—is that the Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, has been aware of this fact from the start and she has suffered it to continue. She has allowed this to continue.
The Prime Minister of Australia is—among his or her many responsibilities—the ultimate arbiter and enforcer of ministerial standards. We heard from Senator Collins how ministers in the Howard government breached those standards. What Senator Collins did not tell us was that on each and every occasion—and there were a few occasions, particularly in the early years of the life of that government, when ministers fell into breach of those standards, even, as in the case of our former colleague Senator Brian Gibson, for purely technical breaches of those standards—Mr John Howard came down on those ministers like a tonne of bricks. And every one of them was required to pay the ultimate political price: the sacrifice of their ministerial career, because the high standards that Mr John Howard demanded of his ministers were standards of which he would brook no compromise.
On this occasion, a much more serious breach by a much more senior minister than any of those who fell into trouble under Mr Howard—a direct breach of the stipulation in section 2.9 of the Standards of Ministerial Ethicshas been committed. That breach itself, for reasons that must be obvious to even the dullest senator in the chamber, is a plain conflict between private interest and public obligation and has been known by the Prime Minister since at least 24 May 2012, if not earlier, when it was exposed in Senate estimates by Senator Scott Ryan. What has the Prime Minister done to enforce her own ministerial standards? What has the Prime Minister done to ensure that one of her most senior colleagues is not in a conflict between his private interests and his public duty? She has done nothing.
You don't know that.
Senator Feeney, I will take your interjection. I do know that.
That was Senator Thorp.
Was it Senator Thorp? This is Senator Thorp; the last time Senator Thorp—
Senator Brandis, you will address your remarks through me, not to Senator Thorp.
I will. Mr Acting Deputy President, the last time Senator Thorp interjected on one of my speeches, I recall, I was making the point that when Mr Peter Costello was the federal Treasurer he had delivered nine surplus budgets in a row, and Senator Thorp interjected: 'So what?'
Exactly.
Exactly. Now Senator Thorp interjects with an equally intelligent interjection, if I may say so: 'How do you know that she knew?' Well, Senator Thorp, it is on the public register.
Senator Brandis, you will address—resume your seat. Senator Polley, on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. I know the learned lawyer on that side knows the standing orders, and he should be directing his remarks through the chair instead of trying to reflect on and insult senators on this side of the chamber.
Thank you, Senator Polley. I was just about to bring Senator Brandis' attention to the fact that he should address his remarks through me.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have been keeping you firmly in my sight throughout this contribution.
Thank you, Senator Brandis.
We know this, Senator Thorp—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—because this is a public register; there is an obligation to keep it updated in a timely fashion. It remains the case that this breach of the government's standards of ministerial conduct—
On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I am concerned that I may have been verballed by the senator.
That is not actually a point of order, Senator Thorp. There are other opportunities to correct the record if you so choose.
This remains registered on the register, and that fact has been publicly known since it was exposed in May of last year. The leader of the government, the Prime Minister, must be taken to know what is on the public register.
I have in this contribution avoided the subject of Senator Bob Carr's shepherding and fostering of the political career of Australia's most corrupt politician, Mr Eddie Obeid, because this is a new and even more disturbing matter. For a senior member of the Australian cabinet—
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Clearly, Senator Brandis was then impugning Senator Carr. I note with interest his earlier remonstrations about this very section, 193(3), of the standing orders. I ask that he withdraw his imputations regarding Senator Carr.
Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I said that Senator Carr fostered and shepherded Mr Obeid's political career. I said that Mr Obeid was Australia's most corrupt politician. Both of those facts are objectively true.
I do believe that the matter is more of a debating point than a point of order at this point.
In the time available to me, one of the most senior members of the government, in breach of the government's own standards, unenforced by the Prime Minister, continues to carry on business as a political lobbyist, from the cabinet table, from the heart of government in this country.
I got in early for my speech on this matter of public interest and I have just been subjected to some of the cut and thrust of Australian politics that I heard so much about prior to coming into the Senate. In listening to all that nonsense in the last 35 minutes I can understand why so many Australians have lost faith in politics and parliamentarians.
I would like to talk about an issue of real public importance, something that Australian workers, businesses and voters truly care about—that is, the court decision last Monday, 4 March, in the Federal Court, where Coca-Cola managed to get a container deposit scheme administered by the Northern Territory thrown out. Container deposit schemes have been in place in South Australia since 1975, but most people in this chamber have grown up with container deposit schemes. We are all very familiar with how they work. The debate has been around both inside and outside parliament for the last 20 or so years. I certainly remember collecting Coke cans, bottles and anything that I could trade for money to buy my first bike. The feedback that we have had from people, while going around the country talking about these schemes, is that they are very popular.
South Australian schemes have been in place since 1975. We have seen fantastic results in terms of recycling. Around 85 per cent of all beverage containers sold in South Australia are now recycled. I have recently been to the Northern Territory and had a look at their scheme and how it is administered, as I have also done in South Australia. I certainly enjoyed the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry we had in South Australia into container deposit schemes last November. I was genuinely shocked and outraged, as were a lot of Australians, when in fact three big corporations—the dirty three: Coca-Cola, Lion Nathan and Schweppes—managed to find a legal loophole to overthrow a scheme that was tidying up the Northern Territory, a scheme that was creating jobs and a scheme that was bringing significant benefits to the community. Why? Coca-Cola have always argued through their front groups, such as the Food and Grocery Council, that these schemes are expensive and inefficient because they impact on their sales and that, somehow or another, a 10c deposit on a can of Coke, for example, will impact on the number of cans of Coke that people buy, although people get that 10c back if they take the can to a depot because it is a refundable deposit.
At the Senate inquiry in South Australia last year there was no evidence at all that Coca-Cola could provide that a container deposit scheme was impacting on their sales, at either a wholesale level or a retail level. Of course, the Food and Grocery Council have talked about this particular concern: that if we had a national scheme or a scheme in the Northern Territory it would impact on the cost of living for families, because they have to pay 10c more for a two-litre bottle of Coca-Cola. I would very much like to quote the excellent article by Professor Tennant-Wood of the University of Canberra in The Conversationthis morning about the court case:
Such concern for struggling families by one of the world’s largest corporate giants was touching, in the same way as a crocodile’s concern for a lone swimmer in a Kakadu waterhole is touching.
The trading revenue of Coca-Cola, one of the biggest corporations in the world, is about $47 billion. Compare that to the Northern Territory, which has a population of 233,000 people and a GDP of around $16 billion per annum. Coca-Cola knows, as do most of us, that a CDL scheme in that state will hardly dent Coca-Cola's profits. So what it is all about?
This court case was designed to fire a shot over the bow of other states, the Senate and the lower house when considering a national container deposit scheme—a national scheme which could increase recycling rates right around this country to over 90 per cent, a scheme that could be implemented through private investment, a scheme that could create thousands of jobs and that could solve an environmental pollution problem. It is a scheme that could create infrastructure for other types of waste processing that we desperately need in Australia and will certainly need in the future, such as e-waste processing, batteries, tyres et cetera. That is exactly what we have seen in South Australia.
So Coca-Cola find a legal loophole, through the Mutual Recognition Act, that somehow or another because beverage containers have a product inside them—the filling—they should not be exempt under the Mutual Recognition Act and therefore it is inequitable in terms of trading. Unfortunately, the Federal Court ruled in their favour. That means that the Northern Territory scheme, which has been up and running for around 12 months, ceases trading in just over a week, on the 18th of this month. This is a scheme that has seen millions of dollars invested in it by a large number of small businesses, including the recyclers of South Australia, who have taken their expertise from 40 years of recycling in South Australia and from investing in and administering that scheme and invested it in in the Northern Territory. In fact, the South Australian government even helped the Northern Territory government write their legislation. Most South Australians I met when I was over there touring the depots and speaking to the public were very proud of their scheme, and they are very proud of the expertise—and the export of the expertise—that those South Australian businesses have. But it is not just the recyclers of South Australia; there are also companies like Envirobank, based out of New South Wales. It was their depot that I visited. I met the workers and saw the infrastructure that was in place. Envirobank is going to cease trading in 10 days time because a large multinational corporation got its way over a state government that should have the right to implement its own recycling scheme—a large corporation that has a much bigger market capitalisation than the GDP of the Northern Territory. This is just the thin edge of the wedge. Coca-Cola has funded legal actions against schemes all over the world, and they are sending a message that other states who try to do this will suffer a similar fate. It is, of course, possible that they would look at opposing even national legislation for a container deposit scheme—which, by the way would have no particular issue with exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act. But, nevertheless, it is providing uncertainty in the face of Australian voters and businesses who would like to see a ubiquitous recycling scheme right across this country.
We have had this dream in the environment movement for a long time, but I am glad to say here today that the scheme is not only working well in South Australia but was significantly increasing recycling rates in the Northern Territory, until Coca-Cola came and stepped all over those communities. It is working very well in Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, Fiji, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Poland. It is an interesting quirk of fate that the first container deposit scheme was administered in Germany when the Greens ended up getting the balance of power there. A large number of court cases were fought by Coca-Cola to stop that going ahead. They even funded a class action to prevent that scheme from going ahead. Since Germany was the first mover, not only have we had those other nine countries implement the scheme but we know that another six countries are now looking at in Europe. It is also popular in 11 states across the US. It is not just Australia that is looking at a stewardship program that has a track record in increasing recycling rates.
Where I come from in this debate—and my interest in this—is not just that I have the waste portfolio but that I have spent the last 10 years working with the Surfrider Foundation and marine conservation groups cleaning up beaches. It is not just cans or glass bottles getting into waterways or lying by the side of the road that need to be recycled. We need to consider the saving in energy and the saving in emissions—all the good things that we know go with recycling. It is not just the 10c that every kid from the local scouts group collects when they pick up those bottles by the side of the road. Scouts South Australia made $7.8 million last year from running container deposit schemes. It is not just the benefits to the communities. These schemes take litter and pollution out of our waterways, which eventually find their way into the ocean.
I would like to talk about marine plastics. My big concern is with plastics and plastic packaging, and not just beverage containers but plastic packaging right across the spectrum. The flesh-footed shearwater—the local shearwater that we know so well in Tasmania—has been studied by a friend of mine, Dr Jennifer Lavers. She and her colleagues have noticed a 50 per cent decline in populations over the last 35 years on Lord Howe Island, where the majority of their studies are occurring. Twenty million new plastic items are estimated to enter the oceans every day, in terms of rubbish. That is 64 million tonnes of plastic rubbish in the oceans every year. In the last 10 years the world has produced more plastic than in the previous 100 years. One shearwater that Dr Lavers examined had 275 pieces of plastic inside its stomach. A hundred thousand marine animals and nearly a million seabirds are estimated to die every year from ingestion of debris. Two hundred and sixty-five marine species are estimated to be at risk—fish, mussels and algae. In the garbage patch in the Pacific, 14 years of scientific study has revealed that there is 40 times more plastic than plankton in that part of the ocean. They have even found plastic in plankton in Antarctica. It is everywhere.
You can despair when you grapple with the scale of this problem, but there is somewhere where we can start, and we can start by being responsible for the products that we consume. It starts with the consumer, but it also goes to the companies that produce the products. For the life of me—having worked with corporations and in finance and thinking that I have a reasonable understanding of business—I cannot understand why Coca-Cola and Lion Nathan do not get behind this scheme and champion it—champion the fact that they would be the first companies to be environmentally responsible in a product stewardship scheme that we know works. More people would buy their products if they did. I do not give up on hoping that one day they will change their philosophy and ideology in this respect, but in the meantime it is our responsibility to make sure we get a national container deposit scheme in place for the Northern Territory businesses who have had the carpet pulled out from underneath their feet, and all the workers who work in the schemes, and all the people from right across the state who have travelled to the depots; I have seen them lining up for an hour and a half in the dust and the sun with their kids waiting to have their bottles redeemed. This system works and it works really well. We should not let the profits of a large corporation—and that is all it is, returns to shareholders—come between us and a national recycling scheme that works, a national recycling scheme that is popular and that can be made to be highly efficient and can be funded from private investment. That is what we are facing in this country if we are brave enough to implement it.
The opportunity is coming up very shortly, when COAG meets in April. For 10 years this has been going on. For two years now COAG has been deliberating on this. I would strongly urge all political parties in the chamber to put politics aside and come together, get on the horse and ride in to give this to the Australian people and the people of the Northern Territory. This is Coke versus the people of Australia, and it is our role to make sure big corporations do not get their way just because it suits their shareholders. There is a lot more to society than corporate profits. (Time expired)
Would it be odd if I simply forgot that I had a job? Would it be peculiar if I just misplaced the title deed to my home? Would it be rather strange if, after doing a job for over a decade, I completely forgot core parts of it? I would hazard a guess that all but one senator here would answer yes. Yet we are expected to believe that that is exactly what has occurred with Senator Sinodinos and his various directorships and shares. He simply forgot about them but, as luck would have it, a journalist was able to help him remember.
Although I suppose you would not need to imagine it, that is very much the gist of his speech to this chamber at five minutes to midnight during our last sitting period. Perhaps from someone brand-new to this parliament we might be able to understand the folly—a new senator fresh to this chamber, perhaps new to the vagaries of politics and to their duties representing their state. But Senator Sinodinos, to his credit, is not a new senator in the traditional sense of the word and he is certainly not a breath of fresh air. He is no political rookie. Perhaps one might say he is a Liberal Jedi.
This is a man who was the chief of staff to former Prime Minister John Howard in the long, lonely years of opposition from 1987 to 1989 and then, more famously, served as chief of staff to the Prime Minister from 1997 to 2006. In addition, this is a man who was an advisory director of Goldman Sachs JBWere. This is a man who was a manager in the business division of the National Australia Bank, who was president of the New South Wales Liberal Party from 2011 to 2012 and who joined us in the Senate in 2011. This is no rookie senator, and there can be no brushing over the matters to which he brought the Senate's attention at the end of the last session.
In the years that the senator served as chief of staff to Prime Minister Howard, my count is that some seven members of parliament and the ministry resigned due to matters surrounding the ministerial code of conduct, the code introduced by Prime Minister Howard and the Howard government. There were seven resignations while Senator Sinodinos was the Prime Minister's chief of staff, seven resignations that brought Liberal MPs into conflict with the code introduced by the then Prime Minister. Ethical expectations of ministers would be an area of knowledge that Senator Sinodinos would be intimately involved in. Yet Senator Sinodinos waited until a journalist had this story in the bag before he said a word, and even then his brief statement was dragged out of him at the very last possible moment. So, sadly, the only lesson the Liberals will take from this whole sorry mess is: do not get caught. I do not believe that Senator Sinodinos did not know what was required of him because he was a rookie. This is a seasoned operator.
With regard to Australian Water Holdings and the senator's claim that he has voluntarily abandoned his shareholdings in AWH, let me ask some questions. Can Senator Sinodinos assure us and assure the Senate that he does not have or does not continue to have a scheme or a set of arrangements in place which will enable him to retain ownership of those shares? Why did he never register the shares in his name with ASIC, as is normal practice? Even if Senator Sinodinos did wish to relinquish his shareholding in Australian Water Holdings, I question whether he has effectively executed this transaction. I question whether sending a simple letter, even one from a lawyer, is sufficient to relinquish a legal interest in a company's shares. If Senator Sinodinos was entitled to the shares—a word he uses—as newspaper reports suggest, what is to stop him enforcing his ownership of the shares later, perhaps when the issue has died down, when his political career is over or at some future juncture? I am not sure a simple letter cuts it. If Senator Sinodinos is serious about giving up his shares then he should execute a legally binding agreement with the company to that effect and produce it for the Senate.
Next I would like to question whether the shares were correctly registered with ASIC. Senator Sinodinos has reportedly said that the shares were held by a current director of Australian Water Holdings and majority shareholder, Mr Nick Di Girolamo, on Senator Sinodinos's behalf. Wouldn't it have been simpler to have registered the shares directly in his own name? Can Senator Sinodinos confirm that Mr Di Girolamo properly informed ASIC that he was actually holding the shares on behalf of Senator Sinodinos rather than for his own benefit? Did this have any implications for Senator Sinodinos in his capacity as chair of Australian Water Holdings at the relevant time? I am mindful of the fact that as chair and director of the company Senator Sinodinos owed significant duties under corporate law. Further, despite the immense and unrivalled authority enjoyed in his position of chair of Australian Water Holdings, Senator Sinodinos insists that he was entirely ignorant of the intimate involvement of the Obeids or the fact that the Obeids had extended a $3 million loan to the CEO of the company secured against shares in the company itself. There remain questions to be answered about these private interests and these dealings with Australian Water Holdings.
Mr President, I put it to you that Senator Sinodinos would be well advised to make a further full and frank explanation to the Senate to clarify these continuing issues and to make sure that he has satisfied the Senate and indeed himself and his own party. As Senator Collins has correctly identified, this is not simply a question of Senator Sinodinos's credibility. It is an important question of judgement for the Leader of the Opposition.
Order! Time has expired for the debate.
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, and I refer to his proposed draconian media laws outlined yesterday. Has it ever occurred to the minister that the bad media that his government sometimes receives may not be due to unfair media coverage but rather due to the fact that the government is neither competent nor trustworthy? Does the minister really believe that a government that says one thing before an election and does another thing afterwards, that increases the cost of living, that cannot control its spending, that racks up record debt, that wrecks border security and that every day reveals its festering internal hatreds and bitterness deserves to receive good press? Is this not just one last desperate throw of the dice by a government that knows its only hope of survival is to intimidate and stifle the media?
Could I thank Senator Abetz for his question and reject the entire premise of his question. The responses that we have seen in yesterday's and today's media could only be described, even with prediction, as hysterical. If we had announced nationalising the media, it could not have been more hysterical. All the package that we have put forward is about is promoting principles of privacy, fairness—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! When there is silence we will proceed.
The package that we are putting forward is about promoting the principles of privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity. In 2007 in this chamber, those opposite voted to undermine and overturn parts of the cross-media laws. They have allowed a situation where a further concentration of diversity could happen, in a market that is one of the most concentrated in the world. We have argued for five-plus years that we support a public interest test on media mergers. Those opposite have always rejected that. Those opposite believe: 'Just leave it to the competition policy. Let's pretend that the lifeblood of democracy, diversity of opinion, is just another widget in the marketplace.' That is what those opposite want you to believe. That is what those opposite want you to accept as a position. At no time have this government threatened the media or intimidated the media. We reject that. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Was this media decision, just like the NBN decision, worked out on the back of an envelope and done on the run, without a proper cabinet submission or input? Does the minister really believe that this kind of decision making is a proper way to run the Australian government? Why does his unsighted legislation need to be bullied and guillotined through the parliament in less than two weeks?
The analogy that Senator Abetz claims is false. So the premise of the question is false. The NBN went through months of careful consideration and cabinet subcommittee meetings, and ultimately went to cabinet. This has been worked through—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! I remind honourable senators that if they wish to debate the issue, the time for the debate is after three o'clock.
The process that the NBN went through was extensive, just like we have seen over the last two years. We have had the Finkelstein inquiry, the convergence reports and inquiry, extensive public hearings, extensive public commentary, public reports and comments on the public reports. Many, many pages of newspapers and many TV shows have debated these issues over two years. (Time expired)
Clearly no cabinet submission was put. Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister tell the Senate if the Prime Minister is an enthusiastic supporter of his media proposals? Does every Labor parliamentarian, including the member for Griffith, Mr Rudd, support these proposals? Were these changes discussed with their on again, off again alliance partners, the Australian Greens?
This went through the cabinet and it went through the caucus, and it is the position supported by all of the caucus of the party. Everybody had their opportunity, as they do in your party room. Everybody had the opportunity—
Senator Conroy, resume your seat. When there is silence we will proceed.
The caucus considered this and endorsed it overwhelmingly.
Opposition senators interjecting—
You can read in the newspapers everything you need to read about the caucus. We will continue to argue to protect diversity in this country. The lap-dogs over there are happy to allow for voices to be lost. The lifeblood of democracy is at stake here. This is all about diversity, all about protecting diversity. (Time expired)
I draw to the attention of Honourable Senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation of representatives from the Pacific Parliamentary Leadership Dialogue. I also acknowledge the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honourable Stephen Martin, and former Senator, the Honourable Kay Patterson, who are accompanying the delegation. On behalf of all Senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Senator Lundy, the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts. Can the minister advise the Senate on the government's exciting plan to strengthen the future of the arts, cultural heritage and creative industries in Australia?
I am extremely proud that today Minister Crean has launched Creative Australia. This is a national cultural policy for the decade.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Lundy, please resume your seat. I cannot hear the answer. I draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that there needs to be silence so I can hear the answer.
As I was saying, this policy is about creating excellence, jobs, prosperity, opportunity and unique Australian stories, all vital to an outward looking, competitive and confident nation. It is the first national cultural policy for almost 20 years, recognising that we must update our strategies because of the major changes sweeping through the cultural sector. It is a vision and strategy to place arts and culture at the centre of modern Australian life. It will provide further evidence that a creative nation is a productive nation that produces not only an economic dividend but a social dividend through investing in the cultural sectors, with the return in strengthening our underlying values of inclusiveness, openness and democratic practice. Culture is expressed in many ways: through our stories, through the way we live, the way we speak, conduct public life, relate to others, celebrate, remember the past, entertain ourselves and imagine the future. And our creative expression gives voice to us as individuals, challenges perceptions and helps us see the world through the eyes of others. This is a national cultural policy that we believe all Australians can be proud of. It contains many specific initiatives, including further investment in the Australia Council, investment in major performing arts companies—the ArtsReady program, Creative Young Stars program, ArtStart program—and of course investment in Indigenous visual arts industry support programs as well. There are several more— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the Creative Australia launch affects the Australia Council?
New legislation will be introduced into parliament next week for a restructured Australia Council. This will include modernising the governance structures of the council. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to pay tribute to all those who have served on this vibrant body over its 40-year period, including the current chair, Rupert Myer, and deputy chair, Robyn Archer. The contribution of this amazing collection of people over a generation cannot be understated. It is an incredibly important contribution that often extends beyond the professional to the personal commitment of those involved. We were all deeply saddened that its most recent former chair, James Strong, passed away last week, and we offer our condolences to family and friends. He, like others, did so much to build the argument for the central role of the arts in Australian life— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister explain how the Creative Australia launch will affect young Australians, particularly aspiring artists?
Creative Australia is also about developing creative pathways to give young people accredited skills. The government will extend the successful SportsReady program to engage students in learning through ArtsReady with new funding of $3.4 million. We know young people are passionate about their music, design and the arts, as well as being passionate about their sport. We are giving them real opportunities to train for jobs and to gain recognised accreditation in rapidly growing service and creative industries which build on their passions. Through local communities the government will establish the Creative Young Stars program. This program will help thousands of school students and post-school youth to develop their talents and pursue their dreams with $23,500 of grants made available in every federal electorate across Australia each and every year.
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to the words of the Finkelstein report in which Mr Finkelstein wrote:
…whatever mechanism is chosen to ensure accountability speech will be restricted. In a sense, that is the purpose of the mechanism.
Does the minister agree with Mr Finkelstein's words? Does he accept that the mechanism that he has proposed—the Public Interest Media Advocate—will be, as Mr Finkelstein explains, a new restriction on free speech?
Mr Finkelstein made a whole range of recommendations to the government, as did the convergence review, and in different places they conflicted. The government has considered all of them, and the ones we agree with we are moving forward with. Let me be very clear: this government passionately believes in freedom of the press as a cornerstone of our democracy. At the same time, however, the government believes that in a democracy a diversity of voices within the media is essential. The public interest test, which is continually being conflated with the Press Council issues, is completely separate. The public interest test is about dealing with mergers between entities that have certain weight and influence and, as we describe it, voice, and that has got nothing to do with Press Council standards. The government is not proposing to fund, as Mr Finkelstein suggested, a press council. It is not interested in the slightest and it is not proposing to set any standards for the Press Council.
All of these claims that you keep hearing repeatedly are completely false. The public interest test is an assessment of whether or not a voice will be lost when the merger proposal is considered. That is the point of the public interest test, because those opposite weakened our cross-media laws in a way that can see fewer voices in a democracy. That is why we opposed it at the time—even Senator Joyce, as he noted yesterday, opposed it— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister accept that the effect of his changes will be that there are some things, which Australians are now free to say, which will now be restricted?
We reject that utterly. The government's reforms will result in no further reduction in media diversity and no change to existing media standards. The government also recognises that there is community concern about media quality and how press complaints are handled. In fact those opposite who 12 months ago were claiming that the Press Council was a robust organisation must be embarrassed to have seen that, over the last six or eight months, the chair, Mr Disney, of the Press Council has succeeded in significantly reforming it. It was a poodle. It did not deliver protections for ordinary citizens. It did not redress people's complaints. It did not give focus when the Press Council found against— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister accept that the effect of his changes will be that the freedom of the media to criticise politicians, political parties and governments will now be restricted? If the minister does not accept that, does he understand why recently in the last hour the CEO of News Limited, Mr Kim Williams, has described his changes as Stalinist?
I reject utterly the premise of Senator Brandis's questions. This package will secure diversity—diversity that was weakened by those opposite when you chose, Senator Joyce aside, to weaken the existing cross-media laws. You may have been happy with that; Senator Joyce was not and he crossed the floor to vote with us. We said on that day five or six years ago that we would seek to restore protections for diversity. Senator Joyce came and sat on our side of the chamber and voted against your changes. We have now come to the point where we are going to go forward with this package and we intend to deliver diversity and fairness for ordinary Australians in this country. We intend to ensure that the Press Council— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Noting the comments of Senator Cameron this morning, agreeing with the Greens, that Australian children are being forced into poverty because of the government's decision to move single parents from single parent to Newstart, can the minister confirm reports that the government has ruled out increasing Newstart by $50 a week and reversing the cuts to single parents in the upcoming budget; and, if so, can the minister explain how this decision represents the Labor values so eloquently described by Senator Cameron?
We are a party that believes in fairness and opportunity. Unlike the Greens, we also understand that you have to grow the economy if you are to deliver the sorts of fairness and opportunity that this government is delivering. Whilst I suspect Senator Milne may not like to be reminded: this is an economy that is 13 per cent bigger than it was prior to the global financial crisis—there is not a lot of fairness in economies which are still smaller than they were prior to the GFC, economies which are still struggling to get back to the same size. More importantly, economies with double-digit unemployment—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
I will take the interjection, because the suggestion is from the economic Luddite opposite that somehow Australia is akin to Greece. The talking down of the economy is from Senator Brandis who believes pomposity equates to intelligence. It does not: pomposity does not equate to intelligence. What he might like to be reminded of is the 800,000 jobs that have been created since we were elected at a time when millions and millions of people worldwide had lost their jobs. If you want to look at what flies absolutely in the face of fairness, what increases poverty and inequity, it is high levels of unemployment. That is why we on this side have made jobs and economic growth a priority.
In terms of taxation and those issues that were alluded to in the first part of the question, I would make this point: this government has made tax relief, particularly for working people in this country, a priority.
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator Abetz might like to joke about this— (Time expired)
I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I notice that the minister has not answered the question about whether she is ruling out increasing Newstart by $50 a week in the budget, but I ask: according to Senator Cameron, referencing former Prime Minister Bob Hawke that it is a Labor aspiration that no child should live in poverty, will the government be supporting the Greens' Caring for Single Parents Bill, to be introduced today, providing for a $40-a-week increase in payments for single parents on Newstart and increasing the income test, allowing single parents to earn more before their payments are reduced?
In relation to the legislation, I suspect Senator Milne knows what the government's position is on that. I was part way through reminding the Senate of the tax reforms this government has put in place which benefit lower-income Australians—all Australians earning up to $80,000 a year, particularly Australians who are part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, who have benefited by this government's tripling of the tax-free threshold. I would also remind the chamber that that is to be repealed should Tony Abbott ever become prime minister.
You need to refer to people in the other place by their correct title.
Should Mr Abbott ever become prime minister—this says something about his values—his priority is to increase taxes on low-paid Australians. That is his priority.
Nonsense.
It is not nonsense, Senator Abetz. Mr Hockey has already announced that. It might have passed you by in shadow cabinet but that is actually your policy. (Time expired)
Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Given the obvious division within the Labor caucus on this issue, with members of the party like Senator Cameron attempting to show a caring side of a government that is refusing to stand up to the mining companies to pay a decent amount so we can meet welfare payments, is the minister aware of any other Labor senators in addition to Senator Cameron who are prepared to cross the floor to put their words into actions to support the Greens' bill to increase Newstart by $50 a week and reverse the cuts to single parents made by Howard's welfare to work laws?
The minister can only answer that question in so much as it pertains to the portfolios.
I suspect that from the question someone might be of the view that Senator Milne was more interested in posturing than actually getting an outcome. That is obviously a matter of opinion. What I would say is that people in the Labor caucus have strong views on issues of fairness. That is because we are a party that is at its core concerned with fairness and opportunity. There are always robust policy debates inside the Labor Party on how best to achieve that but those are our values. In government what we have delivered are a tax system and an economy which far more reward people who are earning at the lower and middle income levels rather than those at the higher income level. We have been accused of class warfare by the other side. The other side have said this is dreadful. I think it is fairness and I think it is Labor values— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Is the minister aware that if his media restrictions are imposed the Gillard government will become the first government in this country to attempt to impose regulation in peacetime upon the content of newspapers since the New South Wales administration of Governor Darling attempted to license newspapers in 1827? Does the minister consider that standards of press freedom in a penal colony almost two centuries ago are an appropriate standard for 21st century Australia?
I utterly reject the comparison, the claim—it is utterly false. Let us look overseas. In 2003 the UK introduced laws aimed at ensuring a greater diversity of owners of media enterprises. The laws enable the UK secretary of state when they consider a merger raises public interest concerns to issue an intervention notice. Public interest considerations can range from the need for accurate presentation of news to the need for there to be sufficient diversity of control of media enterprises. So I guess the United Kingdom joins me in that argument. Following an intervention notice from the regulator, Ofcom must then provide a report to the secretary of state with advice and recommendations of the specified media public interest considerations. Ofcom must also report to the secretary of state on representations made with regard to the potential merger. Following receipt of the Ofcom report the secretary of state will consider whether to refer the test to the Competition Commission and will also have the final decision making power over whether the merger can proceed following the Competition Commission's report.
The presence of the public interest media advocate in the Australian law represents a significant improvement over the British model by ensuring that decision making is at arm's length from the government, unlike in the United Kingdom. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How does the minister justify giving just days to review his media reforms when in 2006 he stated with regard to previous reforms that, 'Announcements today represent an arrogant government that is ramming through the parliament the most significant changes in 20 years and they are only going to allow one month of consultations'? Given the minister is allowing just days of debate for regulations never previously undertaken in our democratic history, isn't the minister, according to his own test, engaging in the height of arrogance and hypocrisy?
Even Senator Joyce crossed the floor to oppose your watering down of the cross-media laws. Did you have a convergence review report for 12 months beforehand? No. Did you have a Finkelstein inquiry hold public hearings? No. Did you release those reports? No. Did you have public debate about those reports? No.
Mr President, just to be very clear about these overarching allegations: in the United States, the regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, has, since it was created, assessed whether media or telecommunications mergers would benefit or harm the public interest. I know those on that side are not interested in the public interest when it comes to this. They are more interested in looking after and sucking up to the press in this country and the owners of the press, particularly.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the minister's reference to overseas examples, would the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, which highlights that regimes with a history of regulating media content include those of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, Mugabe and Ahmadinejad, be a breach of the standards the minister seeks to uphold?
I am hoping to be able to have a framed copy to put on my wall soon of today's front page. But let me be clear: in addition to media diversity rules in the UK and the US, media diversity safeguards have been legislated in Canada, Germany, South Africa and many other free democratic nations. So those opposite who want to say that this is somehow a unique intervention need to lift their head out of the Daily Telegraphlift their head out of page 4 and page 5—and actually have a look at what the rest of the world has done.
Those opposite watered down the cross-media laws and Senator Joyce crossed the floor and stood with us, because he knew that this was not a good policy to pursue. We said 5½ years ago that we would pursue this and we would introduce legislation to strengthen the media laws in this country. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. Can the minister outline to the Senate the Gillard government's commitment to protect vital agricultural resources such as water from inappropriate coal seam gas mining developments?
I thank Senator Thistlethwaite for his question. Yesterday the Gillard government took action to protect one of our most important natural resources, and that is water. The environment minister will introduce amendments to Australia's national environment law. These amendments will require federal assessment and approval of coal seam gas and large coal mining developments which have a significant impact on water resources. They will also create a civil penalty and offence provisions for taking an action without an approval or exemption.
Australians know that our water resources need to be protected. Our regional communities know it; our farmers know it. We are acting because there has been significant concern raised by communities right around Australia about the impact of coal seam gas on groundwater and service water resources. There will also be transitional provisions in the bill. By becoming a matter of national environmental significance, this matter will have the full resources of the independent expert scientific committee and the analysis that flows as a result of that. For projects that are early in the approval process, they will be able to incorporate the additional matters of environmental significance at whatever stage they are at. For projects which are already undergoing an assessment, they will not be required to restart their environmental impact assessment from the beginning.
This is good news for agriculture. It is good news for those who have been concerned about coal seam gas, particularly given the water resources so vital to the economy. Water resources need to be protected, and it is the right thing for the Commonwealth now to step in to ensure that agricultural land can continue to enjoy the water resources that are required. The Gillard government has acknowledged the significant concerns that have been expressed in the communities and by farmers about the water resources and will continue to work with governments— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate why the Gillard government has acted to protect water resources and prime agricultural land? What has been the position of Australian farmers on the matter?
I thank Senator Thistlethwaite for his first supplementary question. Currently, as you would know, there is no direct protection for water resources under our national laws. This new trigger will allow the impacts of proposed coal seam gas and large coal mining developments on water resources to be comprehensively assessed at a national level.
Farmers, particularly those in New South Wales, have welcomed the government's actions. Yesterday the New South Wales Farmers Federation said:
Farmers right across NSW have been calling on the NSW Government to deliver a more rigorous assessment process…
We have also had comments on this issue from senators in the chamber. Last September, in the Sunshine Coast Daily, it was reported that Senator Nash, while not opposed to mining, said, 'No coal seam gas developments should go ahead where there was a risk to aquifers and agricultural land…' (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate what alternative policy positions there are protecting agricultural resources? Can he outline any risks facing farmers?
(—) (): I thank Senator Thistlethwaite for his second supplementary question. Yesterday I thought the opposition might finally come out as one and support a consistent policy, which the National Party has been advocating for some time. But what response did we get from the opposition? They will consider the response: in other words, it is a mirror response that they have given. I would have expected a bit more from the National Party, but they were silent, except perhaps in some convoluted press conference that Senator Joyce added. But this morning he went further than even the Liberals have gone on this when he said the National Party has been, over a period of two years, fighting within the coalition for this policy. It must hurt the senator to have to fight so hard within his own ranks. You fought for foreign investment— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to his demand that parliament pass laws by next Thursday which impose a public interest on media acquisitions. What is the criteria he believes to be in the public interest?
I thank the senator for her question. The government believes—I repeat—that in a democracy it is vital we have a diversity of voices within the media. It is absolutely vital, and the government's reforms will support both of these principles. Media organisations are provided with certain exemptions from privacy legislation, and we are continuing to allow and support self-regulation of the media despite what those opposite keep trying to claim.
The office of the Public Interest Media Advocate's role is limited to authorising the schemes proposed by the industry. This is the same role as performed by ASIC in relation to the Financial Ombudsman Service's schemes. Media ownership is currently regulated by both the foreign ownership requirements and the competition requirements, but we do not believe that is sufficient. We believe there should be a protection.
Of course you do. You want to control what can be seen in the press.
Senator Brandis—
Order! Ignore the interjection. Senator McKenzie has asked a question of you. Ignore the interjections; they are disorderly. Senator McKenzie is the questioner, not others in the chamber.
The public interest test talks about whether or not there is a reduction in voices, whether or not the reach is affected, whether or not there is a sustainability position whereby you might lose the voice completely if you do not allow it to merge. It is about the reach of the voices. Those are the sorts of issues that go to a public interest test. As I have already demonstrated in answers to the last question, a range of other countries—the US, the UK, Canada, and others—also have public interest criteria. This is not a new— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the minister is unable to define public interest in anything other than vague generalities, will Labor's new regulator not enjoy enormous power to make subjective decisions?
I utterly reject the premise. Let me give you an example: the final report of the convergence review was released last year after extensive consultation with stakeholders and the general public on these issues. Seven discussion papers were issued throughout 2011, with more than 340 detailed submissions and over 28,000 comments, and there were personal consultations around the nation, including in regional areas. This topic has been debated the length and breadth of this country. The convergence review went out and spoke to people in regional areas. There has been extensive public discussion on this matter. Those opposite, who are not interested in diversity, in what the public is interested in—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My question went to the powers of the new regulator, and I have not heard the regulator mentioned yet.
The minister has eight seconds remaining. There is no point of order.
Because there is not a new regulator; there is a public interest advocate whose job is simply to test— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a final supplementary question. Does the minister agree with his colleague John Murphy's description of certain media outlets as 'a cancer on our democracy', or with those of his Senate counterpart, Doug Cameron—
Order! You need to refer to people by their correct title.
Senator Doug Cameron, sorry, who called another media outlet a 'threat to democracy'? My question is: is this just a case of vengeance?
Insofar as an opinion is required, Senator Conroy, you do not need to address the question.
At the end of the day we should finally see those opposite exposed as what they are really about. This is just a hate-media attack according to those opposite. This is what you claim: vengeance is what you claim. This has been policy that I have already demonstrated: seven discussion papers throughout 2011; 340 detailed submissions; and over 28,000 comments, and that is just in the convergence review before we get to the Finkelstein inquiry. Many people have many views.
Some might describe today's front page of the Daily Telegraph as colourful. Some might call it that. Senator Murphy's comments could be called colourful. Senator Cameron is always colourful. Not a day goes by without Senator Cameron being colourful. Let us be clear: I am not endorsing anybody's views other than the policy that we are putting forward. We are proceeding to protect diversity. You have a choice in a few weeks— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. In relation to the cost recovery of export fees from exporters, the department's website states quite clearly that the cost-recovery process must follow the protocols set out in the Australian government cost-recovery guidelines from July 2005. Under these guidelines specific requirements are set out for agencies with significant cost-recovery arrangements. Can the minister confirm whether DAFF's cost-recovery processes are considered significant and, if so, whether the protocols are adhered to? Can the minister also provide advice on whether the protocols are considered legally binding? Can the minister explained why Riverland lime producers Mick and Tanya Punturiero have seen an increase in inspection fees from $550-$8,530, which has destroyed their export market to New Zealand?
I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. As I understand it, the answer to the first and second parts of Senator Xenophon's question is: yes, the cost recovery of export fees are from the guidelines from July 2005 and the DAFF cost-recovery process is considered significant. The cost-recovery guidelines are guidelines. I am advised by the department that, in the case of horticultural export program fees and charges, the guidelines were stringently followed. In the horticulture export program the new system corrects a chronic under-collection in previous years and addresses complaints from export certification users about previous service delivery arrangements. It provides a more streamlined export certification arrangement which in time will reduce the cost of export certification. Not all the benefits of the new system are available immediately. That is why I made $6.5 million in transitional funding available to horticultural exporters until 2013-14 to offset the registration charges.
Full cost recovery for export certification services is—and may I remind you and perhaps Senator Ruston as well—the opposition policy from 2005. We are implementing that policy. They committed to it in 2005. They went into the 2007 election with no provision for fee rebate in the forward estimates and no election commitment to deal with that. We continued the rebate in 2009 so that we could find ways to improve service delivery and implement $30 million in efficiencies across all export programs. The export program itself was $127.4 million that we spent to ensure that we could have an export certification program. The exporter the senator refers to will have a rebate applied to his fee for year of $6,730, reducing the fee to $1,800 for 2012-13— (Time expired)
My supplementary question is: the protocols also provide that appropriate stakeholder consultation should be undertaken without significant cost recovery arrangements. Can the minister provide a working definition of 'appropriate' and provide a breakdown of how many stakeholders were consulted, including their relative size in terms of employees and turnover? Does the minister acknowledge that the current rules favour big agribusinesses and make life incredibly hard for small family farmers like Mick and Tanya Punturiero in the Riverland?
I can outline that the consultation process for the new fees and charges was not only consistent with the cost-recovery guidelines but also went well above and beyond anything specified in the guidelines. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry convened a horticulture ministerial task force on the topic and consulted with entities including but not limited to the Australian Horticultural Exporters' Association, Citrus Australia and Fruit Growers Tasmania. After two years this consultation process did not eventually settle on a fee model that eliminated the chronic undercollection issue that I referred to earlier. I then convened a meeting that I attended with more than a dozen horticultural export representatives. We continued to liaise and consult until an agreed position was found. I am confident that the consultation with both the department and with my office over the two years was reported widely among industry participants, including those small— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Under these protocols the agency in question is required to prepare a cost recovery impact statement or a regulation impact statement. Can the minister indicate whether either of these documents were prepared for this process? If so, when, and have they been or will they be publicly released? Isn't it the case that small producers like Mick and Tanya Punturiero were effectively ignored in this process?
I thank Senator Xenophon for his interest in cost recovery impact statements. A cost recovery impact statement was prepared in association with the changes to the horticultural fees and charges and is available on the department's website. The department's website is www.daff.gov.au and the link to the document should appear if the senators type 'horticultural CRIS' into their search field.
I accept that the horticultural sector is vast and diverse and not all members of the supply chain are members of industry organisations. That is why the department wrote to all registered establishments in 2012 on two occasions to advise them of the new fees and charges. The department will work with individuals to assess their individual circumstances and requirements to ensure that we can continue to work with them to ensure their fees are as low as possible. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to the Prime Minister's comments this morning that the appointment of the public media advocate would be made in consultation with the opposition. Can the minister confirm what the criteria for selection will be?
I think I outlined yesterday that it should be someone with the experience and knowledge in the sector. I was asked today on radio whether that would include politicians or ex-politicians. I have to confess I probably thought I should give us all a get out clause by saying no, I did not think it would be a great idea for an ex-pollie. But, having said that, the Prime Minister has committed, as we said yesterday, that we would follow the Nolan principles whereby we would consult as we do with the head of the ABC. In terms of the process, I can confirm—I think this came out in discussions yesterday also; it was not something new today—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! If people wish to discuss the issue, the time to do it is after question time.
I probably would lean towards a view that ex-politicians perhaps might not be the appropriate people to be on this. But, having said that, as an example, I think on the Western Australian press council a former politician is on the panel that considers things there, and that seems to be working fairly well. I am open to suggestions, but my gut reaction would be that we probably should not inflict something like this on one of our former colleagues. There will be an open process, an advertised selection process, and that will be very transparent.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister please explain what capacity the minister or the government of the day will have to remove or instruct the public interest media advocate?
I do not believe we have any intention of instructing the public interest media advocate. The whole point of the advocate is that it is at arm's length from us—just as we do not direct the head of the ACMA, an organisation that regulates the codes of conduct of the broadcast industry. And Mr Chapman and the head of the Productivity Commission are statutorily independent. We also have the ACCC, where we have a head, and we do not instruct any of those. I would envisage that we would have the same procedures for appointments and dismissal as all of those other independent statutory officers have.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. If the public interest media advocate is appointed by the government of the day, can be removed by the government of the day and can be in any way instructed or pressured by the government of the day, aren't they more an advocate of government interest than the public interest?
One of the problems when you are reading out a question that has already been written before you hear the answer is that you do not always get a chance to adapt the question to the previous answer. But let me be clear. I repeat: the head of the ACMA is a statutory independent officer. The head of the ACCC is a statutory independent officer and the head of the Productivity Commission is a statutory independent officer. The government does not give them instructions. Just because the government appoints them does not mean they follow a government order. That will certainly continue to be the case with this new position. So you can continue to create conspiracies, you can continue to make allegations, but this will be a perfectly normal, proper process, similar to the appointment of those other— (Time expired)
My question this afternoon is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr. I ask the minister to please update the Senate on the political situation in Zimbabwe and Australia's response.
One of my advisers has an old Zimbabwean banknote above her desk from a visit there in 2008. Its denomination is $100 trillion. That is 14 zeros. Zimbabwe's hyperinflation reached such peaks that it was forced to abandon its currency in 2009.
The political and economic crisis in 2008 saw widespread violence, with five million people in need of humanitarian support. Progress since then has been excruciatingly slow, but there has been some positive change. This is due in large part to the efforts of brave reformists who persisted and to the help of South Africa and the Southern African Development Community. In January, after a constitutional review process that took three years, political parties agreed to the text of a new constitution. Last month they announced that a constitutional referendum will be held on 16 March. These are positive steps that Australians can welcome, and we undertook to reward them.
Our sanctions on Zimbabwe up until now have been financial and travel restrictions against 153 designated individuals and four entities, an arms embargo and a prohibition on defence links. We have now decided to remove 55 individuals from our sanctions list. These individuals are not considered to be hindering democratic reforms or undermining the goal of free and fair elections. In accordance with the road map I announced on 7 February, the government will lift further sanctions when (1) a peaceful and credible constitutional referendum is held and (2) free and fair elections take place and a democratically elected government takes office.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister please update the Senate on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe?
Our goal, by adjusting sanctions, is to reward reforms and encourage further progress. Should the political process derail, then we will reinstate sanctions. The political situation remains fragile. Violence could return. There have been reports of political harassment and intimidation, including against civil society organisations. These include searches, arrests and detention on dubious charges. The Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights said on 18 January:
We are concerned about the crackdown on non-governmental organisations and dissenting voices seen as critical of President Robert Mugabe’s rule and apparently politically motivated prosecutions …
Nothing would give me and, I believe, all Australians greater pleasure than to see Zimbabwe return to the community of democracies—back to the Commonwealth, for example. That will be achieved by the delivery— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister update the Senate on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe and the Australian government's response?
One of Zimbabwe's tragedies is that it has the potential to be a strong nation, a rich nation, but this remains unrealised. Zimbabwe has enough resources to be a major agricultural economy, but today around 70 per cent of its population, or nine million people, live in poverty. Life expectancy is only 54 years of age.
Australia provided around $50 million in assistance last year, making us the third largest country donor in Zimbabwe. Our sanctions were targeted not to hurt the poor people of that country but to hit the leadership. We have helped more than 650,000 Zimbabweans get access to safe water and improved water supply in six small towns to benefit a further 1.65 million. We are helping 60,000 poor farmers to purchase agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilisers and livestock. This year we are supporting 28 Zimbabweans to study in Australia through Australia Award Scholarships.
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to proposed media legislation.
I am very fond of Senator Conroy, and so is the Daily Telegraph. I am stuck with the Media Monitors version. I tried to get an original copy of the Daily Telegraph but they have sold out at Aussie's. I am told they are sold out in the CBD in Sydney. I even rang my office in Brisbane, and they have sold out up there. They have become collectors' items already. I understand there are several hundred copies in Senator Conroy's office. So he appreciates it. I have no doubt that Senator Conroy is outraged at being compared to various despots on the front page of the Daily Telegraph: Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe and Kim. Because of the pixelation, I am not sure if 'Kim' is Kim Carr or Kim Jong-un.
Senator Mason, refer to senators by their correct title.
I believe it is Senator Carr, but Senator Bernardi tells me it is Kim Jong-un. It could be an early picture of Senator Kim Carr without a beard. The point is very obvious. It does not really matter; unreconstructed Marxists could never be compared to Senator Conroy, could they? He would hate that.
This is not a laughing matter. This is a very serious matter. What Senator Conroy is proposing effectively is a media tsar: the 'public interest media advocate', George Orwell at his very best—an Orwellian titular head, something that circumscribes the media in this country. The proposed legislation will establish a statutory authority to rule on the way the Australian Press Council and similar bodies adjudicate complaints against the press. It will have the power to approve or reject the standards enforced by those bodies.
What do we have? We have this: ultimately a statutory authority appointed by the executive will tell the Press Council whether they have done a good job. This in fact is government by another name. This is the executive ultimately telling the press how to behave, not a court. There is no separation of powers argument here. This is the executive telling the press how to act. That signifies, all senators would understand, a huge power shift from the media, from the press, to the executive government. That, in a sentence, is what is occurring. In effect what we have—and I think Senator Birmingham pointed this out in his question—is a government seeking to license newspapers and other media. I think Senator Birmingham mentioned that Governor Darling was the last person to do that. I am told in Britain it has not happened since the 17th century, the century in which they used to lop off the heads of kings. I am not sure if Senator Conroy is more like Charles I or Oliver Cromwell. Nonetheless he has not done very well.
Can I just say this: it is actually getting worse, because the protections under the Privacy Act seek to protect the press, but they will go in many instances in this case. What will happen is that the confidentiality requirements will be obliterated and potentially the press will have to give up their sources. They may be forced to disclose confidential information and details about articles before they are even published.
The concern of the opposition is simple: this is a huge power grab by the government against the press. There is no demonstrated case for this. The current regulatory arrangements do work and have worked very well. I know that Senator Conroy consistently said this is about media diversity, greater and greater diversity. Of course he did not talk about the internet and blogs and tweets that offer all that enormous diversity. As Mr Turnbull has said repeatedly over the last few days, the media in this country has never been more diverse in its entire history, since the founding of this nation—nor has the government, of course, been more unpopular.
I rise also to take note of answers provided in today's proceedings. I want to start off by indicating that I have had some involvement in working for the press for approximately six years—certainly not in the role of a journalist but over time through my involvement following that period of employment and moving into my position as a trade union official and having some exposure to them there. My interest in and my exposure to the press has developed over those years.
In terms of the companies I worked for in the eighties—Queensland Newspapers and, later on in the eighties, News Limited—we saw significant changes over that period. We saw changes from the production of a broadsheet newspaper to the production of a tabloid. Of course, we have seen changes as a result of a move to electronic media, social media and reaction that we see in today's hands. There is always a chance, an opportunity and a need to look at change and to scrutinise. There is a need to look at changes to media reforms in the bills that we will see come through this chamber shortly.
It is not about reframing or winding back on free speech. It is not about allowing people to have diversity of voices when it comes round to media outlets and organisations. You hear contributions by those opposite when they defend News Limited, because we know as a fact and I know most certainly that, when the opposition brought in their Work Choices legislation and introduced Australian workplace agreements, News Limited was one of the first organisations that took up the opportunity to put their employees on Australian workplace agreements. I wonder whether that is why the coalition are so defensive of News Limited, when it was the champion of one of their particular pieces of Work Choices legislation: Australian workplace agreements. I personally believe that might be a reason.
Over those years I had exposure to the press. Most recently a good friend of mine who works for Channel 9, a freelance journalist on the Gold Coast, Petrina Zaphir, explained to me about these particular changes. She explained to me her involvement in the media. She also spoke about her opportunities, including where she goes out with media cadets or journalist cadets and talks to them about the ethics. I do not think anyone should be frightened about discussing ethics when it comes to reporting news. I think it is important that we live in a society where we need to be free to hear what is ethically reported in the media. At times, I know that those opposite question the ethics of some of the media outlets on what they are reporting, and we do as well. But we should not be worried about this particular reform that we are looking at. We should not be concerned about where this is heading, because it is an example of where we are going to lead, in looking at some of the publications and news organisations that certainly conduct themselves professionally. We do, and they respect privacy and reporting with fairness and accuracy as well. We know that is the case out there and that no-one should be frightened of scrutiny and ethics, particularly in the media.
I just want to put on record the government's record when it comes to freedom of speech, because I think we were challenged today during question time on that. We should be reminded that the government have implemented the most important amendments to the Commonwealth shield laws for the protection of journalists' sources. Labor's decision to introduce journalist shield laws was, in part, motivated by the Howard government's disgraceful conduct towards News Limited journalists Harvey and McManus, who faced contempt of court. Our record stands when it comes to protections for and scrutiny of journalists in particular. Certainly, the protections for those particular journalists who were targeted by the Howard government demonstrate our commitment to the need for protection for journalists, rather than being a case of watering down examples of shield laws, protection for whistleblowers in the media, in times of need. (Time expired)
As Senator Furner has just, once again, alluded to, following in the footsteps of Senator Cameron previously and Mr Murphy in the other place, these reforms are about vengeance, not vision. These reforms are coming from a government that does not like what the print media and other media outlets have said about it and reported about it and, as a result, it is out to get them. That is the simple fact here: these reforms are about vengeance.
Senator Conroy is proposing to establish the Orwellian titled Public Interest Media Advocate. This will not be an advocate for the public interest; it will be an advocate for the government's interest. That is what Senator Conroy is hoping he gets here. He claimed in answer to questions today that this new statutory body that he proposes to establish would not be a regulator. Yet what he is proposing this advocate will do is to actually accredit media complaints processes, as well as to assess proposals for media acquisitions and mergers against a vaguely defined public interest test. If that is not a new regulator, I do not know what is. It is going to regulate the process of media acquisitions and mergers. It is going to regulate and oversee the processes of media complaints processes. It is very clearly a new regulator. It is a new regulator who will be appointed by the government of the day, could be removed by the government of the day, could be a mate of the government of the day—
They wouldn't appoint a mate!
Senator Ryan, I am amazed at your shock, but this government has form.
He's feigning it!
I suspect you could be right just this once, Senator Thorp. Senator Conroy and the Prime Minister claimed that the opposition will be consulted about the appointment. We have no detail to these reforms, but there has been absolutely no commitment on whether such consultation will be mandated, whether it will be a requirement that the opposition actually agree to the appointment or how such processes will work. In the end, there is every chance this will be a dog of the government and the government will tell it how and when to bark.
Equally, Senator Conroy claims that these reforms are about protecting a diversity of voices. Do not take my word for the fact that we have greater diversity than ever before. Do not take Mr Turnbull's word for it. How about we take the managing director of the ABC, Mr Mark Scott, who said, way back in 2010 when these reform processes were started:
Now there are multiple players. Anyone with a mobile phone, laptop or camcorder can be a broadcaster.
That is right, Mr Deputy President: anyone can be, just as anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection can be a publisher and just as we have, of course, millions of people worldwide through Twitter and other fora who are ensuring their voices are heard. The opportunity and the capacity for people to have their voices heard, and for them to be critics of the media, are greater than ever before—they have greater opportunities than ever before.
Senator Conroy says we should look to what the rest of the world is doing, and in doing so I note he says that he will proudly frame the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, which does indeed highlight what some other parts of the world have sadly done with press freedoms. Rather than looking to what the rest of the world is doing when it comes to media freedom, I would prefer we lead the rest of the world when it comes to media freedom. As I believe the Convergence Review was initially intended to do—before it was sidetracked by the claims around the hate media and by the Finkelstein review that was just bolted on at short notice to the whole Convergence Review process to address the gripes of the Greens and some in the Labor caucus about what they saw as unfair treatment—I believe that we should recognise that we live in a world with more voices than ever before and more opportunity than ever before. Far from needing more regulation and control over the media, this is an era in which we should be seeing less regulation and greater freedom for expression and greater freedom of the media. Indeed, as Senator Bob Carr even told this Senate recently—in terms of what is needed in Fiji—we should be having robust freedom of expression, association and the media. (Time expired)
In rising here today I must express a certain amount of—the perfect word is not coming to me, but it seems to me there is a mismatch in the arguments coming from the other side when it comes to the issue of freedom of speech, because it is those opposite who were responsible for the legislation that required not-for-profit organisations to have gag clauses in their contracts. These organisations are groups that look after issues such as welfare, job seekers or people who are involved in juvenile justice or in sexual assault. They are community groups, environmental groups, child protection groups—the list goes on. All of these front-line people know very well the reality of what is happening out in the real world and have an opportunity to give feedback to any government of the day about the reality of their work, yet it was those opposite whose government made sure that those people would not get funded for the important community work that they do, unless they signed a gag clause in their contracts. To come out from a position like that and then turn around and say that the legislation that we are talking about here is a restriction on freedom of speech is to completely misrepresent what is going on and in fact, I would have to say, is disingenuous.
In doing so, those opposite have proven once again that they care more about the interests of media moguls than the public good. They do not care about diversity or quality journalism and they clearly do not care about freedom of speech. What they really care about is protecting their big business buddies against any moves to secure diversity in the public arena. When we have an environment where two newspaper companies hold 86 per cent market share, it is entirely appropriate for an independent regulator to make judgements upon further consolidation of media companies. We know that the smaller the number of newspapers and other media owners, the less opportunity the Australian people have to hear a range of points of view. As a result, clearly, they are less able to form an opinion based on fact, which has a terrible impact on their ability to make effective decisions on issues that affect them.
This bill will help to ensure that we do not lose this vital diversity from our community—factors like audience reach. As opposed to what the honourable senator opposite said about everyone today being a writer, that is one thing, but not everybody is part of that audience that is getting its information from these two sources that I just mentioned—86 per cent of audience reach. We have to talk about the frequency and depth of services and the cumulative impact. They all have to be taken into account before we accept any moves that will reduce the diversity of media in this country. What the proposed bill will do is to ensure that smaller voices do not get drowned out and that a multiplicity of voices are communicated through our media.
I want to be clear here: this is not an attack on freedom of speech, despite the way some have attempted to portray it. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are a cornerstone of our democracy and something that this government supports passionately. This government is not directly regulating in any way the activities of journalists, and the bill will in no way take away from individual journalists the benefit of shield laws, as my colleague said earlier. It simply is not true and all the reframing in the world from those opposite will not make it true. Similarly, the bill will make absolutely no changes to the standards that are applied to journalists. It is not about making new standards; it is about making sure the standards that we currently have are adhered to. There have long been concerns about how self-regulation is working through the Press Council, and this bill is an important part of addressing some of those weaknesses.
You only have to look at the News of the World debacle that happened last year to realise the mistakes that can be made with self-regulation. Those opposite also conveniently omitted the fact that they themselves would be involved in the public interest media advocate appointments.
We don't want them!
Well, to participate in democracy is a privilege and a right. This bill is an important step forward for the diversity of voices in our public sphere and for the quality of journalism. Frankly, all the baying and howling that we have seen today from those opposite is just a desperate attempt to protect those with the most to lose.
If we on this side are going to be accused of baying and howling in defence of freedom of speech, I plead guilty. For the modern-day Labor Party to come in here and say this side of parliament is trying to take care of media moguls, given their own history, shows the bankruptcy of their knowledge of their behaviour when they were last in office. Everyone here remembers what the Labor Party did to the Herald and Weekly Times, Australia's largest and oldest media group, and it was referred to on Melbourne radio this morning. Because the Melbourne Herald held Labor to account in 1984 and because it attacked Labor for introducing a pension assets and means test which Labor had promised not to introduce, Paul Keating went out and made sure Labor fixed the Herald and Weekly Times. He changed the law to create the so-called princes of print or queens of the screen, all as a means to go after the then independent Herald and Weekly Times, which was the owner of most of the popular mastheads in Australia. That has been preached about by Labor Party luminaries. That is not a secret, so the Labor Party's behaviour about appeasing moguls and trying to buy favours is well established. And Australia, as many people have said for a long time, is at a loss for the loss of the Herald and Weekly Times. Everyone who worked there will tell you what it was about: it was about Labor going after the independent Herald and Weekly Times because they dared oppose the Hawke government and were holding it to account for breaching a promise.
Senator Conroy's hypocrisy here is equal in doses to what we have had from every other Labor speaker. This is something Senator Conroy said in 2006 and it was tweeted today:
Helen Coonan's announcements today represent an arrogant Government that's ramming through the Parliament the most significant changes in 20 years, and they are only going to allow one month of consultations for the public, despite them spending 12 months having private consultations with all the media moguls.
A whole month!
An entire month for the public to consider it, let alone the parliament to consider it, when Senator Conroy is announcing to the people of Australia: 'We're going to regulate the media, we're going to set up an effective licensing regime for journalists and we are going to give you eight days to think about it.' If you actually raise any questions, if you dare to express a concern about the regulation of journalistic behaviour, then the government will not listen to it because Senator Conroy, wise as he is, has made his decision. This is a vehicle for regulation.
The Labor Party will obfuscate and try and muddy the waters by asserting in Orwellian tones: 'This is not regulation. We're not licensing journalists.' Yet when every significant media player in this country, whether it is Business Spectator, the Fairfax press, the ABC or News Ltd, is saying what a chilling effect this will have on the independence of the free press we know what the real impact is. This government, to its credit, has never, with its Greens cousins and allies, hidden its agenda. You dare criticise them and they will come after you, except if you happen to go skiing at Aspen, or wherever Senator Conroy went skiing and halved the licence fee. Apparently that is not doing a deal with a media mogul, but imagine if it happened elsewhere. I should say, before he corrects the record, it was snowboarding and not skiing.
This is a threat, because what we have is a threat by the government to use the power it has to pass laws to provide extra regulations for journalists and press organisations if they do not comply with what the government deems to be an appropriate regulatory mechanism. That is the gun to the head of an independent media. The other side rightly quotes the shield laws. We rightly have long had special rules and principles for a free media. They are not called the fourth estate for nothing, because even though we will all be criticised by them they play the most valuable role in a free democracy. Freedom of speech, along with freedom of property and freedom of religion—two other rights under threat by this government—is the very basis of a liberal democracy. Freedom of the ballot came along after we had freedom of speech and people could demand it. But that is not good enough for this government. That is not good enough for Senator Conroy, who seeks to regulate the behaviour of journalists, because they have been critical of a government that deserves it.
I could not go past this debate without a couple of Orwellian quotes. In Animal Farm there is a famous character called Comrade Napoleon. If it were parliamentary I would refer to him as Senator Napoleon, but that would not be parliamentary. Comrade Napoleon says all animals are equal. He goes on:
He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
We would be in a free and liberal society which is under threat from Senator Conroy's vindictive measures.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Milne) today relating to Newstart.
As we know, this chamber in October last year unfortunately passed a bill that brought in the moving of single parents from the parenting payment single to Newstart when their youngest child turns eight. At the time it was only the Greens, Senator Madigan and Senator Xenophon who opposed those cuts. Only those 11 people out of this whole chamber opposed those cuts. Yet now we have members of this chamber out there saying what a terrible thing it is that Newstart is so low and that single parents have been transferred from parenting payment single to Newstart, so cutting their payments by between $60 and $120, on average, although I have heard of people who have lost $130 to $200 per week depending on whether they have been working or not. We have had politicians from this place, such as Senator Cameron, who was also questioned by Senator Milne today, saying that they are deeply concerned that these people are living in poverty. If you check the Hansard record you can easily see that those senators now out talking about how terrible it is voted to support those cuts. Only 11 of us opposed those cuts: all Greens senators and Senator Madigan and Senator Xenophon.
Those MPs and senators who have been talking so much in the community about those terrible cuts—and they are terrible—did not care about that when they were voting on the cuts. They will have an opportunity to express their support for single parents and those on Newstart, because today I am introducing my Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for Single Parents) Bill. I will be introducing this in about 10 minutes and then they will have an opportunity to show their support for that bill
That bill will increase the payments to single parents by $40 a week. And I expect them to support my other bill which will increase Newstart by $50 a week. I hope they will come out today and express their strong support for that legislation, and when it is debated in this chamber I expect them to vote with us to support it.
I would also expect to see them supporting our motion tomorrow which will highlight the extreme poverty and distress that the cuts to single parents have caused, and will call on the government to reverse the changes to single parent payments and that have dumped these single parents onto Newstart, changes which have cut their income by so much. I expect them to support that motion and then the community will see that the people who go out into the community and express support actually follow that up with real action in this chamber to put pressure on the government to support the most vulnerable in our community. Talk is cheap. Real action means that they need to come into this place and be prepared to cross the floor to support those people who they say are being treated with contempt. By dumping these people onto Newstart, you treat single parents, the majority of whom are single mothers, with contempt.
Yesterday, I released 430 accounts of people who are struggling to make ends meet on Newstart—accounts of mothers going hungry in order to feed their children; accounts of mothers not being able to pay utilities, of not being able to have the heater on in winter because they cannot afford to pay utilities; and accounts of mothers and fathers who have been forced to move or who have lost their accommodation and have had to go to emergency relief organisations. There are thousands of such stories. In fact, 84,000 have been transferred already and there are more to come. Senators such as Senator Cameron and other people who are out there very rightly supporting single parents need to convert that talk into action in this chamber. The Greens will provide the opportunity for senators who have expressed their strong support for single parents and those on Newstart to express their real commitment by supporting our motion and our legislation, and to take real action to help those most vulnerable members of our community who deserve our support, and to not ignore them when they vote. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 10 March 2013 of Brian Roper Archer, a senator from Tasmania for the period 1975 to 1994.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 10 March 2013, of Brian Roper Archer, former senator for Tasmania, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Brian was born on 21 August 1929 at Calder, Tasmania. Before entering parliament, Brian was a real estate consultant and a farmer. He was elected to the Senate in July 1975 and served until his resignation in January 1994, when his replacement was Senator Abetz. Brian Archer was an active and engaged member of numerous committees throughout his near 20-year service to the Senate, chairing several of these committees. Brian was also a parliamentary representative to many conferences, delegations and visits. For a period in the mid-1980s, Brian also served as the shadow special minister of state and spokesman on science in Mr Howard's shadow ministries.
Before he was elected to the Senate, Brian had a background as a real estate consultant and a cattle breeder, well known for developing the limousin breed of cattle on his farm in Northern Tasmania. Brian's knowledge of farming, cattle breeding and fishing informed his work in the Senate. Always the advocate for Tasmania and all things Tasmanian, Brian's ongoing support of the resources and primary industries sectors of Tasmania remained central to his work in the Senate. I am sure that Brian was immensely proud of the development in recent years of Tasmania's reputation for fine foods and especially for the development of the dairy, farmed fish, wine and fresh fruit and vegetable industries.
Brian was known as a quiet achiever for his productive work as a senator. He was also respected and admired by his colleagues for the support he gave to them. Brian regarded the Senate as the more civilised of the two chambers of this parliament, and I am sure that is a view shared by all present. His attitude was that senators represented their respective states. On several occasions, he crossed the floor to vote with the ALP on issues, yet he was also a strong supporter of the role of the Senate in scrutinising policy legislation, and his considerable contribution to committee work was widely recognised by all on his retirement. On behalf of the government, I offer condolences to his family.
Tasmanians lost a fine man with the passing of Brian Roper Archer on 10 March. On behalf of the coalition, I salute his service to the nation. On the behalf of my Tasmanian Liberal Senate team colleagues, Senators Colbeck, Parry and Bushby, I salute the service of Brian Archer to his state of Tasmania and to his beloved north-west coast. I believe it is a wonderful gesture that you now, Mr Deputy President, are in the chair, as a person who came from the same area of Tasmania as former Senator Archer. I also note that you will be representing the Tasmanian Senate Liberal team, and more importantly the President, at Brian Archer's funeral service tomorrow. Brian Archer was a passionate Tasmanian, noting in his first speech he was a Tasmanian by birth, by inclination and by conviction. And of course, on top of all that he was a north-west coaster. He epitomised the north-west coast; not only was he born there, lived there, raised a family there, established a highly reputable real estate firm and a farm, he also believed in those north-west values of hard work and reward for effort. He loved the productive sectors of our economy. His first speech to this place some 37 years ago covered apples, small fruits, potatoes, dairying, beef, sheep, goats and horses, vegetables, mining, fishing and forestry. There was one oversight—and that was a hobby that my father and I engaged in for some years—namely, beekeeping. But, he did make up for that in his later parliamentary activities with a press release in 1989 discussing the issues faced by beekeepers.
Brian Archer served as a senator for three full terms or 18 years. His committee work covers a full half page of his biographical details provided by the parliamentary library. He was hardworking. He was a great help to new senators, something former Senator Kay Patterson noted in the valedictories to Senator Archer—which, might I add, he did not want. He was a man of principle and, to correct Senator Conroy, he did not cross the floor several times; he crossed the floor 14 times. He was a shadow minister in the areas of science and special minister of state. Despite that distinguished record his entry into politics was in a way accidental. Do not get me wrong; he was a committed Liberal, committed to the philosophy of private enterprise and reward for effort, but he was sufficiently involved in the Liberal party to be approached with a task of searching out a suitable senate candidate. In the end, he had to draft himself. He was swept into the Senate in 1975 double dissolution election at which the Whitlam experiment was judged as a dismal failure by the people of Australia and especially the people of Tasmania, whose verdict was to return every House of Representatives seat to the Liberals—how I look forward to that occurring again sometime!—and, of course, a new Senator Archer.
So began his 18 years of advocacy for the productive sectors of our economy. His legacy of support for the productive sector should not be lost on us today, and we should remember the importance of that sector in sustaining our economy and our lifestyle. His manner was always mild and professional and self-effacing. I understand he might have a record that he was never requested to withdraw a comment in the Senate. The most aggressive statement in the media attributed to Senator Archer that I could find was when he described Gorbachev as 'ruthless' in 1991. The house magazine in its edition of 23 February 1994, commenting on Brian Archer's retirement, said after referring to his extensive and distinguished parliamentary career, 'Brian Archer is free to revive his interests in breeding and judging budgies, daffodils, poppies, cows and sheep'—clearly a man of great variety of interests. On retiring, Senator Archer—and this is a great self-summary of the man—in his media statement simply said, 'I look forward to being just Brian Archer again, being home much more and spending time with my children and grandchildren.' I am delighted that he was given about 15 years for exactly that, noting that in recent times he was afflicted with serious ill-health, necessitating his move to a nursing home. It is a honour on behalf of the coalition and especially the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team to pay this tribute to such a wonderful Tasmanian. I am also sure that former senators Calvert, Watson, Walters, Newman and Townley would also wish to be associated with these remarks. On behalf of the coalition I extend our sincere condolences to Brian Archer's widow, Dorothy, their children and grandchildren.
I ask honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to the motion.
Honourable senators having stood in their places—
I thank the Senate.
I move:
That leave of absence be granted for Senator Boyce for 12 March 2012, for personal reasons, and to Senator Parry for 14 March 2012, for parliamentary reasons.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, move:
That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2013:
(a) the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Material of Local Significance) Bill 2013; and
(b) the delivery of news coverage in rural and regional areas by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013 incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013 amends the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 to bring the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) within the scope of the act.
The effect of the bill will be to provide a legislative basis for the subsequent enactment of Regulations conferring certain privileges and immunities on the ICRC and ICC.
In relation to the ICRC, the bill introduces a new section 9D into the act, which provides a basis for the conferral of privileges and immunities on the ICRC in accordance with the 2005 'Arrangement between Australia and the ICRC on a Regional Headquarters in Australia'. This Memorandum of Understanding confers legal personality on the ICRC in Australia and other privileges and immunities needed to facilitate its work in Australia and the Pacific Region. The ICRC is Australia's largest partner organisation in humanitarian action. The amendments will allow the Government to implement this Memorandum of Understanding.
In the case of the ICC, the bill introduces a new section 9C which provides a basis for the conferral of privileges and immunities on the ICC in accordance with the 'Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court'. This will enable steps to be taken towards Australia's accession to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. This will be a further expression of Australia's strong support for the International Criminal Court.
The bill also makes consequential amendments to sections 3 and 7 of the act, regarding international conferences, to ensure that section 7 can also be used in future in relation to the ICRC and ICC, as with international organisations to which the act applies. There is no automaticity to this provision and it would require a future determination by the Governor-General plus the enactment of further regulations.
In conclusion, the bill will amend the act to allow the enactment of regulations conferring privileges and immunities on the ICRC and ICC. This will enable implementation of the Government's commitments in its Memorandum of Understanding with the ICRC and will enable steps to be taken towards Australia's accession to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech of the Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013 incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The proposed Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013 will promote ongoing positive engagement, together with open communication and debate, between the Federal Government and the not-for-profit sector. The bill, if enacted, would prohibit and invalidate clauses in Commonwealth agreements that seek to limit or restrict not-for-profit entities from advocating on Commonwealth policy issues.
An unfettered not-for-profit sector is essential to building a democratic and inclusive community. Other governments have mandated 'gag clauses' in agreements with the not-for-profit sector, preventing them from advocating on government policy. This bill, if enacted, will prevent this from occurring at the Commonwealth level.
The Commonwealth Government recognises that a strong, independent and innovative not-for-profit sector is essential to building an inclusive community. The not-for-profit sector is made up of around 600,000 organisations and accounts for approximately eight per cent of employment nationally. Providing Commonwealth funding to not-for-profit entities or entering into other agreements should not prohibit the sector from engaging in policy and debate.
The bill, if enacted, will apply to all Commonwealth agreements with the not-for-profit sector, regardless of whether they were entered into prior to the commencement of the legislation. The Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013 specifically addresses circumstances where, despite current Commonwealth Government policy to the contrary, there may still be 'gag clauses' in existing Commonwealth agreements with the not-for-profit sector. The bill, if enacted, will invalidate any such clauses in existing agreements. This will ensure that not-for-profit entities are not disadvantaged due to clauses in existing Commonwealth agreements that should not have been included. The bill, if enacted, will also prevent any clauses in future Commonwealth agreements that purport to 'gag' the not-for-profit sector.
The proposed bill operates retrospectively, and includes a clause relating to compensation. This is intended to cover the highly unlikely circumstance where a party suffers loss because a 'gag clause' in a pre-existing agreement is invalidated by the legislation. In that rare situation, the Commonwealth will pay 'reasonable compensation' to that person.
This bill should be supported as it protects the rights of the not-for-profit entity to engage in debate and advocate on Commonwealth policy. It recognises and supports the critical role that the not-for-profit sector has in developing public policy and advocating on behalf of the community.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
I move:
That the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with subsection 10B(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment Determination 2013 (No. 1) made under subsection 10B(1) of the Act on 27 February 2013.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform on the Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill 2012 be extended to 28 June 2013.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Bushby and Senator Polley, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on 23 February 2013, a stone memorial to those 919 members of the 2/40th Battalion who served their country in Timor and South East Asia was unveiled in Hobart's Domain, exactly 71 years after the Battalion was captured by the Japanese;
(b) further notes that on the same day in Launceston a memorial garden was dedicated to the 2/40th Battalion;
(c) observes that this Tasmanian Unit lost 271 of its men during battle and subsequent captivity; and
(d) congratulates the surviving veterans and relatives for their unstinting efforts in bringing these memorials to fruition.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 1170 standing in my name for today relating to the Northern Territory Container Deposit Scheme.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the recent decision by the Federal Court of Australia in the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Northern Territory of Australia [2013] which ruled that the Northern Territory container deposit scheme was invalid, and
(ii) that some beverage companies have announced that they will cease to provide container deposit refunds under the scheme; and
(b) calls on all Australian governments to work together to expedite consideration of any application made by the Northern Territory Government for an exemption to the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, to support the continuation of the Northern Territory container deposit scheme.
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Leave granted.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion today is important for the people of the Northern Territory and the businesses that have invested in a recycling scheme there—the container deposit scheme. It is based on the very successful South Australian model and in fact a number of South Australian businesses have invested in the Northern Territory to see their recycling rates amongst the highest in the world. It is despicable that a large corporation has used a legal loophole to cancel this scheme, which was dictated by the local government and by local communities.
This motion today is a very clear signal for parliament and parliamentarians from all parties to stand together and make a big statement that we would like to see the Northern Territory scheme reinstated and that we would like to see recycling continue in the Northern Territory.
Question agreed to.
I ask that the motion standing in my name be taken as a formal motion. I ask also that Senator Lundy's name be added as a co-mover of that motion.
Senator Lundy's name will be added.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 12 March 2013 is the centenary of the naming of the city of Canberra by the wife of the Governor General, Lady Denman, in 1913, and
(ii) in the intervening century, Canberra has been developed as one of the great planned garden cities of the world;
(b) recognises Canberra, through its national institutions, as a showcase of the hopes and aspirations, milestones and achievements of the Australian nation; and
(c) congratulates Canberra and its citizens on their centenary.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement before moving motion 1172.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I thank the Senate. This motion has one very simple operative clause, which is to call for an urgent review of bilateral so-called safeguards agreements between Australia and its uranium customer countries, including the majority of the world's nuclear weapons states, to ascertain the risk of future nuclear disasters in countries that buy Australian uranium, be it Japan, India, Russia, China or any of the other countries to which we sell uranium. We have a number of Japanese guests from the village of Iitate, Fukushima Prefecture, that I visited last year, in Parliament House this afternoon. The message to Australian policymakers could not be clearer. Their region has been depopulated and fisheries, horticultural and agricultural industries have been completely shattered, with 160,000 people still homeless as a result of that disaster. This is on top of the colossal carnage caused by the tsunami along the Pacific coast of Japan. Their message to Australian policymakers is: stop selling uranium.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australian uranium is confirmed to have been present in each of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power station on 11 March 2011,
(ii) the disaster is ongoing 2 years later, with continuing radiation leaks, and that 160 000 people remain displaced from their homes with inadequate compensation to resettle,
(iii) decommissioning is expected to take over 40 years at a cost of A$100 billion, and
(iv) approximately 2 000 samples of food and game tested for radiation between April 2012 and January 2013 exceeded the limit for human consumption of radioactive isotopes; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to undertake an immediate review of all bilateral uranium supply arrangements to assess the risk of future disasters at nuclear power stations in countries to which Australia supplies uranium.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table no later than 28 November 2013 by the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare, a report by the Productivity Commission into:
(a) the affordability, flexibility, accessibility and quality of early childhood education and care; and
(b) all Commonwealth funding options and models for various types of care, including long-day care, in-home care, occasional care, family day care, outside-school-hours care and care for children with special needs.
I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Thank you. I note that this motion is substantially the same as the motion moved in May, to which the responsible minister for the Productivity Commission has already replied stating the government's position. We have already undertaken a significant recent inquiry through the Productivity Commission which reviewed the early childhood development workforce. While there is always room to improve childcare assistance, the government is not focused on reviews and inquiries; we are getting on with real investment, support and programs that will help families access child care and give more parents the opportunity to participate in the workforce.
Unlike the coalition and the Greens, we will not be calling a Productivity Commission review reporting after the election in order to avoid public scrutiny of our policies before the election. Australian families deserve to know what each party stands for, and our government stands for a record of $22.3 billion investment in early childhood education and care to make it more affordable, more accessible and the high quality that Australian children deserve.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Thank you, Mr Deputy President. It is extremely disappointing that the government is refusing to acknowledge that we have a crisis in the childcare sector, that families are struggling with the fee increases around the country, that places are simply not available and that the best way of ensuring that we have good, quality care for our children is to fund it properly.
Currently the government has done nothing to increase the funding of childcare services to deliver those good, quality outcomes. Unless we underpin those quality outcomes by proper government funding, we will not deliver good, quality care that is accessible, flexible and affordable for families. It is time the government stopped putting their head in the sand on this issue and acknowledge that it needs to be fixed. If you do not have the answers yourself, it is about time you asked somebody else to enquire into it for you.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors annual audit that shows just 15.5 per cent of board positions in ASX200 companies are held by women, and That the median company board is made up of 6 men and 1 woman;
(b) notes that companies with a greater proportion of women in senior management and board positions are more profitable; and
(c) calls on the Government to legislate to ensure ASX200 companies have a minimum of 40 per cent female board directors within the next 5 years.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I rise to express regret that so many women members of the Senate did not support the motion today relating to women in senior management and board position. Today is the United Nations Women's Breakfast here in Parliament House; on International Women's Day we had members of the coalition and the Labor Party speaking at breakfasts around the country about women's rights, but when it comes down to it, doing something is different. I urge women that it is not enough to say something; you have to actually do something.
I also seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition is committed to fostering a culture within our nation where women are full and active participants in all spheres of public and private life across a wide range of decision-making positions. The coalition believes that high-level appointments of women should recognise merit and excellence rather than be based on some unilateral quota which could be intended or interpreted to placate women rather than promote excellence and advance the cause of Australian women. We hold the view that the appointment of women to boards for reasons other than merit and excellence could be counterproductive and work against the long-term interests of women. We believe that encouraging skilled and talented women to contribute to this country's decision making process is a far more effective way of increasing women's participation than relying on arbitrary quotas.
The coalition believes there is no job a woman should not aspire to. However, a woman should never be appointed to a role in an attempt to justify or satisfy an arbitrary quota or some presumed politically correct position. This is demeaning to women, and has the potential to hinder the aspirations of women and develop a second class of citizen.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) recent independent air quality testing in Hunter suburbs near the coal rail line that leads to Newcastle Harbour revealed coal dust pollution levels over 50 per cent above the national standard for particulates 10 micron and less, which affects approximately 30 000 people living within 500 metres of the rail line,
(ii) there are no known safe levels of exposure to particulate pollution, and international studies have demonstrated direct causal links between particulate pollution and adverse health impacts such as asthma, increased risks of cancer, heart and lung disease and birth defects, including in mining regions,
(iii) a current Senate inquiry into the impacts on health of air quality has received many submissions from concerned groups and individuals based in the Hunter,
(iv) Hunter residents will express their concern that air pollution and coal dust from coal mines, coal trains and coal stockpiles is adversely affecting their health and the environment at a community rally in Newcastle on Saturday, 16 March 2013, organised by the Coal Terminal Action Group (CTAG), a coalition of 18 Hunter based community groups, and
(v) the community rally will ask state and federal governments to reject the proposal by Port Waratah Coal Services to construct a new fourth coal export terminal called T4 in Newcastle Harbour that would drive up further coal dust pollution and adversely impact the environment;
(b) congratulates CTAG and the wider Hunter community for taking action to protect their health and the local environment against the impact of coal industry expansion; and
(c) calls on the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government to reject the T4 project.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia's community broadcasters are a vital part of our media landscape and provide radio services that include specialist music, Indigenous media, multicultural and ethnic language programs, religious, educational and youth services, print disability reading services, and community access programs,
(ii) with funding support from the Federal Government, the 37 metropolitan-wide community radio stations in Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth launched digital radio services in May 2011, and
(iii) in the 2012-13 Budget the Government allocated $2.2 million per annum for 4 years to support community digital radio services but this is a shortfall of $1.4 million per year for the minimum level of funding required to maintain transmission of all current services; and
(b) calls on the Government to commit the necessary funding for community broadcasters' digital radio services in the coming Budget.
Question negatived.
I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, Senators Macdonald and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:
The urgent need for the Government to apply the benefits of the mining boom to addressing acute urban challenges in Australian cities including those outlined in the Capital Cities Liveability Index such as traffic congestion, housing affordability and loss of natural habitat with high quality urban regeneration and investment in public transport.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I thank the for Senate the opportunity to make a contribution with my Greens New South Wales colleague, Senator Lee Rhiannon on the matter that the Deputy President has just read into the record. Senator Rhiannon is going to address it at greater length, but I will acknowledge the coalition of eight groups that has today launched an exceptionally important and timely report into the state of Australian cities and in particular what the design of our cities is doing to our population, our kids, our time, our jobs and where we can live. This new study was commissioned, conducted and supported by eight groups ranging from the Planning Institute, the Heart Foundation, public transport advocates and the property sector to take a long, hard look at what has happened in Australian cities in the last 50 or 60 years—effectively in the postwar era—where we have allowed the domination and priorities of the private car to take priority over people and over the livableness of our great cities.
This report estimates that traffic congestion now costs the economy $9 billion per year. It is not the first time I have seen figures like that as to the economic cost of traffic congestion, but let us pull apart how these estimates are made. That figure is made up, in part, of your unpaid time sitting in traffic jams between where you live and where you work and the loss of that productive time to you which you could have been spending in leisure pursuits, with family, studying or at work earning an income. The staggering figure of the of $9 billion per year cost of congestion is derived in part from this gigantic loss of amenity and loss of time for each of us who find ourselves condemned to traffic congestion.
I note this study is not anticar, and there is no purpose to being anticar. There is no imperative here to ban the use of private cars, but we actually need to knock it off its pedestal and provide transport choice to people. What we have done in the planning of our great cities is eliminate choice. If you live in the middle ring or outer suburbs in an Australian city, particularly if you have kids, you need one private car per working adult whether you are a greenie or not, whether or not you care about atmospheric pollution, the cost of petrol, lost time, the frustration of sitting in traffic jams, the elimination of urban bushland for road projects or the unsustainable sprawl of our cities. Whether or not you pay regard to those things and whether or not those are your priorities you have no choice. It is very difficult as a working adult to live in an Australian city without a private vehicle unless, like me, you are lucky enough to live close to a major railway line and have access to cycling infrastructure. That infrastructure costs money and it requires investment. It requires planning and requires a change in the way that we think about our cities
The way that we have planned transport has also had a dramatic impact on housing affordability. It has become something of a cruel joke that the concept of housing affordability in Australia now means a brick-and-tile air-conditioned box, way over the horizon—20, 30 or 40 kilometres from where a person works. Maybe that is where the cheap land is, where we build over urban bushland or plough under market gardens or peri-urban agricultural land, losing forever the valuable soils and biodiversity. Maybe it is affordable to get into those areas, but it is certainly not very affordable to live there. What you never see in the glossy real estate ads is the cost of maintaining a private car per working adult because you have been stranded on the fringes of a city. The $9 billion a year in congestion costs do not accommodate those costs. They are absorbed by private individuals, as is the lost time sitting in the car trying to get to work, trying to get the kids to and from child care or trying to get out of the city. So transport affects housing affordability, it affects amenity and it affects many, many other things. We have never really acknowledged in the Australian context the true cost of building ever-larger houses, with ever-shrinking numbers of people living in them, further and further away from centres of amenity, jobs, services and public transport. We have to reverse this tide. Today's report is one important step towards doing that.
Australian cities are some of the most car-dependent in the world, and the greater Perth metropolitan area now stretches nearly 120 kilometres from end to end. To my mind a coalition government in Western Australia has never laid a single kilometre of railway line. They talk about it, and every now and again they close a railway line, but they have never taken the time or the investment to open one. But, with the support of the Greens, Perth does have a good public transport network, but it simply has not kept pace with the growth of the city, and now many residents of Perth have been stranded.
These challenges are very, very difficult to confront and cities move slowly; there is no quick fix. Planning decisions made in haste can be regretted for many years and decades afterwards. One of the ways in which the Greens have chosen to make an impact is to co-author, with the Property Council of Australia and the Australian Urban Design Research Centre, AUDRC, a report called Transforming Perth, which I was proud to launch with those two organisations and Senator Milne when she was in Perth with us last week. The report is effectively a study that builds on the work of Victorian urban planner Professor Rob Adams, who is the Director of City Design at the City of Melbourne. It asks: what if, instead of simply letting the sprawl go and maintaining an effectively unregulated or even over-regulated low-density sprawl in Perth, we developed medium-density corridors along public transport corridors—areas where high-capacity public transport can take some of the road space and give people that transport choice that they need? When you combine that with networked cycling infrastructure and a reorientation of the bus network, you can do extraordinary things. The Transforming Perth study identified more than 1,500 hectares of land along seven high-capacity transit corridors in Perth and showed that if you built medium density dwellings—not high rise; not Hong Kong-looking towers along these corridors—of four or five storeys, you could potentially fit between 94,000 and 250,000 dwellings along these corridors. This would effectively overbuild areas of urban blight—light industrial areas along these corridors, areas of car parks. The study took out heritage areas, green space and areas that local communities find valuable and netted out 50 per cent of strata title blocks and said, 'What would happen if you took the remaining space and created diverse, sustainable, affordable, medium-density housing?' What that has done in the context of this study and Professor Adams's work is that it leaves 90 or 95 per cent of the urban fabric untouched, and it simply develops and concentrates people along these activities corridors. If they are put in appropriate housing that is designed for that context—diverse and affordable housing—we can actually eliminate sprawl. We can not just reduce but actually eliminate greenfields development and bring the city back to the people; we can bring services, public transport, childcare centres and jobs back to the suburbs which long since ceased to have access to those things. That is the reason why you see these extraordinary figures being quoted in this report that has been released today.
It is a study that I am proud to have been a part of. It has been an unexpected joy working with the Property Council and a cohort of developers that they brought in to keep our feet on the ground. My thanks go to William de Haer and to Joe Lenzo, the Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, for their committed work in bringing this report to fruition; to Dr Anthony Duckworth-Smith, who is assistant professor with AUDRC; and principally to Chantal Caruso and her team of volunteers and interns in my office for bringing a lot of very, very sharp policy ideas to bear. Now comes the crunch. This work needs to be funded. The public transport infrastructure does not come for free; neither does the cycling infrastructure. It will pay for itself, including in those reduced $9 billion congestion charges that we all absorb as citizens of poorly designed cities. It is imperative for the government to levy appropriate taxation on some of the companies that are dragging extraordinary profits out of this country so that we can afford to build the infrastructure in Perth and in other cities around the Australian continent, so that we can afford to put in the infrastructure that people deserve. Without appropriate taxation, that will never become a reality.
I was very interested to hear that Senator Ludlam is basically running the argument that Australians' right to drive their cars in whatever part of Australia they like should be examined very closely to be efficient—I think he does not give credit to the drivers of those cars, because they always look at the efficiency of their means of transport—and that choosing a three or four-bedroom house on the outskirts of a city at the time of your working life because that is what you can afford is something that also may need to be reviewed. Interestingly enough, the city of Adelaide does have some of the proposals that Senator Ludlam has suggested on the books. If you had talked to the Deputy Premier of South Australia as late as last week, he would be able to point you to the vigorous opposition to not multistorey but four- or five-storey planning approvals on major arterial roads—the same principle of infilling the city and infilling the major arterial roads with higher density housing. And it has been vigorously disputed by at least one council. The complaint people have is that there is nowhere to park the car. It is going to be a very long and arduous debate to take Senator Ludlam's position and carry it off.
I suppose it is important that we place on the record what the Labor government is doing in addressing the challenges of our city. I am fortunate enough to live in a city which is still easy to get around. Even in the alleged peak hours, we are probably no more than 20 minutes point to point for almost anywhere you want to go. That sort of ease of transport in Adelaide is not likely to bring any urgent change, but it is very important that we have a federal Labor government which since 2007 has placed the plight of 18 major cities on the national agenda. It is also important to place on the record that the previous coalition government, in keeping with coalition governments of the past, abandoned programs to improve our cities, such as the Hawke-Keating $2.3 billion Building Better Cities Program.
Our cities are home to seven out of 10 Australians and generate 80 per cent of the national income. This Labor government believes cities are too important to ignore. That is why, after national consultation, this federal government introduced Our Cities, Our Future, a national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and livable future, in May 2011. That is why we established a Major Cities Unit. The aim of the urban policy is to keep our cities globally competitive, productive, sustainable and livable.
Through a COAG agreement, state and territory leaders have been required to produce long-term strategic planning systems for their capital cities, taking into account a range of criteria, including: preservation of the transport corridors needed for the future, preparing for population growth and demographic change, planned evidence-based land release and an appropriate balance of infill and greenfield developments, climate change mitigation, better urban development and environmental management of water, energy and waste. This Labor government is very visible and active on all of those fronts.
Infrastructure funding under the Nation Building Program is linked to progress with these strategic city plans. So Senator Ludlam was on the right mark; he has Buckley's and none of having the reforms he is mooting being supported by a popular vote, but is important that this Labor government is proceeding in a sensible, thorough and strategic way to achieve what can be some remarkable outcomes, in a cooperative and proactive way.
In their 12 years in government, those opposite did not contribute one cent to a single public transport project, anywhere in Australia. In Melbourne's western suburbs, work is well underway on the Regional Rail Link. This is currently the biggest public transport project anywhere in the country, with the federal government contributing more than $3.2 billion towards its construction. In addition, this government has: invested $20 million through the Liveable Cities program for a raft of planning and demonstration projects directly improving our urban centres, transport links, cycling and walking paths and urban energy programs; produced three editions of the State of Australian cities, a national snapshot of our 18 major cities, fully downloaded more than two million times; established a national urban policy forum of experts to provide the best advice to government and to ensure that we get the policies right; contributed $58 million to two cooperative research centres, the CRC for Low Carbon Living and the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities; and launched an urban design protocol, providing a simple design guide and check sheet for governments and organisations. The list goes on and on.
Some of the commitments that have been made in public transport are: Victorian Regional Rail Link, $3.225 billion; Moreton Bay Rail Link, $742 million; Gold Coast Light Rail, $365 million; Noarlunga to Seaford Rail Extension, $291 million; Melbourne Metro One, pre-con, $40 million; Brisbane Inner City Rail Study, $20 million; and the Perth Light Rail Study. So the government is proactive along the lines of making sure that major cities provide long-term sustainable public transport. Where it is practical, possible and efficient, rail has been funded.
I think it is really important to move quickly to another really great initiative of this government, the NBN. What may well happen in a lot of our major cities is that people may choose to work from home. If you are going to choose to work from home, you are going to need high-speed, high-upload, high-download connection. Guess what? That is what the NBN does. There will be many businesses—and I have operated a couple of organisations which would have been well suited to people working from home. It is not hard to do your bookkeeping from home. You can scan the invoices in, email them across, and people can put the figures in MYOB or whatever accounting suite they use. People would not have to drive the hour to work and would perhaps be able to match some of their childcare commitments with their work. I think some studies say that it is actually a very productive way of people working. In terms of productivity, people working from home are measured as being perhaps higher than the morning around the morning tea and the coffee and the chat, as you get into work every day. So if we are to make our cities more livable then teleworking could well be the way to go.
There are some stats which indicate enormous savings in the downtime that Senator Ludlam spoke about—some 120 million litres of fuel, avoiding 320,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and reducing congestion costs, of $470 million. These things are not new items. This government is on the job. As far as taxing the superprofits of mining companies is concerned, that is happening. We are not taxing the superprofits of mining companies, as some of the states do, in terms of royalties, which have no regard for profitability; it is a just a tax on a tonne out of the ground. The superprofits are being taxed and those taxable dollars are being put to good use. I am sure that, when the revenue reaches the appropriate level, consideration will be given as to how we can better use those dollars and get our cities to be more livable, more productive and more efficient places of work, and places of good living.
Today we are debating a matter of public importance, put up by the Greens political party, which in effect says: tax the mining industry, tax them again and again, and with those taxes we will be able to fix the roads, housing and natural habitat that have been lost. That is, in effect, the matter that we are debating today.
I acknowledge that some of our cities are finding difficulties with traffic congestion and some loss of habitat. But if you look at Melbourne, under a Liberal-National state government, you will see these magnificent freeways and ring-roads through the city that really have addressed some of Labor's mismanagement of our cities. If you look at the capital of my home state, Brisbane, you will see that it had a Liberal and then LNP city council under Campbell Newman that built tunnels, that really addressed the issues of traffic congestion and housing affordability and that was renowned for the work that it did on the protection of natural habitat in that state. Contrast that with Sydney, under years of Labor rule and a Labor government that was only interested in giving mining leases to the friends of the mining minister or playing games with the unions that control the Australian Labor Party, and you have a good contrast of Labor administration in the cities. Look at Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne and at the Liberal-National governments. Mr O'Farrell is now starting the long task of fixing up Sydney's traffic congestion and housing difficulties. But it will take a long time.
The Greens think that you can tax your way to prosperity. Little do they recognise or acknowledge that, in 2010-11 alone, the mining industry contributed in royalty revenue some $9.5 billion. That is in addition to the so-called superprofits tax—that is, company tax that mining companies pay when they make any sort of profit—and it is also in addition to all the payroll taxes that go to state governments.
So the mining industry in Australia has, until recently, contributed to its way. Regrettably, with the combination of the Labor Party and the Greens, investment in the so-called goose that lays the golden egg is starting to falter because you have these crazy left-wing policies of the Labor-Greens alliance of wanting to tax mining out of our nation.
The Greens in their 'best of 2012' press release, issued towards the end of last year, were actually claiming credit for the best broken promise. They are claiming the benefit of dropping the surplus fetish. The Greens do not understand that, for Australia to be strong and for Australia to have the money to invest in and build the sort of infrastructure they are bleating about and that we need such as dams and water storages throughout Australia, you need to run a tight financial ship.
I note that the Greens and Labor talk about major public transport options. They never seem to remember that the last major railway built in Australia was the Alice to Darwin railway. Built by which government? The John Howard government built that magnificent piece of Australian infrastructure. Why were we able to do it? Because the country was successful. There was investment coming into the country and we were able to afford those sorts of things.
Have a look at Western Australia, an exemplar state after three years of a Liberal-National Party government, where the economy is now booming. Why? Because investment has been encouraged. People know that that is a state where they can make profits and, out of the profits, they pay money in one form or another to the state and federal governments. You only have to look at the magnificent job that is happening in Western Australia, with all of the new proposals for public transport and better traffic flow. I would have to say with some pride for my fellow Australians in Western Australia that they understand that you do not fix Australia by taxing the goose that lays the golden egg. The people of Western Australia clearly recognised that last Saturday, when they not only overwhelmingly turned to the Liberal and National parties and destroyed and decimated the Australian Labor Party but at last count—as I read it—completely decimated the Greens political party. That is a forerunner of what will happen with a policy-free group—they are certainly not policy-free; I take that back when I refer to the Greens. That will happen to a group who have these pie in the sky, airy-fairy, 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' sort of policies that read well if you get a grade 4 kid to write out a wish list of what they would want for Australia but are without any understanding of what it requires to run a complex business like the Australian nation. Unfortunately, the Greens have these thought bubbles about how they would like to see Australia, but their actions do anything but give Australia the wherewithal it needs to be strong and to provide the sort of infrastructure that the Greens are talking about.
You only have to look at history and see that the only true parties of the environment in the Australian parliament over decades have been the Liberal and National parties. Go through any measure of the environment—the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Kakadu, natural resource management—
Shooting in national parks!
Thank you to the Labor Party senator—banning of guns in Australia and all those sorts of things. But, if you go through any serious environmental forward steps in Australia, you will see that they have been introduced by a Liberal and National Party government. Why? Because we had the sort of economy that allowed us to pour millions of dollars into the Natural Heritage Trust and to do things for the environment, for country towns and even for regional cities. But the Greens and the Labor Party do not understand that. They think you just tax, tax, tax investors that have lots of options around the world—Australia is not the only kid on the block with good mineral resources. What the Greens and their Labor allies want to do is to tax the mining industry out of existence so that the wealth that Australia gets from them, and the wealth that allows us to build infrastructure and look after the environment, will disappear.
Only the Greens and the Labor Party could introduce a minerals resource rent tax that does not raise any tax, but that is another issue. The fact that they are doing this—the sovereign risk issues that continually come because of a Labor government that is hanging on by its fingernails with the support of the Australian Greens and is so dependent on the Australian Greens that they will do any of these crazy left-wing proposals that the Greens click their fingers at—is the problem that all Australians understand. I do not want to predict future elections, but I ask you to look at past elections, and clearly people in my state of Queensland, in New South Wales and in Western Australia have understood that you do not make Australia strong by making our major industries weak. That is the issue that the Greens should really be looking at, rather than this airy-fairy stuff they come up with.
I congratulate Senator Scott Ludlam for moving this matter of public importance on the acute urban challenges in Australian cities. An urgent challenge facing our major cities is solving the growing traffic congestion crisis. Traffic congestion is costing Australia $9 billion a year and estimates say that that will reach about $20 billion by 2020. It is $9 billion already—think of the lost jobs and the lost productivity for business. This is a huge issue.
When I joined the New South Wales parliament in 1999, Sydney residents and businesses were already stuck in traffic jams. You could not wind down your windows on a hot day because the air pollution was so bad. You could not let your kids ride their bikes on the clogged roads. Buses and trains were lagging behind population growth. In the New South Wales parliament the Greens regularly spoke up for public transport and against motorway expansion, but through the 2000s things only got worse. Labor, with the support of the coalition, changed laws to benefit big developers and motorway builders. CityRail's late-running trains became a political crisis. The only way out for the Labor government that they saw was to slash the train timetables. The trains may have run on time for a period, but we got reduced services. The Roads and Traffic Authority was all powerful in this era and, instead of expanding the CityRail network as a priority, the government's road budget was triple the transport budget. We got more motorways and more traffic jams as a result. We got more urban sprawl, not serviced with public transport, and public land was sold off to private developers, locking up strategic transport corridors. Every year the problem grew bigger and the solutions became more costly.
In Sydney there has been a succession of failed toll roads, motorways and tunnels that have simply induced more traffic on our roads. The M5 East tunnel became so heavily congested that the government had to advise motorists to keep their windows closed. The M5, M4 and M2 motorways are like parking lots in the morning and evening peak. The Cross City Tunnel and Lane Cove Tunnel ventures were white elephants that faltered under the weight of rubbery traffic modelling that underpinned their base case financial models
The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has reported:
In general, the forecasting performance for toll roads in the world has been found to be poorer than for toll-free roads. There is an asymmetrical patterns of forecasting errors, that is, consistent overestimation. Australia is no exception.
And certainly Sydney saw it up close: so much of the cost when the motorways went under came back to the public. So often road projects are built on these false promises. They make wildly optimistic claims to reduce traffic congestion and divert focus and funds away from urgently needed improvements to the public transport network.
Melbourne and Brisbane have similar toll road problems. Melbourne has a myriad of motorways and toll roads and yet traffic continues to grow. The latest road project, the East-West Tunnel, has been described as the next toll road white elephant. It is being compared to the BrisConnections Airport Link toll road that went into receivership last year.
Pretty good road, though!
What a foolish interjection. The Greens in Melbourne are campaigning for new east-west public transport links, improved services and an investment in a real metro network. The travelling public want better public transport too, but the government is firmly backing the toll road.
It does not have to be this way. Tonight I have the pleasure of speaking at the launch of the Moving Australia 2030 report and I very warmly congratulate those who have worked on this outstanding document. It is a vision for integrated and sustainable transport and land-use planning that the Greens have shared and advocated for over 20 years, a world-class sustainable transport network servicing green, livable cities. It is a clear, bold vision for tackling the fundamental transport challenges of the 21st century: climate change, energy security, population growth, public health and quality of life. The Moving People 2030 Taskforce is made up of the local government association, planning, public transport and bicycle groups, and the Heart Foundation. I think the authors have done an excellent job. It is an exciting collaboration which will inform and influence decision makers at every level of government if they are willing to allow that to happen. It is exactly the kind of integrated approach that we need for transport planning and future-proofing our cities.
The Greens have a longstanding record of support for public transport, cycling and walking. We have worked hard in state and local governments for community-driven planning decisions that elevate the principles of ecologically sustainable development and promote clean air and healthy lifestyles. We have campaigned for the preservation of integrated land-use planning to halt urban sprawl, create more livable suburbs and secure strategic corridors and green spaces for the future.
There are fundamental reasons why this sustainable cities vision is still to be realised despite the overwhelming public support and strong economic and environmental grounds. For eight years in New South Wales, the Greens campaigned to expose the undue influence of developer donations in New South Wales. Our work and that of many community groups resulted in a ban on developer donations and then a ban on all corporate donations. The campaign was grounded in the idea that greedy developers and corporations were buying influence to win favourable planning decisions. For a dark decade in New South Wales under the Labor government, while the vested interests of developers trumped the public interest, these developers donated $20 million—over $12 million to the New South Wales Labor Party and over $7.5 million to the coalition in opposition. At the height of these donations in 2005 the Labor, Liberal and National parties joined forces to pass the now infamous part 3A planning laws that eroded the state's planning controls and led to an ad hoc growth strategy. The major parties put part 3A on the map. It was used to rubber-stamp bad developments based on concept plans, with minimal environmental assessment and without meaningful community consultation.
The losers were Sydney residents who now live in poorly planned suburbs and who struggle every day with worsening air quality, long travel times on congested roads and an ailing public transport network to get to and from work. This is costing Sydney's economy billions of dollars and making our city less livable. The situation is not intractable, however. But it will take a huge commitment and support of the state and federal governments to overcome this legacy. The problems in New South Wales have spread much wider than Sydney. In the Hunter Valley there has been a strong local campaign to improve public transport and for better land-use planning.
The community are calling for the retention of Newcastle rail. Successive governments in New South Wales, Labor and coalition, are for ripping up heavy rail that goes into the heart of Newcastle, something that should be used to help develop that city in the most livable way. The federal Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport's Hunter division has produced an excellent report that showcases a range of planning strategies to make Hunter communities more livable and more sustainable to grow the local community beyond coal. But the Department of Infrastructure and Transport is not funding this excellent work. Instead, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Anthony Albanese, has pledged a $3.5 billion investment in a new coal rail line for the Hunter Valley's fourth coal loader in Newcastle Harbour—yes, that is $3.5 billion. Mr Albanese might try and call this money for freight public transport, but the reality is that it is assistance to the coal industry and robbing money for public transport and for integrated planning.
The problem is not confined to New South Wales. Every capital city carries a backlog of public transport infrastructure. Major regional centres need improved passenger connection with the surrounding communities. We could carry a massive increase in bicycle and walking infrastructure in major cities and centres across the country. For the Moving Australia 2030 recommendations to become reality we will require a huge shift both in the car culture that still dominates and in the funding bias that grossly favours roads over public and active transport. The federal government, through the excellent strategies outlined by the Major Cities Unit and the department of regional development, has set the right direction.
What will it take for the government to get on board and make the shift to fund more public transport and active transport infrastructure projects? There are huge gains to be made for our economy and for our community and the environment. Now is the time for Minister Albanese to show leadership and to step up support for public transport and active transport infrastructure funding support—support that is critical to making our cities more livable.
When one travels around the world and visits global cities, you appreciate how well we have done in Australia when it comes to planning and urban development, particularly the planning of our big cities. Anyone who returns home to Sydney would appreciate that Sydney is probably the best city in the world. There is nothing like flying in over Sydney Harbour and seeing that golden jewel of a harbour, the wonderful beaches and the large metropolis that is Sydney. We really have got it right when it comes to planning and urban development. If you look at big global cities like Beijing, Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York or London, they all have congestion and smog, and people predominantly live in high-rises without backyards and there is very little green space. In Australia, these are things that we cherish and come through in our urban development and planning laws. I think you can say that in Australia we have planned and developed well. But we cannot take what we have for granted.
There are challenges in urban development and in maintaining the liveability of our cities—and by liveability, I mean affordability of housing; jobs that are close to where people live so they do not have to travel for hours each day to get to work; adequate public transport that delivers people in a clean, on-time environment; affordable renewable energy; and access to leisure and green spaces. Labor believe that the federal government should play an active role in urban development. Indeed, it probably was a Labor government that first took an active role in our nation's urban development when the Whitlam government established the Department of Urban and Regional Development.
Labor are committed to better urban planning, better development and greater liveability of our cities. That stands in stark contrast to the opposition. What is the approach of the opposition? Their approach was enunciated in a recent comment by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, who stated: 'Transport infrastructure is a state responsibility. The Commonwealth government should no more have to fund it than a state government should have to buy new tanks for the Army.' That is the approach of the coalition when it comes to urban development. 'We won't worry about it. We'll wash our hands of it and just hand it all over to the states'—a beautiful little hospital pass. Haven't the states done a wonderful job with urban development! Isn't Campbell Newman doing a wonderful job with protection of the environment in Queensland!
Labor believe that the federal government should take a role in urban development and that is why Labor developed a national urban policy. For the first time in our nation's history, a national government has a clearly articulated set of aspirations for our cities, and it is delivered and updated through the annual report State of Australian Cities, which reports on the progress that we are making on national urban policy.
This is an area that has traditionally been covered by the states but Labor believe that it should be a partnership—the state governments working with the national government to deliver better planning and urban development. Through this national urban policy, we are working with the states and territories to improve urban planning. It includes preserving future transport corridors, a better balance between land release and urban infill, climate change mitigation, better urban design to reduce water and energy usage and preparedness for the ageing of the population. We are doing that in a collaborative manner, just as we are doing it in a collaborative manner when it comes to infrastructure development in this country through the Infrastructure Australia model, where organisations are able to put in bids that are assessed by an independent body. It is all about improving the productivity of our economy.
But there are some challenges in urban development, particularly when it comes to transport. In Sydney now, it is almost impossible in peak hour to tell someone what time you are going to get to a meeting. You could be one hour either side because of transport congestion. Unfortunately, I think the current Liberal government has missed the mark when it comes to transport and fixing some of those problems—but that is another issue.
Over the next 20 years, Labor have committed to working with state governments to fix some of our transport problems, particularly when it comes to freight transport and getting freight off our roads. Much of the investment that we have made in this area has been about improving the accessibility of freight on rail and decoupling some of the entanglement that occurs between passenger rail lines and freight rail lines. Over the next 20 years, the amount of freight carried in Australia will double and that will mean that there will be extra pressure on our transport system. We are working to ensure that we are detangling the bottlenecks that have existed and we are doing this in a number of areas.
With regard to roads, we have doubled the roads budget since we came to office and that has meant that we are constructing more than 7,500 kilometres of new and upgraded lanes throughout the country. This is in addition to more than 14,000 local government road projects under the Roads to Recovery program, 2,000 black spot projects and 350 heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects. In my state of New South Wales, the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane is being upgraded. Two major works are underway: the Pacific Highway bypass at Kempsey and the Pacific Highway bypass at Bulahdelah. As we speak, there are 1,300 people working on those bypass projects in New South Wales and they are being funded by this federal Labor government.
On rail, we have had a massive investment in new rail infrastructure. We have increased the investment in rail in this country tenfold since we came to office compared to the time of the Howard government. We have ended the previous curfew which operated during peak morning and afternoon periods for road rail from Port Botany because the passenger line received priority. We began construction on the North Sydney freight corridor project. We are investing in the development of the Moorebank intermodal terminal, which will take about 3,300 trucks off Sydney's roads everyday and will create 700 jobs. Recently, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport opened the southern Sydney freight line, a $1 billion investment aimed at detangling that bottleneck infrastructure that traditionally existed between passenger and freight rail in this country. Another big issue in Sydney is of course a second Sydney airport. When you go to the airport now at 5.30 in the morning you will get caught in traffic around Sydney airport. You will be guaranteed to get caught in a traffic jam. Passenger numbers going through the airport will double by 2035. Most global cities have two airports, and it is simply unacceptable for Australia not to be looking at a second airport for Sydney. Unfortunately, the approach of the O'Farrell government again has been: 'We don't need a second Sydney airport. It's not our problem. We won't worry about it. We'll wait until sometime into the future.' That is the approach of the Liberals.
Another important issue regarding liveability and urban development is the environment and access to green space. In New South Wales the contrast is stark when it comes to protection of the environment and promotion of green space. The Carr Labor government declared more marine parks and more new national parks than any other government in history. What has been the approach of the Liberals? The Liberals have allowed people to shoot in them. They have allowed people to shoot in national parks. That is their approach to saving the environment: to allow people to go shooting in national parks in New South Wales.
If you go down in the woods today in New South Wales, be sure of a big surprise. And, if you go down in the woods today, you better not go in disguise, Senator Joyce. You better not go dressed as a kangaroo, you better not go dressed as a bear, you better not go dressed as a possum, because there will be someone there to ping you off and shoot you right through the nose. That is what the approach is in New South Wales. Who is there to load the gun for you? None other than New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell and his bumbling Minister for the Environment, Robyn Parker. They are loading the gun for you as shooters ping off people in the national parks. That is the approach of the Liberal government when it comes to the protection of our environment. It is a stark contrast between Labor, who are protecting the environment, and the Liberals in the New South Wales, who are allowing people to shoot.
You also have the likes of Andrew Stoner with an Uzi or something like that, spraying bullets around and taking out kangaroos and bears and things like that— (Time expired)
If you down to the woods today you are certain of a big surprise, because you will probably find in the woods a little cabinet, and in that cabinet you will find Eddie Obeid being appointed there by the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr. That is as big a surprise as you will get with the ALP. Lots of surprises with the ALP in New South Wales. Lots of surprises: Eddie Obeid, Ian McDonald. Lots and lots of surprises.
Going back to the issue. I find it rather amusing that here we have the Greens' motion saying there is urgent need for the government to apply the benefits of the mining boom when the Greens do not believe in mining. I can help the Labor Party out here. You are supposed to get stuck into the Greens because of the hypocrisy of the statement. The Greens do not believe in mining. Which mine do the Greens believe in? They do not believe in coal mining, they want to shut it all down. They do not believe in any of the infrastructure that goes with mining. They do not believe in any form of mining. They are applying the benefits of the mining boom, but tell us: which mines? Which mines do you believe are culturally sensitive? Which mines do you want to go forward with? Which mines are you proposing? Everything about the Greens is hypocrisy.
The Greens motion also mentions dealing with the issues of addressing acute urban challenges. This is the other part of the logic of the Greens: you take the wealth from the regional areas and you move it to the urban areas. Forget about all the people who live in between. Forget about regional Australia. Let's just take the wealth out of the regional areas—out of Blackwater, out of Singleton, out of Cessnock—and move it to Paddington and West End. That is where you need the wealth of the mining areas—in Darling Harbour. We just heard the Labor Party talking about this. Congratulations: Sydney is a beautiful city. But one of the problems we have got with the rail issue—and they talked about all their investment in rail—is that they have never built the inland rail, they have never brought about intermodal port access, they have not connected Melbourne up to Brisbane. We are the only nation on earth where our second-biggest city is not directly connected to our third-biggest city. They do not believe in that. $30 million is all they have put in the forward estimates for that, but they are investing it all in Sydney.
Yet the obvious one they will not build. And you know why they will not build it? Because they have got to look after their mates at Port Botany. We should be doing the logical thing and creating a corridor of commerce so the people of the Tamworth, the people of Dubbo and the people of Victoria get the capacity to link up to the mining fields of central Queensland. We would have the capacity to move product and we could create the commercial opportunities so people could get in on the ground floor. That is the sort of vision that people want. That is the sort of vision that the National Party offers. That is the sort of vision that the coalition offers.
But let's go back to the Greens. They always tell us about their economic credibility. This is how deep their economic credibility goes. They do not believe in mining, but they want the mining tax to pay for Gonski, the NDIS, Denticare and high-speed rail. That is $280 billion worth of promises. The problem we have got is even Rudd's mining tax only brings in about $100 billion. We have got in one item of their so-called fiscal oversight a $180 billion black hole. This is because they are incredible. They lack credibility. This is the conclusion people came to in Western Australia, where they have said that they are well-meaning but they are just off with the fairies. Nothing they say, if you hold their hand to the flame, makes any sense. We have got this inner urban sort of nostalgia that is desirous of the regional areas to basically give the benevolence of the resources that live in their areas to make their lives better. That would make sense because, when you go to the Greens senators, it is easy to work out what they believe in by where they live.
Senator Wright's office is in 100 King William Street, Adelaide—5000—right on the knocker. 5000—bang smack in the middle of town. We have got Larissa Waters—251 Given Street, Paddington. Paddington is a lovely spot. That is where you want to be, it is a lovely spot. Rachel Siewert—she lives in Northbridge—bang smack in the middle of Perth—6003. You cannot get much closer to the middle of the circle than that. Senator Lee Rhiannon is right out there in the sticks—she lives in Surry Hills. She is a long way out. Senator Milne—Hobart 7000—smack, bang in the middle again.
Senator Joyce, you will refer to your colleagues in this chamber by their proper titles.
Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask you to draw Senator Joyce—I do not know what random tangent he is on listing people's home addresses; I believe he is actually listing offices as far as I can tell. I ask you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to draw him back to the substance of the motion about traffic congestion in Australian cities and the challenges facing Australian residents in Australia cities—that would be great.
Thank you, Senator Ludlam, there is no point of order.
I am definitely mentioning office addresses; I would not mention their private addresses—that is their private thing.
What we find at the Manic Monkey Cafe of inner suburban Nirvanaville are the Greens offices. They are saying once more that we should be taking the wealth from regional areas and helping out the traffic congestion in the centre of Adelaide, in Surry Hills, in Paddington. This is why people believe their whole political philosophy is so fanciful. And where are they getting this money from? They are getting it from the mining tax. What don't they believe in? They don't believe in mining. What have they asked for it to do? They have asked for it to pay $280 billion worth of expenses. How much does the mining tax bring in? It brings in $100 billion. So how much is their black hole? $180 billion. What do they bang on about at the door? 'You've got a black hole.' You have just got one issue—you fall flat on your face. This is why it is just total and utter hypocrisy.
Why don't you move a motion, if you believe in the regions, to discuss the inland rail? We should be discussing sealing the third road across Australia. We only have two sealed roads going from east to west in this nation. There are only two possible ways you can go from east to west in the nation of Australia in the year of our Lord 2013 and remain on a sealed road, and that is bizarre. Why don't you move a motion about that? Why don't you move a motion about the Indigenous communities out west and how we should get mining resources to finance their services?
To be honest, I believe that the benefits from the mining boom should be invested in regional areas. That is why we believe in royalties to regions at a state level, because the royalties are a mechanism of state government, so royalties from state governments should be invested back into regional areas. I have got no arguments with that whatsoever. I think that Brendon Grylls in Western Australia has been commended by the people of his state when they gave him a seat because that is what he stood behind: royalties to regions. The issue is the absolute hypocrisy of the Greens who are becoming less believable by the moment.
Because this motion is so hypocritical and so unbelievable, it calls into question things that are going to come to light in the very near future. We have also to test the Greens' belief in whether they are going to vote for the censorship of the Australian media as it comes forward with this so-called media policy from Senator Conroy, which in regional areas is going to bring about greater centralisation. He is dead right: he said that I crossed the floor against centralisation; I absolutely did. This piece of legislation he proposes brings about greater centralisation of the media in regional areas, and it will be interesting to see whether the hypocrisy in this is also evident in how the Greens vote in that media legislation. It brings about censorship. It is absolutely bizarre.
It will be interesting to see whether the Greens, who are the shining orb of life, truth and wonder, will vote for transparency in the media in this legislation or for censorship. That will be another interesting thing. It will be interesting to see whether they vote for the guillotine to shut down the debate just like they want to shut down the media. It will be a fascinating to see as to whether they take it to a Senate inquiry, because they believe in the committee system. Will they take it to a thorough Senate inquiry or will they crawl under a rock because that is what their coalition partners, the Labor Party, tell them to do? It is all going to be there for us to see within seven days. It will be very interesting.
You cannot wonder why the people of Western Australia no longer vote for you, because then there will be other states that will not vote for you. They are watching you closely, and the Greens seem to have lost their soul—they continue to lose their soul. This is an absolutely hypocritical motion, because you do not believe in the mining tax. It says you want to get money from an industry that you do not believe in and you want to invest it in your backyard where your offices are. You are where you live, and you live in the inner urban areas. You want the money from the regional areas to prop you up.
Order! The time for the debate has now ended.
On behalf of the chair of the committee, Senator Macdonald, I present a report and Alert Digest of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I present the final report of the Rural And Regional Affairs And Transport References Committee on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin together with the
Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
While we have not got time today to discuss the full 23 recommendation of this report, what the committee and the hard-working secretariat have done over a period of time is to have already presented to the parliament an interim report which involved the coal seam gas industry. It is interesting today that a lot of the recommendations of that report are finally working their way through the system to the point where the minister has made some recommendations on water and salt et cetera in the coal seam gas industry.
This report into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin deals with some historical facts. It deals, sadly, with a lot of the political mistakes of the past, because most governments of most persuasions for all time have managed to bugger up water management in Australia—if that is the inappropriate word then 'muck up'. I have to say the present plan is more driven by politics. I think the chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority recognises that to get this into perspective and to get the political parties past the next election there was more consideration given to the politics of the management of the Murray-Darling rather than the science of the management of the Murray-Darling. To the best of knowledge, and we have made some recommendations along these lines, sadly there has not been much thought in a Murray-Darling Basin plan as to the actuarial assumptions of the science of the future. If the science of the future is 40 per cent right, by 2050 there will be very little general-purpose water in the system available per annum and we will absolutely have to reconfigure the way rural Australia manages itself. That is if the science is 40 per cent right; it might only be 10 per cent right, it might be 100 per cent right. The variation in the science most people do not want to know about, do not want to think about, but if you are a farmer you can notice the weather changing and whether it is a 50-year cycle or 50,000-year cycle I will not be around to work that out. But in the event we have to take notice and have a plan to say, 'If it is 10 per cent, this is what should happen. If it is 50 per cent right or 100 per cent right, then these things should happen'. Bear in mind that the Murray-Darling Basin is 23,400 gigs run-off—roughly 6.2 per cent of Australia's run off. The community are sick of hearing this. And 38 per cent of the run-off comes from two per cent of landscape down the back of Canberra here and north-east Victoria. The snow days are forecast to come under 10 per annum. Who is to know if it is right or wrong? If we have a two degrees increase in temperature and a 15 per cent decline in rainfall, we will get up to 35 per cent decline in run-off. If that is 40 per cent right, you can say cheerio to general-purpose water in the Murray-Darling Basin.
These are serious issues which should go beyond the politics. We absolutely should have a 50-year plan that takes into account the vagary of the science. The report mentions things like non-paddy rice. The water is only on the paddy to confine the variation in the temperature of the plant because a cold change at the wrong time for the plant sterilises the plant. They have now got plants where you do not have to do that; the plant does it for itself. It has got an inbuilt thermostat. All those things need to be taken into consideration.
I will not speak at length today but I do intend to speak at great length at another opportunity. I will give other speakers a crack at this because we are confined today, and I hope that the last speaker on this report will be good enough to ensure continuation of the debate.
This was the first inquiry I sat on when coming to this place. Indeed, I started out with an area of this inquiry which delved into the coal-seam gas industry in this country. We went to Roma in July of 2011 and heard about the impact of coal-seam gas mining in the basin from both miners and those people affected. Here we are now tabling the final report with some 24 recommendations looking to address the significant and complex issues facing the basin.
The basin's importance cannot be overstated, particularly in my home state of South Australia. To put it in perspective for those who need to quantify the massive impact that this river system makes on every Australian, it contains around 11 per cent of Australia's population and generates agricultural production worth $15 billion per annum in gross value terms. It represents about 40 per cent of Australia's total agricultural production. It is obviously around 65 per cent of Australia's irrigated farms. This is a significant factor in the economy of rural Australia and is very important for everybody. It has been a long and well-considered inquiry ably led by the chair, Senator Heffernan, and the secretariat staff, who are in the chamber today. I acknowledge their great efforts and contribution as well as those of their predecessors.
Senator Birmingham will have some comments to make about this in his portfolio relationship to the Murray-Darling Basin, but the committee does remain concerned about how the allocation of 2,750 gigalitres—the reduction in the environmentally sustainable level of take—will occur. Obviously there is discussion which relates to the environmental improvements and the water buybacks that will continue the debate around south-eastern Australia while we implement this plan.
The inquiry also found that there was an increased amount of extraction taking place out of the basin, not only with coal-seam gas but also with groundwater. As we know, river water is groundwater, it is just at a different level on this planet, and one does affect the other. As I said, the scope of the environmental works and the effectiveness of the environmental works are obviously something that the committee also identified as needing to be carefully structured to ensure that the intent of the Murray-Darling rejuvenation, or review, or this whole plan gets implemented
Also, the committee identified that there was an overallocation of water entitlements in the basin in the previous decades, which has been the role of state governments of all persuasions and which has led to the current water scarcity problems and inequity as seen by the states through this basin area. The other thing which was of concern to the committee was the different types of water entitlements and the complexity of the water entitlements. In fact, with some of the water entitlements that existed, the likelihood of getting flows in average seasons was questionable. Then there were the issues with possible water buybacks in areas which were going to flood anyway. So it was very difficult to try and identify areas where you could buy water back and where the water was going to flow on those flood plains. But we will probably hear more about that as we settle this plan down.
Another issue of profound importance through New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and, of course, Queensland was the socioeconomic effect of any of these reforms taking place. As we went on the inquiry through the country centres, district councils quite rightly made representations about their economic viability and the socioeconomic impact of the patchwork of taking water out of established irrigation regions and what that does to towns, businesses, schools, hospitals and the like. All these things are at the heart of this plan, and all these things have to be considered in a bipartisan way. We have to try to leave the politics out so that we can get over this issue which has driven this planned Murray-Darling Basin reform. Another big issue was the need for a great deal more research into the flows, the water trading environment and the proposed engineering works which this plan, if it is to be successful, takes into consideration.
We in this inquiry have made these 24 recommendations, and now we will leave it to the community and the legislators for the debate that I am sure will ensue. Before I sit down, it would be remiss of me not to remind the chamber that South Australian irrigators have been at the forefront of water efficiency for decades. After the 1968 drought, South Australian operators saw the—
They used to thieve a lot of water too.
Yes, Senator Heffernan, as you quite rightly point out, there was probably a lot of water thieving in those days. I can only suspect. However, we did not get a chance to thieve water, because we were at the back end of the water system, so we got what was left over. As you are aware, we have been very efficient—probably the leaders in this country, if not the world, in our irrigation practices. I would like to think that the communities and governments upstream and across this basin will also come to recognise that when equity is short as to how this is administered from here on out.
The recommendations are clearly articulated. There is not time in this chamber to fully cover these areas, so I would encourage those listening to have a very good look at this report, because it will have a major impact going forward on this country.
Mr Acting Deputy President, could I raise a point of order. It is really not a point of order. I just want to note in the chamber Mr Chris Curran and Mr Stephen Palethorpe. They both look very relieved because we have eventually got to this report. Do not frown there; it is right.
I rise to also make some comments on the report before us today. It has been a very long time coming. I firstly want to commend the secretariat staff: our current secretary, Stephen Palethorpe, the rest of the secretariat staff, and also Jeanette Radcliffe, who was the previous secretary and did an enormous amount of work on this report as well. I particularly want to thank the secretariat staff for their long-suffering natures in putting up with those of us on the committee.
Putting up with me!
I have to take that interjection from the chair, Senator Heffernan, about putting up with him—I didn't say it, he did! We are a rather unorthodox and unusual committee, so we are very appreciative of the time and the dedication and hard work that the staff put in. We do try to be collegiate on this committee and we do try not to give too much grief to the secretariat staff, so we thank them very much.
I want to make a couple of brief comments today, mindful that other colleagues also want to speak. We started this inquiry, two years or however long ago it was, because we did not have confidence that the process of determining the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was going to be right, that it was going to be good enough and robust enough. There were so many unanswered questions. There were so many concerns out there in the community around what the government was doing in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan that we felt it was absolutely imperative that this Senate committee try to provide some oversight and some mechanism through which we could look at evidence, look at all the issues and come up with a balanced report and a balanced set of recommendations for the government to consider and, indeed, for communities and the nation as a whole to consider. I think we have done that with due diligence and a very real concern. Even though those of us on the committee come from different states—thank you for your contribution, Senator Edwards—we do have the interests of the nation as a whole as our primary driver on this committee. While there were a few different views along the way, to say the least, I think we have managed to collectively provide something that is very useful.
If the government had been doing this process properly, in such a way that people in those communities and people outside those communities who were watching this unfold would have expected, we would never have had to do this. A point that has to be made is that the process was extraordinarily bad from this Labor government—probably one of the worst processes I have ever seen. It relates to the fact that there was so little consultation with the rural communities. No attention whatsoever was paid to the triple bottom line until it was raised by those on this side of the chamber. I have to commend my colleague Senator Joyce for the work he did in raising that particular issue and how important it was to underpinning any decision making that was going to happen around the Basin Plan. The government was just leaving out whole sections of the impacts of the plan on the community. It was looking at the environment, but it was not looking at the social, economic and environmental impacts as a whole because it was so focused on the environment.
We all want a cleaner, healthier environment in the future, but we also want sustainable regional communities into the future. What this government was saying for a period of time, and the minister at the time Senator Penny Wong said it herself, was that farmers were just going to have to get used to doing more with less. I was pointing out that the government was providing a man-made continual drought for these farmers, for these irrigators and for these towns—because it was not just about farmers and irrigators, it was about the impact on whole towns—but she said farmers were just going to have to get used to doing more with less. It is just appalling to think that that was part of the mindset that was underpinning this process to get to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Mother Nature is the referee, by the way.
I think perhaps Mother Nature will be the referee on this one. I do not particularly absolutely agree with what we have ended up with, but I think the input we have had from the coalition on this side of the chamber has at least meant that we have had an outcome that is far, far better than it otherwise would have been if the Greens and other people had got what they wanted. They wanted to have a rampant road down an environmental path, without considering this in a balanced way, so God forbid what we could have ended up with. This plan is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, and those on this side know that. But it is only because of those on this side of the chamber that we have ended up with something better than what could have been an absolute dog's breakfast.
The recommendations made by the committee are very good. What struck me when reading through them was the sorts of things we are recommending. For example:
The committee recommends that the MDBA provide a clear explanation of how 'localism' is to be implemented under the Basin Plan.
The committee recommends that the government develop and publish a detailed policy for agricultural productivity, environmental and water resource R&D in the Murray-Darling Basin.
It also recommends that there should be a research strategy for future water interception. Interception is something that most of this country—most of the decision-makers around this—does not have its head around. I have to commend Senator Heffernan for the work that he has done in raising this issue on interception, because barely anybody else talked about it until we got into it in this committee.
There are recommendations like:
… the government prioritise R&D into water infrastructure to meet the needs of farming communities …
Why is this Senate committee having to make these recommendations? The government should be doing this anyway. It just shows how out of touch this Labor government is with what is needed for these communities in the Murray-Darling Basin for our Senate committee to have to come up with these recommendations. This is something that, if the government had any sense or sensibility, and any real understanding of what is going on out there, they would have been doing anyway.
Senator Rushton is sitting next to me and nodding her head, and I will take that as an interjection! Thank you Senator Ruston. I commend her and also my colleague behind me, Senator McKenzie, for the work that they have done in trying to at least make some progress towards getting a better plan and outcome for the Murray-Darling Basin.
Conscious of my colleagues, there is—as Senator Heffernan said earlier—much to talk about around these issues. Now is not the time as we obviously have time constraints upon us. But in this report we try to get a good, balanced outcome for those in regional communities and for those in the Murray-Darling Basin communities that were not getting that approach and that tack from this Labor government. There are an awful lot of people out there in regional communities who have been hurt very badly by this process. Hopefully, the government will take into consideration properly and in a detailed way the recommendations that we have made, because they have been made on very good evidence and they have been made with the will of the Senate committee trying to get a better outcome for the people of the regional communities across the Murray-Darling Basin. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Before I start my remarks, I put on the record the appreciation of the people of the communities that I came from. I came into the process of the debate on this Murray-Darling Basin plan very late. As a person who lives on the river and as a water licence holder, we watched the whole development of the plan unfold over the last few years with complete and utter horror. It was not until I got here and realised that a committee such as the one that has produced this plan was actually in place to deal with all of the issues that the people in my community had been raising as matters that had not been addressed in the process of the plan.
So, I thank very much the members of the committee and the secretariat for taking up the work on behalf of those people who are living out there in rural and regional Australia, particularly those who live along the Murray-Darling system. Without the support that we were provided with from this committee I think we would be in a hell of a lot worse state than we are at the moment. Obviously, we support the plan. As Senator Nash said, it is far from perfect but it is a long way better than nothing. I just want to put on the record today a couple of things that I think are matters we need to watch over the coming months.
One of the things that was announced in October last year by Minister Burke and then by the South Australian Premier, Jay Weatherill, was an allocation of $265 million towards water recovery and industry regeneration programs in South Australia. This was in recognition, as Senator Edwards pointed out, of South Australia's very good and responsible track record with responsible water use over the last 40 years. The business case was supposed to be finalised before Christmas; before the end of 2012. I understand that a draft business case has only just been to presented to the department.
The other thing that is of great concern to the people in the communities in South Australia who were very grateful that they had been recognised by the allocation of this $265 million is: does the business case that has been provided to the government and developed with the South Australian government actually reflect the intent of how that money was supposed to be spent? The other thing I would also draw attention to is that Minister Burke announced $265 million: $180 million from the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program and $85 million from a fund to be established for 'research, regional development and industry redevelopment' in South Australia. I went onto the Water Industry Alliance website a few minutes before I came in here and it says that $240 million has been allocated to this project, so I would like to know where the $25 million has gone. I would also like to know how much of this funding, this $240 million that now appears to be left, is to be consumed by government departments, authorities and agencies in the administration of the Water Industry Alliance project.
The other question that still remains to be answered is: where are the plans? Where are the environmental watering plans? When are we going to see them? Without them, how do we actually know what works and measures and what changes to constraints we are going to need to be able to deliver the environmental outcomes that have been projected in the plan? Where is the impact of modelling? Where is the impact of 80,000 gigalitres a day across the border at South Australia? What is that going to do to caravan parks? What is that going to do to pastoral land that is low lying? I do not think anybody has actually bothered to really have a good, close look at it. We seem to be constantly putting the cart in front of the horse, and I do not think anybody has really looked at the potential for compensation.
One thing that we need to continually put on the record is that we must not have any more buybacks. We have spent enough of taxpayers' money on removing water out of productive use and reducing the basin's capacity to grow food. I would argue that any more cutbacks or buybacks will only have further detrimental effect on these regional communities. In the Riverland of South Australia we have lost 6,000 hectares of land that is out of production already. Projections suggest that anywhere up to a third of South Australia's irrigation water could be lost by 2024, and the flow-on impacts are absolutely massive. We should have addressed the efficiency gains through infrastructure first before we went to buyback. We did not do that, but let's call it quits now.
I would also like to draw the attention of the house to comments made by the Premier of South Australia in relation to this water industry funding: 'The funding, along with the Prime Minister's commitment to return water to the river, will provide much-needed water to our six million professional fishermen.' How can the Premier and Minister Burke be making a statement like that at the very same time that they have scrapped the Native Fish Strategy? It just does not seem to make much sense. On one hand, they are out there crowing about the fact that they have allocated all this money and they are going to achieve this for our fishermen; on the other hand, they have completely scrapped any possibility of developing a native fish strategy for the continuation and the preservation of our very important native fish.
As many people live in the Murray-Darling Basin as live in Western Sydney. Is the Prime Minister intending to visit the communities of the basin over the coming months to try and gain their hearts and their votes? I wish her all the best there!
I commend the work of the secretariat—Stephen Palethorpe, Chris Curran and the other very hardworking members of the secretariat—that helped produce this report, The management of the Murray-Darling Basin, and also the work of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, and the other members who participated on this committee. This really is the Senate committee system working at its best to drill down into an area of great public importance, of public policy importance—of importance to literally hundreds of thousands of Australians who live in the Murray-Darling Basin and to the millions of Australians who rely on the basin as one of the food bowls of Australia.
This report makes a number of key recommendations. These recommendations must not be ignored by government. I note that the committee looked into the whole issue of the Nimmie-Caira water buyback, and I am very grateful to Senator Heffernan for the work that he has done in raising this as an issue. I agree with the views of other members of the committee that the Nimmie-Caira water buyback ought to be referred for appropriate inquiry to the Australian National Audit Office. The Auditor-General's office ought to look at that whole issue as to whether all due processes were followed, because I think that there are some serious concerns about that whole process.
I think it is also important to note the matters that have been referred to by Senator Ruston and Senator Edwards. Those relate to South Australians being early adopters in the context of water efficiency measures and the $265 million fund—or is it a $240 million fund? Senator Ruston—it is not an interjection, Mr Acting Deputy President—is just putting her hands up in the air. She does not know, no-one seems to know, but it is very clear that that fund was basically an acknowledgement of the early adoption measures and water efficiency measures of South Australian irrigators. It appears to have been stalled. I am very concerned about that. This is an issue that I will take up with the new South Australian water minister, the Hon. Ian Hunter, who I must say in previous portfolios in which I have dealt with him as a state minister I have found to be a good and efficient and capable minister. This is something that we need to sort out because it is of vital importance to South Australia and to the integrity of the whole process.
I put out some additional comments in relation to this matter in addition to the very good recommendations of the committee, that there ought to be urgent evidence of the current marketplace buyback approach that will not distort the water and commodity market, that there ought to be clearer advice as to the methodology for setting the basin diversion limits, that there ought to be a close look at the comparative efficiencies of irrigation communities in the Murray-Darling Basin, and that irrigators must receive recognition for their past water efficiencies. They are just some of the additional recommendations I included in my additional comments because I believe that these are issues that must be addressed, that must be dealt with. Otherwise you will not have real equity in the scheme.
This report is a substantive report that must be dealt with as a matter of some considerable urgency. We are spending billions of dollars to get this right. It is not just the billions of taxpayers' dollars at stake; it is about the hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods and whose lives in the basin are about getting this plan right. I reiterate that I am grateful to Senator Heffernan, the chair of the committee, that the committee did recommend that the Nimmie-Caira water buyback go to the Australian National Audit Office for investigation. I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that was not made lightly. It indicates the seriousness with which the committee has considered this issue. The Australian National Audit Office ought to look at this. Obviously it is a matter for them, but I am hoping that they will look at the matter raised by the committee, because there is a lot of taxpayer money at stake. There was also a question of the integrity of the process and the actions of the New South Wales government, and the use of taxpayer funds ought to be looked at very closely by the audit office. I hope that it will do so as a matter of some urgency.
I commend this report. It is important and I am looking forward to the government's response to the very comprehensive recommendations because this is an issue that we cannot get wrong; we have to get it right for the sake of this nation and for the sake of those communities that rely on the Murray-Darling Basin.
I too rise to provide some very brief comments to what is a quality report out of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, ably chaired by Senator Heffernan, into an iconic system in our nation and one that has been a part of our national history pre- and post-European settlement, the Murray-Darling Basin. It is home to over two million people and 11 per cent of Australia's population. Forty per cent of Australia's total agricultural production comes from the basin. I could go through a whole list of produce which is proudly produced right throughout our basin but I am sure that is already on the record somewhere else, and in the interests of time I had better keep trucking.
From my own perspective as a Victorian senator in this debate and conversation, the basin in my state is home to a very hardy people. The Mallee people are hardy men and women one and all, soldier-settler blocks right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin in northern Victoria. They and those in Goulburn Valley and the upper catchment areas of Victoria have all been concerned and quite vocal throughout this very protracted process in coming to a way that we as a national body manage the Murray-Darling Basin. So, the Senate referred the inquiry to RRAT on 28 October 2010, almost 22 months ago. And here we are today: 381 submissions, 14 public hearings right throughout the Basin, two interim reports and an almost exhausted secretariat who have done a sterling job in bringing all of that research and data together to bring a report for the Senate today that, other than some additional comments from Senator Xenophon, has been agreed to. I think that is quite an achievement—something that our forefathers at Federation could not quite get to, but the secretariat has managed to get us all on the same page.
It has been this process that has taken an exhaustive amount of time. I was present at the time of the Guide to the proposed Basin Planin October 2010 in a very angry Mildura. Fruit growers were very, very angry with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and their Guide to the proposed Basin Plan. There were iterations of the proposed Basin Plan, a revised draft, the ministerial council comments on the draft proposed plan, an altered proposed plan in August 2012 and a final Basin Plan being delivered in November 2012. I, with other senators in this place, realised that it is an imperfect plan. But because we are committed to a triple bottom line on this side of the house, where environment counts in equal parts with the community and the economy, we are committed to actually making it work.
During that process the Nationals moved amendments to clarify the socioeconomic no-detriment test within the plan. Unfortunately, those amendments were not successful, but we live to fight another day. And that is what I think, within the body of this report, we flesh out quite well in chapter 7: the impact that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has had on the local community and the processes that communities have had to go through to get to the point where we are now. I think that is a really worthy chapter for understanding the local impact and why so many of us are concerned about the socioeconomic impact on the regions—that it is both people and the planet together that ensure the environment; otherwise, you are just living in a museum. Chapter 8 is another particular favourite of mine, because it focuses on the future, and it focuses on areas of research and development.
I know Senator Ruston spoke about it this morning on an earlier bill—about soldier-settlers and the things that we have learnt over time in the way we farm our nation and our patches of land: what we grow where, and how. We have made huge steps. We have gained an incredible amount of knowledge, thanks to our scientific community and also thanks to the common-sense approach of our agricultural specialists—the farmers on the ground—who have actually driven this innovation, not only this increased productivity but this increased environmental responsibility that is happening, going hand in hand in our local communities. I believe there are some key areas going forward in which we can get better at what we do—which is why I think we argued against a number in the Basin Plan in the first place, because it restricted us. We do not know what science is going to be able to deliver for us in terms of engineering solutions and infrastructure development and farming practice to do more with less water. So I think chapter 8 is fantastic. Environmental and socioeconomic development of the Basin is actually discussed and debated. This committee has been able to not just harness the conversation that was happening out in communities in regional Australia and bring it to the Senate but to distil that, analyse it and come up with some really great solutions to move forward—highlighting the issues but being a real positive contributor to the ongoing conversations that we will be having in our communities.
Just briefly, in the interests of time, I would like to point out a couple of my favourite recommendations. You might want to check out recommendation 5. From a Victorian perspective, some of the modelling that indicated we were going to have X gigalitres flowing down the system did not recognise the fact that that would flood actual people; it might actually have negative environmental impacts on its way to somewhere else. Particularly for the upper catchment in Victoria, that was an area of issues that was of particular concern for us.
And the Murrumbidgee!
Well, Senator Heffernan, the Murrumbidgee is your patch, and I know you take very good care of it. My job is the upper catchment in Victoria. It is great that our recommendation there calls for an adaptive management approach where we look at not only climate change and coal seam gas mining et cetera but also the positive and negative effects of overwatering, which is sometimes underspoken about.
Recommendation 8, where we look at the research and projects on water recovery, recommends that the research should also include socioeconomic impacts to irrigation communities of increased levels of buyback. We all know personally that anyone who lives in the basin or cares about regional Australia has seen firsthand the impact of those non-strategic buybacks early in the process. We would hate to see that sort of irresponsible behaviour continue, and we hope that it does not.
Finally, recommendation 16, where we look at socioeconomic modelling on local impacts of the Basin Plan, recommends that a strong focus on the communities likely to be most affected and strategies to address the impacts should be developed. The modelling should also include tabular or graphical data depicting the location and volumes of buyback on an irrigation district basis. Sometimes, when we take the bird's eye view of things and when we take a one-size-fits-all policy view we miss out the fact that that community and their one little milk processor or their other industries attached to the local agricultural productive capacity shut down. That means more than just farmers leaving communities; it means entire communities shutting down and the long-term, devastating effects that that can have. I commend this report; it is a quality piece of work and it is comprehensive. Well done to the committee secretariat, the chair and all those in the basin communities who gave us evidence.
I, too, join this debate to take note of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. I will be keeping my remarks relatively brief, but I congratulate the members of that committee led by Senator Heffernan, all of those who participated in this long inquiry and the secretariat for their work in producing what is a substantial report that deserves appropriate consideration from all involved in the Murray-Darling process.
As this chamber well knows, I viewed the adoption of the Basin Plan at the end of last year as a positive step forward. It was by no means perfect, but it was a step forward in what has been a long and difficult debate around the management of the Murray-Darling. However, what this report demonstrates is that that Basin Plan is a work in progress as much as it is a static document. It is not a static document, it is a work in progress and it is something that future governments of whatever persuasion will have to look at as to how they adapt, manage and improve upon it in the years ahead. We are awaiting at present the National Water Commission's report on the Basin Plan. In the interim and, I am sure, even beyond the release of that NWC this Senate inquiry's report will stand as a very important guide of the types of ongoing work, analysis and future review that the Basin Plan requires.
The report canvasses the full range of topics that need to be considered in the evolution of the Basin Plan and Murray-Darling management. It highlights the importance of considering the impacts of climate change and what impacts that will have in terms of future run-off scenarios and future water use capabilities. It highlights the need to look at the range of intercept scenarios that could occur in the future and to recognise that we are dealing with by no means a set or static system in the Murray-Darling but something that varies dramatically from year-to-year and season-to-season. The report identifies the fact that there is a lot of work still to be done in terms of environmental watering requirements, how environmental watering occurs, what environmental watering will actually mean and how it can most efficiently be delivered. Equally and very importantly, as a number of my colleagues have touched on, it looks at the socioeconomic costs and benefits of the types of things that occur as part of the Basin Plan and are mooted as some of the further activities, especially when it comes to constraints management, constraints removal, which, as I and Senator Joyce—who I note is in the chamber—have often reflected is not some amorphous thing but is very much an activity that can have real effects on real property and people's livelihoods as well.
Within the realm of the socioeconomic considerations it says that governments need to be mindful of and act on is also, of course, the matter of distressed sellers. I note the comments that have been made already about issues of buybacks and once again state the coalition's very firm commitment and belief that future buybacks should be minimised. We are deadset committed to ensuring that infrastructure projects and proper environmental works and measures are given the priority they deserve so that that is where the water is recovered from, rather than the types of non-strategic buybacks that have been prioritised by those opposite over the last few years.
The committee has highlighted again that there is a lot of work to be done as to what localism is in terms of the delivery of the Basin Plan and those issues of localism which the government has highlighted and talked about as being important to both the approach to water recovery and the use of that water in future. Yet it has really failed to spell out just how those principles of localism will be applied in practice.Communities, at too many times during the development of the Basin Plan and the debate around the Murray-Darling Basin, have felt like they have been cut out of the process. Local communities need to be front and centre in this, whichever part of the basin they are in. They need to be front and centre in providing the solutions for how water can be recovered from their communities and they need to be front and centre in ensuring that where environmental water is to be used in their communities their local knowledge, expertise and skills are applied to ensure that water is used as sensibly, effectively and efficiently as possible.
Importantly, as well, the committee has identified the fact that we need to do some long-term work to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin remains a leading food bowl for Australia and, I would certainly hope, for our region—investing in R&D and policy initiatives to drive agricultural productivity to ensure that every drop of water is used as efficiently as possible, that our farmers and irrigators are as efficient as possible and that their costs are minimised as much as is humanly possible. One of the tragedies of what we are seeing at present—as government policies, in particular the carbon tax, have driven the cost of electricity up so much—is that the nation's most efficient water users are the ones who have been penalised the most by those very policies. If you spend a lot of money piping and pumping water and, in doing so, are ensuring that you are treating every single drop preciously—that it is not evaporating, going back, leaking out of your system or anything else—you are paying a very high price for that under the policies of this government.
I do commend this report. I am confident that I, like everybody, probably do not agree with every single word in the report, but that is the nature of this debate. It is a very important and solid body of work that contributes to it. There are concerns that I continue to have about what seem to be continued delays in the Murray-Darling Basin process and the work around the Basin Plan—continued delays that see Minister Burke failing to reach an intergovernmental agreement that is so important as to how the Basin Plan will be delivered. We expected this would have been finalised at the end of last year. Here we are now, in March, still waiting to see that critical body of work done. Given all the other delays we have seen in the Basin Plan process that saw its end date pushed out from 2014 to 2019 to 2024, I really do hold concerns that we are seeing a range of other delays. But those are debates for another day. Today is a day to praise the work of the rural affairs committee on this report and to commend it to all those who have an interest in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.
I acknowledge the recommendations of the Senate References Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The recommendations are on their face quite good. But when you travel around Jerilderie, Finley, Cobar, Deniliquin, Thyra, Kurri Kurri, Stanhope, Shepparton and Benjeroop there are some many people in those communities who have serious concerns. They are very concerned about the so-called Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They are unclear what the states are doing with their water and land buybacks. These things need to be acknowledged. There is a serious body of concern in these communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. They feel that they are not being listened to. There is a hell of a lot of apprehension among the communities—the farmers and the businesses—in these towns. And it is only growing. The Senate and the government must note these concerns and address them and stop this division of our community. In this quest to help the environment, we must make sure that we do not destroy people and communities. We are not just talking about figures in a book; we are talking about individuals, their families, their communities, their schools, their children and their future. The Senate and the government needs to note these concerns, as I said, and not merely pay lip-service to them.
I will be brief. I mostly concur with the remarks of my colleague Senator Birmingham, who outlined a lot of the concerns. But I want to reinforce that we commend the work of the Senate References Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I also want to note the reality that if we are going to have irrigation in a temperate climate then we are still going to be highly reliant on the Murray-Darling Basin as the provider of Australia's food requirements. It produces 40 per cent of Australia's agriculture, 60 per cent of Australia's irrigated agriculture. It is the home for 2.1 million people. The resources of the Murray-Darling sustain my town and so many others. We have to acknowledge that so much of our nation's economic future is reliant on increasing capacity and our ability to deliver an agriculture product with an efficient use of water.
We should not put aside one of the most vital elements in the Murray-Darling Basin, the people. Some of the most iconic things in the Murray-Darling Basin are the houses that they live in. We must make sure that those people are entitled to a future. Their future is certainly not subsequent to the future of the frogs or the moss or anything else. As far as I am concerned, their lives are more important than the wildlife. As important as the wildlife is, the people come first. We have to make sure that their dignity remains so that we can sustain an economy.
Some of the actions taken thus far, such as the arbitrary purchase of water without any real thought behind it, have caused real problems. They might not be completely apparent in wet years but as soon as we have dry years again we will see that. That is why we in the coalition commit to capping buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres. That is what must happen. We know that buybacks pull the economic rug out from underneath towns. We are quite happy to look at the advantages of more efficient environmental and on-farm use of the water. But when we buy back the licence to give it to the environmental water holder, the question becomes: are they able to use it? How do we acknowledge the difference that it makes? What is the actual difference that has been made thus far? What has been compromised in regards to the social and economic future of the people who live in the basin?
More and more, we see issues surrounding imported food. On a related topic—and this was on the television last night—there are problems with imported fish products. We have now come to the conclusion that the use of antibiotics in fish means that we are eating our way into a superbug. The Australian people will demand a clean green product. The only clean, green product we can really vouch for is the one we produce ourselves. That will most likely, if it is a temperate product, be produced in the Murray Darling Basin, in an area that goes from the agricultural regions of Stanthorpe down to the agricultural regions of Murray Bridge and everywhere between. They are all linked by one river system, one river basin—obviously made up of a number of tributaries.
I commend this report and look forward to the continued growth of the economic and social future, the population and the agricultural potential and production of the Murray Darling Basin. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the 132nd report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Treaties tabled on 18 September and 30 October 2012, and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Three of the treaties examined in this report deal with Australia's relationship with international financial institutions: the African Development Bank; the African Development Fund; and the International Monetary Fund. The treaty establishing the African Development Fund and the treaty establishing the African Development Bank were considered together by the committee. Ratification of these treaties will result in Australia becoming a member of these institutions.
The African Development Bank is one of four multilateral development banks. Australia is already a member of two of these banks, the Asian Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The multilateral development banks have broad memberships encompassing both borrowing developing countries and donor developed countries. Membership of these banks is not limited to the regions in which the banks are based. Many OECD countries are members of all four banks.
The African Development Bank's objective is to support the economic and social development of African countries by promoting investment in projects that reduce poverty and improve living conditions. The bank works by mobilising both African and worldwide resources to invest in African economic development. Resources are usually provided through partnership arrangements between the bank and other development agencies.
The African Development Fund is a subsidiary of the African Development Bank, formed to provide low-cost loans for projects with long-term maturities or non-financial returns such as roads, education and health. Membership of the fund is a prerequisite for membership of the bank. Australia will be seeking to join both institutions at the same time. The committee was assured that the bank's and the fund's interests are parallel to Australia's international development interests. The bank's and fund's priorities are well aligned with Australia's aid programs' strategic goals as set out in Australia's Comprehensive Aid Policy Framework. The cost of membership of the fund will be about A$165 million over eight years. Bank membership is likely to cost between A$46 million and A$92 million over the same period.
Unlike the common perception, many African countries are, on the whole, dynamic, modern and stable. The committee also notes that many of Australia's competitors from North America, Europe and Asia have been bank members for some time. The committee hopes that ratification of these treaties will ensure that Australia forms a close relationship with African nations.
The report also contains the committee's consideration of the loan agreement between Australia and the International Monetary Fund. Australia has been a member of the IMF since 1947 and shares the IMF's interest in promoting international monetary cooperation, facilitating trade and contributing to employment growth, and assisting member states in financial difficulty. The recent financial crisis precipitated by the collapse of the United States housing market has resulted in a significant drain on the resources of the IMF. The agreement's purpose is to temporarily increase the IMF's resources for crisis prevention by making available approximately A$6.8 billion for the IMF to draw on if needed. The agreement is the first such arrangement entered into by Australia. Under the agreement, any funds drawn by the IMF will be repaid with interest. The committee agrees that Australia has an interest in ensuring that the IMF is adequately resourced to assist member states in financial difficulty, and consequently supports ratification of the treaty.
There were two other agreements between the Australian government and the government of Japan. Again, the committee was of the view that they should be entered into.
I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's third report of 2013 on the examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
SENATE TABLING STATEMENT
WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH 2013
In this third report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for 2013 the committee has considered 29 bills introduced during the period 5 to 28 February 2013 and 300 legislative instruments registered between 5 January and 15 February 2013.
One bill and a number of instruments were introduced without statements of compatibility and the committee proposes to write to the relevant Ministers seeking advice as to the reason for this.
The committee has decided that 17 bills require further examination and has written to the relevant Ministers seeking further information. The remaining 12 bills do not appear to raise human rights compatibility concerns.
The committee has sought further information in relation to 4 legislative instruments before forming a view about their human rights compatibility. It has decided to consider one instrument as part of the package of legislation relating to the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012. The committee has also deferred its consideration of another instrument to allow closer examination of the issues raised.
The committee will write to the relevant Ministers, in a purely advisory capacity, in relation to 83 legislative instruments that do not appear to raise any human rights compatibility concerns but are accompanied by statements of compatibility that do not fully meet the committee's expectations providing guidance on the preparation of statements of compatibility.
The remaining 211 instruments do not appear to raise any human rights compatibility concerns and are accompanied by statements of compatibility that the committee considers to be adequate.
The committee has considered sixteen ministerial responses to comments made in previous reports and has concluded its examination of seven of these pieces of legislation. The committee has suggested some modifications to the explanatory memorandum in its comments on one bill and has suggested the inclusion of safeguards for two bills.
Generally speaking, the responses received have been both timely and comprehensive. Unfortunately a few have not addressed the questions posed by the committee and two responses have been received well after the legislation in question has been passed. This is a source of some frustration to the committee as it would prefer to conclude its examination of legislation while the legislation is still before the Parliament.
A number of the bills considered by the committee in this report have prompted it to reflect on some fundamental principles with regard to its role in the scrutiny of legislation.
The first of these is scrutiny of the human rights impacts of appropriation bills.
In commenting on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013 the committee has noted that it does not anticipate it will generally be necessary for it to make substantive comments on such bills.
Nonetheless, the committee has set out its expectation that the incorporation of human rights considerations into the underlying budgetary processes, where appropriate, would provide the most practical approach to ensuring that human rights are taken into account in the development of policy and legislation. The committee has stated that it would find it helpful if the statements of compatibility that accompany appropriation bills identify any proposed cuts in expenditure which may amount to retrogression or limitations on human rights.
The next principle is the role of principal acts in the committee's scrutiny of bills and instruments.
The committee has noted that where an amending bill incorporates the provisions of an existing Act, there is a tendency for the proponent of the legislation to focus purely on the extent to which the amendments engage human rights and not consider the human rights compatibility of provisions in the Act that are to be applied or extended by the amending legislation.
In its comments on the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill in this report, the committee has set out its expectation that, in such circumstances, the statement of compatibility should include an analysis of the human rights implications and compatibility of the provisions of the existing or parent Act as they are applied or extended by the amending legislation. The committee expects that this practice will be adopted even where the parent Act commenced operation before the commencement of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
This approach is consistent with the committee's functions under that Act in two respects. First, the operation of amendments have to be analysed in terms of their legal effect and practical impact, which can only be done by reviewing their operation in the statutory framework of which they form part. Second, such a review contributes to the committee's performance of its mandate 'to examine Acts for compatibility with human rights, and to report to both Houses of the Parliament on that issue'.
The committee has iterated this view in its comments on the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2013, which amends the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 which was passed on 23 August 2012.
In the case of this bill, the committee has also taken the opportunity to set out its expectation regarding the human rights scrutiny of national co-operative or uniform schemes of legislation resulting from intergovernmental agreements.
While the minor amendments proposed by the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2013 do not give rise to any human rights concerns of themselves, the committee considers that the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 does.
The bill for this Act was not subject to scrutiny by this committee as it was introduced before the committee had commenced its work examining bills. The committee has therefore taken the opportunity to consider the amending bill in the context of the principal Act.
In its discussion of the two pieces of legislation, the committee has noted the challenges for human rights scrutiny posed by national co-operative schemes of legislation. In particular, the committee has noted that, as such legislation is formulated following the conclusion of an intergovernmental agreement, there may be a very limited, or no, possibility for a legislature which has the function of assessing human rights compatibility to do so at a time when such consideration may influence the final content of the legislation.
The committee has stated that, in its view the issue of compatibility with human rights should be an integral part of the development of any national scheme legislation. The committee is concerned that this does not appear to have been the case on this occasion. The committee has stated its view that draft national scheme legislation should be accompanied by a human rights analysis, both during intergovernmental negotiations and during any public consultations undertaken. The committee intends to seek information on whether existing procedures or agreements relating to the negotiation of intergovernmental agreements ensure that compatibility with human rights is an integral and explicit part of the design of such schemes and implementing legislation.
I commend the report to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
I would just like to say happy birthday, Bryan.
I seek leave—
To say happy birthday to Bryan.
to wish a happy birthday to Bryan and to move a notice of motion.
by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Royal Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria on 14 March 1863 established the Anglican Diocese of Goulburn, giving Goulburn City status and making it Australia’s first inland city,
(ii) 14 March 2013 is the 150th anniversary of the declaration of Goulburn as a city,
(iii) St Saviour’s Anglican Cathedral, designed by Edmund Thomas Blacket, was completed in 1884, and the Catholic Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul’s in 1890, and
(iv) Goulburn’s rich heritage since its settlement in the 1820s;
(b) recognises the contribution of Goulburn’s institutions to the expansion and economic development of southern New South Wales since the 1820s; and
(c) congratulates Goulburn and its citizens on its sesquicentenary.
Question agreed to.
The President has received messages from the House of Representatives forwarding the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2013, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013 and the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2013 for concurrence.
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed on the Notice Paper as indicated on today’s Order of Business. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Act Amendment Bill 2013
Today I introduce the Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Act Amendment Bill 2013.
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Act 1988 to grant the ACT Legislative Assembly the power to determine its own numbers without reference to the Commonwealth.
The current process to change the number of members of the ACT Legislative Assembly requires a resolution to be passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly and then regulations to be made by the Commonwealth to change the size of the Assembly from the specified number of members under section 8(2) of the Act, that then receive support from the Assembly. This Bill grants the Assembly the power to independently determine and amend its own numbers and removes the Commonwealth role in the process.
The Centenary of Canberra year presents us with a timely opportunity to reflect on Australia’s national capital and all that it has achieved over the last 100 years.
Since the ACT was granted self-government 25 years ago, the ACT has grown into a fully functional, self-governing territory with a vibrant and engaged community and a Legislative Assembly that is recognised as a regional leader.
This Bill acknowledges the capacity of the ACT to run its own affairs, and provides it the power to determine the number of members it requires in its Legislative Assembly to efficiently and effectively perform its functions.
This Bill does not change the size of the Assembly. It amends the mechanism by which the size of the Assembly can be changed by removing the Commonwealth’s role in the process of approving amendments to the size of the Assembly, and vesting this power into the Assembly to independently fulfil this function. The Bill incorporates a requirement for any change to the size of the Assembly to be passed by a two thirds majority of the members of the Assembly. By promoting the need for bipartisan support for such changes to the governance of the territory, a safeguard is present, protecting our democratic traditions.
Questions about size of the ACT Legislative Assembly and the datedness of a mature parliament relying on another parliament to determine its size have been raised on multiple occasions. Only last year the ACT Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure conducted a review of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act. The Committee’s report, released in August recommended amending the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act to allow for the Legislative Assembly to determine its size without reference to the Commonwealth.
And this is not only a recommendation of the ACT Assembly.
In his 2011 review of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the ACT, Canberra Capital Place, Dr Allan Hawke AC, provided advice to this Government on how to find the right balance for planning responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the ACT Government.
In response to that review the Australian Government and the ACT Government agreed to work collaboratively to:
I am pleased to report to the House that all these initiatives are underway, but, we also considered the gravity of Dr Hawke’s discussion on political representation in the Territory and the size of the Assembly.
While his review did not make a specific recommendation around the size of the Assembly, because it was outside the terms of reference, Hawke made it clear:
“In light of the importance of robust and accountable democratic processes in the ACT – characterised by high standards of parliamentary debate, a legislative program covering a range of complex issues, and an active Assembly Committee process – and the significant under-representation of the citizens of the ACT, there is an overwhelming case for increasing the size of the Assembly.”
So, this Government is responding to this additional challenge in Dr Hawke’s 2011 report with action.
The reasons for pursuing this Bill are clear and sound.
It is appropriate: the ACT Legislative Assembly is a mature parliament. It is appropriate that it should assume responsibility for determining the number of members needed to ensure its efficient functioning and the mechanism with which the size of the Legislative Assembly is altered.
The ACT Legislative Assembly is capable and ready: the passage of the Bill would provide just recognition of the maturity and capacity that the ACT Legislative Assembly has demonstrated since it attained self-government. It is a vote of confidence in the capacity of the ACT to manage its own affairs and its governance arrangements.
It simplifies a complex process: the Bill reduces administrative effort and streamlines the process to effect change in the numbers of the ACT Legislative Assembly.
The Centenary year is an apt time for the Commonwealth to make this simple yet enduring change for the future of the ACT.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013
The Bill will introduce a number of measures to further strengthen and streamline the
Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the Act), resulting in more effective and efficient administration of the Australian Government’s Higher Education Loan Program or ‘HELP’, specifically, FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP.
The Bill builds on amendments made in the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Act 2012, and further supports recommendations made in the Post Implementation Review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme Final Report 2011. The amendments follow extensive consultation and contribute to commitments made under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform.
The Bill will enhance the quality and accountability framework underpinning HELP by providing for the automatic revocation of providers in specific circumstances where there is a high risk to students and public monies. Those circumstances will apply where a provider’s registration with the relevant tertiary education regulator ceases, or if a winding-up order is made by a court against a provider. Importantly, provider protection measures have been included in the Bill as it is a condition that automatic revocation action cannot occur before all review or appeal action by an Administrative Appeal Tribunal or court has been finalised.
The Bill will strengthen the compliance framework underpinning HELP by enabling the Minister to issue a provider with a compliance notice. This will enhance the range of provider compliance actions available to the Government in circumstances that present risk to students and public monies where suspension or revocation action is not warranted.
The amendments will also provide for the streamlining of administrative arrangements to allow the Government to amend a provider’s approval when informed of a change in business entity name, in a more efficient manner.
The existing arrangements for seeking information from the relevant tertiary education regulators are further enhanced by consolidating these provisions into one general provision. This amendment will also have the added benefit of reducing the complexity of the Act.
Further, the Bill will enable individuals to continue to repay their HELP debt based on appropriately calculated repayment thresholds by updating the calculation of indexation to apply to HELP repayment thresholds. This amendment reflects the move by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from quarterly to biannual publication of average weekly earnings data.
Finally, the Bill will improve consistency across the tertiary sector by updating qualification definitions in the Act to align with changes to the Australian Qualifications Framework.
Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2013
In January this year, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the Governor-General issued Letters Patent appointing six commissioners who will work together as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. This Bill makes important changes to the Royal Commission Act to assist the Commission in conducting its inquiry.
Speaker, this Government has a proud track record of helping the vulnerable, and working to deliver reforms that will help future generations of Australians.
The Gillard Labor Government has not shied away from the big challenges. It has not been afraid to take action and introduce the reforms, for example the Clean Energy Future Plan, National Disability Insurance Scheme and Gonski education reforms, which will shape this country for years to come.
Establishing a Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse is another of these important initiatives — one which will shine a light on the injustices that have occurred in places where the most vulnerable in our society should have been cared for and protected.
The Commission will investigate and make recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in institutions. Its recommendations will provide an opportunity to make sure that the failings of those institutions in the past is never allowed to happen again, and that" survivors receive the support and justice they deserve.
The establishment of this Commission is the Government's recognition of all those who have tried to bring the horrors of institutional child abuse out into the open and been ignored, scorned, shunned or simply disbelieved.
The voices of these individuals must be heard. Victims must feel properly supported to stand up to tell their stories, and the Government must acknowledge how such horrific crimes have affected their lives.
The Government recognises that for many people this will be very difficult. It is not going to be an easy process, but that does not mean that any of us should shy away from the challenge. We need to do away with the culture of silence. We need to listen to what has gone before so we can do everything possible to stop these crimes happening again.
Those affected should draw strength from the knowledge that, through their bravery, the Royal Commission will truly understand the horrors it is dealing with and be assisted in developing recommendations on what institutions and governments should do in the future to better protect children against child sexual abuse.
In developing the Terms of Reference for the Commission, the Government worked with people from all parts of Australia. The Government listened to organisations representing survivors of child abuse, community and legal leaders, law enforcement, governments and religious organisations.
One of the key themes that arose in this consultation process was the importance of having hearing processes sensitive to the needs of victims, so that they feel supported in preparing and giving evidence. And this bill will assist the Commission to put into place the most appropriate processes to hear the stories of those affected.
The bill will allow the Chair of the Commission, the Honourable Justice Peter McClellan AM, to authorise a fellow commissioner to hold a private session to receive information from victims and others affected by child sexual abuse. A traditional Royal Commission hearing setting will not generally serve as the best way to facilitate participation in the Royal Commission by those people affected by child sexual abuse.
For many, telling their story will be deeply personal and traumatic. While we cannot know at this time how many people will wish to participate, sadly we know that this crime has affected many in our community.
In order to carry out its inquiry, the private session mechanism will give the Royal Commission greater flexibility to directly hear from a potentially large number of people. Participants will not need to tell their accounts on oath or affirmation. These private sessions will not be open to the public and participation will be voluntary.
Acknowledging the distressing nature of these personal accounts, the Commissioners will be able to authorise support people to attend with witnesses giving information at a private session. Importantly, the Bill will also establish protections for those giving information at a private session. These protections are in essence the same as would apply when a witness is giving evidence at a hearing.
The second main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Chair of a Royal Commission to authorise one or more members to hold a hearing to take evidence. The Bill refers to this measure as an `authorised member hearing'. Currently under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 a hearing can only be held by the Commission as a whole or by a quorum.
In the case of multi-member Commissions, the proposed amendment will give a Chair Commissioner the means to efficiently distribute hearing workload where he or she is satisfied that this would be appropriate. This measure would have general application to Royal Commissions, including the Royal
Commission into Institutional Reponses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The Royal Commission must be thorough, but it must also move as quickly as possible to cover the masses of evidence, and personal stories, to help craft the necessary institutional reforms. This amendment will help to achieve that goal.
Child sexual abuse is a terrible crime. The Royal Commission will expose the far-reaching consequences of children affected by this abuse. It takes away the right of every child to grow up safe and happy. But as a community we have previously refused to face the fact that the systems and processes in place may not have only allowed this crime to occur in institutions where children should have been safe, but also assisted in making sure that the crime never came to light.
The Government cannot undo the past. It cannot take away the pain. But we can listen and we can bear witness. And, when the Royal Commission has completed its work, we can act to prevent these crimes and injustices from happening again.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on legislation from the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and the Community Affairs Legislation Committees, as listed at item 18 on today’s Order of Business, together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committees.
Ordered that the reports be printed.
I rise to speak to the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, which amends the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The fishing industry, like so many other primary industries in this country, is vital to Australia's productivity, and it is an industry that the Gillard Labor government has neglected in its time in office. Senators Joyce and Williams would no doubt know that there has been a procession of agriculture ministers in the time of the Rudd and Gillard governments—five, I believe—which is an indication of the contempt in which Labor holds this very important industry.
As a South Australian senator, the fishing industry is very near and dear to my heart, and is a vital cog in the economic livelihood of my state. Just last month I visited Port Lincoln on the west coast of South Australia, and Robe on the south-east coast, with my colleague and shadow parliamentary secretary for fisheries and forestry, Senator Richard Colbeck. Port Lincoln is a major tuna fishing area situated on the southern tip of the Eyre Peninsula, and it has a successful aquaculture industry that farms tuna, yellowtail kingfish, abalone, mussels and oysters, and houses some of the biggest research and experimental farming areas in seahorses and spiny lobsters. Robe is renowned for its extensive shark and lobster fishing, all ecosystems very well managed by industry but, sadly, treated with contempt by government.
The debate on this bill gives me the perfect opportunity to discuss how successful Port Lincoln has become and how Labor's incompetence has harmed what is a very important industry in a state now technically in recession. Not only is Port Lincoln home to Makybe Diva, the winner of three Melbourne Cups, but it also boasts TIME Magazine's Best Invention of 2009: tank-bred tuna. Cleanseas developed the technology to enable bluefin tuna to spawn in captivity, and this has meant the entire lifecycle of southern bluefin tuna can be carried out in a commercial setting. This is unprecedented, which is why it was afforded such a prestigious honour in 2009.
The tuna industry is key to Port Lincoln, and the people involved are very conscious of putting back into the region to make sure that the locals and the town thrive. In fact, at least one in seven of the fishing town's 14,000 residents is employed by the $260 million fish industry alone. Speaking with the tuna industry I have found they have great concerns about the government and its lack of understanding of how they operate. This bill is a perfect example of that lack of understanding displayed by the two ministers whose portfolios impact this important industry: namely, Senator Ludwig and Minister Burke.
This bill looks to facilitate the implementation of electronic monitoring, or e-monitoring, in Commonwealth fisheries. That in itself would be a very good initiative if it were finalised and proven. This e-monitoring will now use new stereo video technology which at this point in time is unautomated. This industry has great concerns that this initiative will cause substantial husbandry and quota management problems in the Australian industry, but they do not feel that the government is listening to them or their concerns, which is something of a hallmark of this government. It is what we in the political sphere call an 'announce and defend' style of management. Whilst we all encourage the use of new technology to improve productivity, it is imperative that we listen to the industry. The ministers should listen to their industry. When I spoke to the industry they had serious concerns that the new technology was not ready to be used because it was not fully developed.
The information collected through this e-monitoring is required by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, a very credible government authority—AFMA as we know it—to ensure those in the industry are following the rules and regulations. In the past this information has been gathered through logbook returns, vessel monitoring systems and independent AFMA observers on the ships. These new systems have been trialled, but they are not complete. It is vital that, if we are to roll out new technologies and put new systems in place to increase efficiencies and monitoring of the fishing industry, we make sure the new systems work and they do not inhibit productivity at a practical level. That just makes sense. From the tuna industry people I spoke to the message was strong that the Gillard Labor government is proposing a new system that is not better but will cost at least double what the current system costs. That has a familiar ring, Senator Williams.
Yes, more cost and no benefit.
Yes Senator Williams. In the short term the government is again failing industry and business by not fully exploring technologies that work. It does not operate collaboratively with industries to ensure that it provides practical outcomes. The industry is happy to move into new ground and eager to have new technologies streamline their operations and the operation of the industry the world over, but they want the technologies simply to work. They do not currently work.
We held a local industry forum with the number of attendees in the hundreds. All of the people I spoke to at the local industry forum were scathing of Minister Ludwig, questioning why he had dropped the ball on their issues. Like the mining tax and the carbon tax, this government is again providing problems and not a solution to take this country forward. This government is happy to take away our competitive advantage in complete isolation of the world business stage and the world industry stage and to place a burden on this vibrant industry that will prevent them putting back into a community such as Port Lincoln. It just seems somewhat ludicrous.
It is not just the tuna industry that has the issues. When it was known that we were in town, fishers came from everywhere to have their say on where this government was failing to help and in a lot of cases actually hindering their prosperity. It is no wonder that the ministers never venture into the regions where they overlay these legislative burdens; if they did, they would find out how palpable the views on this legislation are.
The prawn industry has its issues. The abalone industry also raised concerns about the ridiculous red tape that is stifling their productivity and preventing them from achieving their true potential. The abalone industry has concerns about its viability—fancy that. This is a very much revered industry with a product which goes all over Asia. It is a high-value item, and they are worried about their viability. In fact, the Abalone Council of Australia met with Safe Work Australia because the workplace safety regulations were developed recently with no consultation with any commercial dive harvest organisation around Australia. That is right, no consultation. Quite reasonably, the Abalone Council appreciates the need for harmonisation of legislation around the country, but it is the height of arrogance not to consult them before implementing these changes. Regulations and legislation need to be workable for an industry to survive. The industry does not want the regulations removed—they want a safe work environment—but they do want to make the legislation workable and practical.
Marine parks were another serious concern for the industry. I have spoken numerous times in this chamber about the impact that both federal and state Labor marine parks regulations are having on both recreational and commercial fishers not only in South Australia but around the country. We on this side of the chamber know about the lack of consultation and unscientific designation of marine parks. The science is being held to account at numerous times by eminent scientists, yet the minister remains mute on any review for both recreational and commercial fishers. The fishers of Australia want more than anyone to ensure that the fishing environment in their region is sustainable, and to suggest otherwise is just mischievous. This is their livelihood or their recreation; it is their passion, and they want it to be there for the generations to come. The marine parks proposal has commercial fishers very concerned that they will be pushed closer to shore and on top of the recreational fishers, which pits fisher against fisher. That is hardly a result that any government would be looking at for an outcome. The fishers that I spoke with believe the government has not given this proper consideration and that the government has come up with a recipe for disaster. The industry was asking me why they have not seen or heard from Minister Ludwig or Minister Burke—again, announce and defend. Australia already imports more than 70 per cent of the seafood we consume. I think Senator Joyce said this morning that it is currently at 72 per cent. Under Labor's plan this will only grow. As recently as last Friday, I went to a supermarket freezer to try to buy some fish for the weekend, and I struggled to find anything that was grown or produced in Australia in that entire freezer compartment. Senator Back, you would know how distressing that would be for anybody who is looking to ensure that they support the Australian fishing industry. When you see a packet stating 'whiting' you would assume, if you were in South Australia, that it would be local whiting. But it said 'Product of Thailand'. That whiting is a bit different from the King George whiting that I have come to expect, know and love from my native South Australia.
While the Gillard Labor government and Ministers Ludwig and Burke have failed to take into consideration the future need for seafood from a sustainable source, with the demand predicted to grow by 850,000 tonnes by 2020, I suggest that they are both paying lip service to this industry. They promote how wonderful and important the industry is—and rightly so—but their actions suggest otherwise. I would like to draw the attention of those opposite to the hypocrisy of their South Australian Labor colleagues when it comes to the fishing industry. Late last year, the South Australian Labor Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Gail Gago, said, 'South Australians are spoilt for home-grown choice.' In the lead-up to Christmas, Minister Gago encouraged South Australians to eat South Australian seafood, including 'a seafood platter gloriously piled with smoked salmon, marinated calamari and octopus, Spencer Gulf King Prawns.' She went on to explain the benefits of sourcing our food from within our state when she said, 'Buying local food and beverages supports our farmers and producers, which in turns helps generate income, create jobs, build our regions and boost the economy.' I agree with that, but if you are going to talk the talk you have to walk the walk. And when you are the minister for agriculture and fisheries you actually have to make the difference and ensure that these things come to hand.
On 11 February this year, the minister claimed that the South Australian government's strategic priority of premium food and wine was one of seven key areas on which the state government was focusing its efforts. And no doubt the federal government's food plan will equally promote Australia's premium food. Then, on 1 March 2013, at one of the state's premier tourism and sporting events, the Clipsal V8 race, guests in the South Australian government's own suite were offered fish. It was Queensland barramundi. There is nothing wrong with Queensland barramundi; however, I know that the aquaculture industry in South Australia is very successful in growing barramundi. I think that, if Minister Gago is going to talk the talk, she should walk the walk. Labor just do not get it. And, just as South Australian Labor are trying to promote South Australian seafood to the world, federal Labor are doing the same with Australian seafood—but they are both so hypocritical about it.
You bet we are!
It is good to see you are awake on the other side. Do you really want to push for more production offshore with these marine parks, Senator Feeney? Do you feel all warm and cosy about the fact that you are going to lock up one of the biggest marine park areas in the world? What you completely ignore is that all you are doing is pushing that fishing into unsustainable regions around us in the Asia-Pacific region.
While this bill looks to make changes to the closure of fisheries, the waiver of levies and the liability of corporations and other principles, Labor are missing the bigger picture. In the longer term, we need to look at freeing up the impasse that has come about with obtaining free trade agreements with China and South Korea. I have got your attention now, Senator Feeney, because surely you would also be disappointed with the progress that your government is making. I pointed out earlier today that our $1 billion a year beef trade is significantly disadvantaged in South Korea because we do not have an agreement and there has been no urgency to get an agreement—and we did not hear anything from the Minister for Foreign Affairs about this at all when he was asked in question time. To listen and to understand the issues facing the fishing industry was the main purpose of my visit around South Australia several weeks ago. As I pointed out to the locals, who confirmed my suspicions, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, and the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Burke, have largely been absent from this region of Australia for a very long time. That is telling on Labor's attitude toward this industry, the country and the bush—given that Lincoln and Robe are the source of more than 60 per cent of the country's seafood. Rather than standing in the chamber postulating, I challenge the minister to get down there, talk to those fishermen and listen to them.
Thank you, Senator Edwards. You have certainly whetted our appetites for dinner tonight. I call Senator Back.
Thank you, Mr Deputy President. If I were relying on your fishing expertise I also would be lining up behind Senator Edwards. On the face of it, isn't it wonderful to be able to stand and actually support some amendments to legislation—in this case, the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2012. So it was with some degree of enthusiasm that I also consulted members of the fishing industry, only to be told by one of them that the best way to describe this Labor government is as a CFZ—a consultation-free zone. Unfortunately, I pick up on the comments of my colleague Senator Edwards. The point he makes and that the fishers have made to me around Western Australia is that there has been a total lack of consultation with people who are highly skilled, who have enormous investment over long periods of time and whose families would normally have been looking to follow them into this industry, but consultation by Minister Ludwig and now Minister Burke really means dictation—being dictated to and picking up the pieces afterwards.
Again, on the face of it, electronic monitoring in relation to Commonwealth fisheries is something to be applauded. When the time is right, when the technology is mature, if we are able to use it to actually improve surveillance and to reduce costs—heaven forbid that that might ever happen under a Labor government, in the sense that it may no longer be necessary to have the actual number of observers on vessels—of course it would be the subject of strong support. As a person who has spent some time working in the electronics industry, particularly in relation to auditing of high-value assets, I know the value of this technology—particularly, linking it to satellite, GPS and other technologies, the potential is there. But when I ask these people, 'To what extent have you been consulted? To what extent are you satisfied with the validity and the accuracy of data?' it all starts to fall apart.
In the time available to me this evening, I would like to reflect, if I may, for a moment on an area of the industry that has been high value but is high risk, and that of course is the subantarctic fishing areas which are so valuable to Australia. It is tremendous to have this evening in the chamber with me my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald, who in his capacity as fisheries minister under the John Howard government actually applied in 2000 and afterwards a high level of protection to the waters fished by Australians in our economic exclusion zone. I also give credit, if I may, to our leader, Senator Abetz, who in his turn, I understand, was also involved here; and my predecessor, the then Customs minister Chris Ellison. Because of the work that they did, we got to the stage where we did actually have a high level of protection, particularly for those of our fishermen involved in the Patagonian toothfish industry. More particularly, listening to Senator Feeney, he is quite right about sustainability, but our government, Senator Feeney, is something unusual, something you would not know too much about: we actually did something about it. We protected our fishing industry and we protected that zone against the rapacious illegal fishing of that high-value product.
I said to my fishing colleagues the other day: 'Give me some idea of the value of this particular fishery.' They said: 'Well, Chris, they fish all year round, regardless of season, and 200 tonnes of Patagonian toothfish yields them some A$4 million.' Isn't that amazing? So of course I went looking and I started to examine whether or not this government had followed the lead of the Howard government and fisheries ministers Abetz and Macdonald to see what level of protection we now had for this economic zone and for our fishermen in the subantarctic area.
I immediately go to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, and it is all good news. The Australian government, it says on the website, 'takes the protection of its sovereign territories and assets very seriously'. It speaks about illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean, and it presents a great story about the Southern Ocean patrol vessel, Ocean Protector. I went on to read that, as a result of this excellence by the now Labor government, there is 'a level of surveillance', and 'apprehended vessels operating illegally in this remote area can expect to be apprehended'. Of course it goes on to speak about the involvement with France. And thank heavens France is involved—I will explain why in a moment.
We are then told that in 2009-10 the government committed an additional 80 patrol days per year. It then went on to tell us that the Ocean Protector is available for operations 300 days per annum. Isn't this exciting! And it 'undertakes patrols in the Southern Ocean' and they are 'part of Australia's commitment to intercepting vessels and apprehending people suspected to be illegally fishing in ecologically fragile subantarctic waters'. I do not know whether Senator Feeney was in some way involved in the writing of this. We then went on to learn that they would be undertaking marine patrols for a minimum of 120 days per year in the Southern Ocean. Isn't this wonderful! The 'desired outcomes of the program are the protection of the Patagonian'—
Debate interrupted.
I rise in tonight's adjournment debate to reflect on International Women's Day 2013 and some of the events that occurred to celebrate this important day.
Of course, as senators in this chamber would be aware, 2013 International Women's Day was celebrated on Friday, 8 March. Many here would have had an opportunity to attend the many and varied events that were held over the last week across Australia to celebrate the milestones and social, economic and political achievements and importantly to discuss challenges before us. There were many, many hundreds of International Women's Day events that were sponsored, organised and supported by schools, the corporate sector, trade unions, women's groups, governments and many other organisations and individuals.
International Women's Day can be traced back to the USA in February 1909 when the first National Women's Day was celebrated to honour women who had protested against working conditions in the garment industry the previous year. Since that time International Women's Day has developed a long and proud history of drawing attention to issues that affect women. Nationally and internationally, events to celebrate International Women's Day were held and, in Tasmania, there were also some wonderful local events taking place.
On Wednesday, 6 March, I was able to attend the annual International Women's Day Breakfast, along with hundreds of other women and a smattering of men—they are more than welcome—and the guest speaker was former Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. Natasha, as we would expect, gave a wonderful speech, both entertaining and heart-warming, with a strong message about discrimination and equality. As we know, Natasha Stott Despoja is an inspiration to women and plays an important role in public life through the media and her work in the mental health area.
I also attended the annual Unions Tasmania International Women's Day Quiz Night, which is an excellent event organised by the President of Unions Tasmania, Roz Madsen, and the Unions Tasmania Women's Committee. Again, it was an excellent turnout, with over 100 people in attendance. The money raised went to the bushfire appeal to assist local communities impacted by Tasmania's summer bushfires.
On that night I also had the pleasure of being able to present International Women's Day Awards, which Unions Tasmania awards each year. Of the many awards that were announced on the night, I would particularly like to congratulate Leanne Cohen from HACSU and Robyn McQueeney from the AMWU on receiving International Women's Day Awards in recognition of their work in support of the women's movement.
The theme for this year's International Women's Day is 'A promise is a promise: time for action to end violence against women.' Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and Minister for Disability Reform, said on International Women's Day, when talking about what the theme was for this year:
And it is time.
Because we have seen too many tragedies recently.
In Pakistan, where 14 year old Malala was shot because she wanted to go to school.
In India, where the brutal rape of a young woman on a bus has acted as a catalyst for others to stand up and protest. And here in Melbourne, where the murder of Jill Meagher shocked our entire city.
UN figures show that 603 million women live in countries where violence against women is not considered a crime.
Sadly, in Australia, around one in three women have experienced physical violence and almost one in five have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15.
The government has implemented the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. It is a 12-year strategy, running from 2010 to 2022. The plan brings together governments from across Australia to make a real and sustained reduction in the levels of violence against women. It delivers an unprecedented focus on preventing violence by raising awareness and building respectful relationships in the next generation.
The national plan has been built from new evidence, based on research and extensive consultation with experts and the community. By working together we can challenge attitudes and behaviours that allow violence to occur and make it clear that all Australian governments say no to violence against women. To build upon this plan, the Prime Minister announced a new anti-slavery initiative, which seeks to eliminate slavery from Australia and overseas. Over the past decade more than 20 million people from around the world have been subject to forced labour, slavery and human trafficking. That is why we are implementing a whole-of-government strategy which improves procurement arrangements to assist in identifying and stamping out slavery.
As part of the federal Labor government's celebration of International Women's Day, my colleague the Minister for the Status of Women and member for Franklin, Julie Collins MP, travelled to New York to lead Australia's delegation at the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. This is the world's main policymaking body, at which countries agree to set concrete recommendations to be implemented to improve gender equality. Whilst visiting the United States of America, Minister Collins also participated in a panel discussion in Washington, examining domestic and international initiatives aimed at improving gender equality and also attended the International Women of Courage Ceremony.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy President, as you can see, this year's International Women's Day was celebrated in a number of ways all over the world. The message remains the same, no matter what world events were held and that is that discrimination and violence against women and girls have no place in modern society and governments around the world must continue to work together and stand together to ensure that we eliminate violence against women and girls.
As the United Nations Women Executive Director, Michelle Bachelet, said in her 2013 International Women's Day Message:
… I join every individual who believes that change is possible. We are guided by a founding principle of the United Nations: the equal rights of men and women.
All around the world, our voices are rising, and silence and indifference are declining. Change is possible. And change is happening.
I rise to talk about Bankwest. Recently we had a Senate inquiry. The public would be well aware that Bankwest was sold, in 2008, to the Commonwealth Bank for $2.1 billion. It appears to me that this sale prompted a scrutiny of Bankwest's loan book and I believe the instructions came from above to clean it up. For the past year or so, numerous complaints came to my office from businesspeople who were clients of Bankwest. After listening to many stories I, along with my colleagues Senator Bushby and Senator Cormann, pushed for a Senate inquiry into the wider banking industry. That inquiry was called 'The post-GFC banking sector'.
I want to quote what Mr Rob de Luca, Managing Director of Bankwest, said in his opening statement to that inquiry in relation to customers affected by the global financial crisis:
It is in our interests to support viable, sustainable businesses during periods of genuine hardship.
I want you to remember that quote, and I am sure you will, Senator Macdonald, my colleague listening here. But let me take you to the case of a hotelier in Queensland, Mr Ken Brundell. Mr Brundell owns the Rams Head Hotel in Millmerran in south-west Queensland. One day, along comes a hotel broker and finance broker, who tells him that he should buy the Cobb and Co. Hotel in St George—St George, where Senator Barnaby Joyce has his office
Mr Brundell was quite happy owning just the one hotel, but Bankwest chased him aggressively and made it sound as if Christmas had come early. It was a three-year loan offered to Mr Brundell. Mr Brundell asked Bankwest if they would roll the loan over again after three years, and they said: 'Certainly, of course we would. We are a good bank. We will do whatever we can for you.' So he went ahead and borrowed the money. Interest rates went up to around nine per cent during the term of that three-year period. At the end of the three years Bankwest said things had changed and they wanted their money back—they pulled the plug on the business. Mr Brundell was paying interest only and had never missed a payment. The hotels were trading well, but like all country pubs they were subject to the droughts and floods. Bankwest is now charging an interest rate of around 18 per cent and Mr Brundell continues to make payments at the old rate, but I am informed that Bankwest will not accept his money. All Mr Brundell wants to do is to sit down with Bankwest and work through the issue and get them to honour the deal about rolling over the three-year loan so he can pay his interest and sell one of the hotels.
While we are still in Queensland, this is a case of another business which has never defaulted but finds itself in Bankwest's bad books. I underline 'has never defaulted'—it has never missed an interest payment. That loan was due to expire in January this year, so the businesspeople met with Bankwest in December last year and were told that the bank no longer wanted their business. They were told the bank would contact them again in mid-February to arrange a new valuation, which would cost them $8,000, but nothing has happened. This business has never defaulted in interest and principal and it has provided all financials and information to Bankwest in a timely manner. Three years ago it was told it had to switch from the fixed interest loan to a variable interest, and the switching fee—listen to this, Mr Deputy President—was $246,000. This was never put in writing but was witnessed by four people in the room at the time: 'You will get out of your fixed-loan interest, you'll go into variable and, by the way, we'll just grab $246,000 on the way.' It did not matter that in the last few months this Queensland business suffered $100,000 worth of damage from the floods and lost $30,000 in revenue because it was closed for six days. Bankwest is still going nowhere with this business.
What about some sympathy? I know that Steven Munchenberg from the Australian Bankers' Association sent me an email media release: 'Banks will be compassionate and considerate to those affected by floods.' I know he would mean it, because he is a good bloke. I know that Westpac has certainly put out a media release, and have informed me, saying, 'People under financial stress because of the floods, we will talk to you and give you some reprieve and we will help you through this.' In an email to my office today, the owners say, 'All we ask is to be left alone until we get a sale.' They just want to sell the resort and get on with their lives. That is the pressure they have been put under, and they are a good young family and good hard workers.
Mr Deputy President, I take you to another case: the case of a publican on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales, whose name is Stephen Weller. Mr Weller has owned the Nambucca Hotel at Macksville for seven years and has been financed by Bankwest. He has paid $200,000 off the principal of his debt in the last two years and has never missed an interest payment. In September last year he was advised the hotel's value had fallen and a deed of forbearance was issued to make their loan due on 10 January this year. Mr Weller sold a block of poker machines and the family home but did not get the proceeds in time to settle on the 28 February just gone, and a solicitor's letter was received a few days later to say he was in default. He had sold the poker machines, and he is selling the house. Bankwest extended the facility to 19 March and Mr Weller will have to cough up the proceeds from the sale of the house. Stephen Weller works four shifts and starts at 3:30 am every day, and if the hotel is sold he will have nowhere to live. He is paying his way. Remember those words from Mr De Luca. I will repeat them: 'It is in our interests to support viable, sustainable businesses during periods of genuine hardship.' Is that a statement which is misleading that Senate inquiry, I wonder, Mr Deputy President? Here is Mr Weller and his Nambucca Hotel at Macksville: he has never missed an interest payment, he has paid $200,000 off his principal and he is now paying more by selling his house and his poker machines, but he is under the pump. Even my office has trouble getting Bankwest to the table, and they generally need a few prods to get them going. In fact, my staff have given up on trying to get answers out of them.
I have a good relationship with most of the banks and can only speak highly of the people in the other banks, such as Justin Owen and Dallas McInerney, who I worked with in the National Australia Bank—good people and good to deal with. There is Ryan Bloxom from Westpac. I was speaking to Ryan today—a good communicator. If we have a problem we go and talk to these people. There are Michael Johnston and Keith Weybury from the ANZ—the same thing: good communication, 'Let's work through the problems'—and John McLenaghan from the Commonwealth Bank. I hold these people in high regard because, when I have a complaint about some problem with the bank or people think they are being done badly by a bank, we can sit down, communicate and talk, but not with Bankwest. Bankwest could learn a lot from the way those banks deal with clients who need a hand. As I said, the big four are good to deal with and mostly we work through the problems. We do not always have a win, but at least they will always talk to us.
I would have thought that Bankwest would have received a wake-up call from the banking inquiry, because many of the complaints were about Bankwest, but obviously they are slow learners. They need to lift their game. On this day when we are celebrating 50 years of the wonderful work of Lifeline, I know what financial pressure can do to a person. I do not want to see more people ringing Lifeline under mental stress because of financial worries. We know businesses do it tough, and we know some go broke, but the message I give to Bankwest is: you deal with money, we in this place deal with people, and it is time you showed some more respect for those businesses that are paying their way. They are not responsible for the price of their asset going down. We had a global financial crisis. What caused the global financial crisis? It was two things: one was severe government debt around the world, including in Europe, Japan and the United States, and the other was a thing called subprime lending. And who carried out the sub-prime lending? Lehman Brothers and the banks. That is what brought on the global financial crisis, and now it seems that it is everyone else's fault. I am really annoyed that Aussies like Mr Ken Brundell have a go and the heavy salesman says, 'We'll finance you.' They financed Ken Brundell all the way: 100 per cent for the hotel in St George and they even included the legal fees. Bankwest were very confident—'We'll lend you the money'—and here is a bloke in his 70s, working way past dark, and they upped his interest rate to 18 per cent. To me, that is very un-Australian. It is as if, when someone is down, you put the boot in.
As I said, I have a good rapport with all the banks, but I cannot say much in kindness to Bankwest for the way they are treating some of these people. I just hope they lift their game, show some respect and, when their customers are paying their interest and paying their way, stick with them. As one senior bank officer said to me, 'Why would you sell someone up when they are meeting their interest payments?' That is a very good question, but only Bankwest can answer that. Sure, their LVRs have increased because of their assets going down, but that is not their fault.
I rise to speak about something that is dear to my heart: the faith that in Australia we are willing to offer and capable of offering every one of our children—wherever they live and whatever their background—a world-quality education so that they have the opportunity to realise the unique potential that lies within each one of them. It is the expectation that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world every Australian child will be educated well enough to enable them to participate richly and fully in Australian life.
Just over a year ago the Gonski review of funding for schools was released. Since then we have heard a great deal about the findings of that review and its recommendations. We know that the Gonski panel—six highly credentialled and experienced individuals from diverse political and work backgrounds—identified that we currently have a school funding system in Australia which is not good enough to ensure that every child can get the kind of education I have described. We know that the Gonski review found that when it comes to funding our schools, to our eternal shame, lack a logical, consistent and publicly transparent approach.
Overall, it is widely acknowledged that we are underinvesting in education. Our spending on education as a percentage of GDP is lower than the OECD average. Even more significant is our underspend when it comes to government schools. Total government spending on public schools, both Commonwealth and state, in Australia has decreased. In 2003 it was 77 per cent. In 2009 it was 68.6 per cent. The OECD average is 85.8 per cent. It is public schools which educate the great majority of children from high-needs and disadvantaged backgrounds. We are all very familiar with these statistics: 80 per cent of those in the lowest socioeconomic status quartile, 85 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, 78 per cent of those who have a disability, 83 per cent of students in remote areas and most students from a non-English speaking home.
We also know that Gonski found that our Australian schooling system scores poorly on equity. This means that children who have the same inherent ability will perform very differently because of factors outside their control which affect their opportunity, like their family background, where they live, whether they speak English at home and whether or not they are Indigenous. In Australia, to our shame, we now have a strong concentration of advantaged students in certain schools and a strong concentration of disadvantaged students in other schools. It is government schools that educate the lion's share of those children who come from backgrounds of disadvantage. Gonski also told us that properly funding schools—making sure that they have the programs, the teachers, the equipment, the resources and the staff necessary—will be able to overcome the disadvantage that affects some children so strongly and thus allow them to get the education they need to reach their potential.
If we put these findings together—the fact that it is our public schools that educate the lion's share of children who have educational disadvantage and high needs; the fact that Australia is seriously underinvesting in education, particularly in our public schools; and the fact that properly resourcing schools, especially where there is disadvantage, will lift performance and enable the children at those schools to reach their potential—it leads to the most important of the recommendations from the Gonski review. This recommendation is that we must invest substantially more in our education system—in the vicinity of $6.5 billion per year—and we must specifically target those students with the highest needs with extra funds, or loadings, for disadvantage.
But we are still some way off achieving the changes to our system of schooling in Australia that we need if we are to see the dream of the Gonski panel come to fruition. Inspiringly—and now quite famously—the panel of six thoughtful Australians who did the Gonski review defined a fair school system as ensuring that:
… differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.
We are a long way from realising that situation in Australia. But the evidence from numerous studies and research and anecdotal evidence, including what I have witnessed myself in visiting schools in Australia, shows that the opportunity divide is still alive and well in Australia today. That is why the core recommendation of the Gonski review is that we must finally move away from the opaque, inconsistent, ad hoc funding process we have seen in Australia for 40 years and apply a principled system that recognises that there is entrenched educational disadvantage in Australia, that it leads to poor outcomes and that it requires dedicated resources to fix it which should be allocated on the basis of need.
I want to take this opportunity to hear from a couple of people who have explained to me why the Gonski recommendations are so important to implement. Lisa from Victoria said:
As a teacher who works with literacy-needs high school students, there is little doubt that literacy issues are increasing and that those in need are usually from socioeconomically under-resourced backgrounds. Our whole country benefits when those who couldn't become those who can. As a nation we must move from those who could make a difference to those who will make a difference. Give a Gonski!
Carolyn from Victoria says:
I grew up in Wollongong in a family where no-one had completed secondary school. I had 33 first cousins and I was the only one who matriculated. I went on to complete university and was able to support myself and my son when I became a widow at a very young age. The reason I achieved this was Wollongong High School. Without going to Wollongong High I would have had little chance of a university education. I am forever grateful to the public school system. It needs to be supported. If disadvantaged children are educated to reach their potential our community is a much fairer and happier place.
More than a year after the Gonski review was released, the Australian Greens are alarmed that the Australian Education Bill 2012 contains no detail regarding the amount of funding to be provided for its implementation nor how it is to be allocated. Details of the contributions from the states and territories are also missing, as is any overall guide to its implementation. Time is running out. The situation is critical, particularly for those students in government schools where disadvantage is concentrated and who have been waiting too long.
The Gonski review itself has stressed the need for urgent reform, saying:
The additional investment needed to implement a schooling resource standard is necessary because, without it, the high cost of poor educational outcomes will become an even greater drag on Australia's social and economic development in the future. The need for the additional expenditure and the application of what those funds can do is urgent. Australia will only slip further behind unless, as a nation, we act and act now.
That was 13 months ago and we are still waiting. It is essential that funding arrangements are finalised and legislated for as a matter of urgency if the concerns raised by Gonski are to be addressed, and the risk of further decline is to be averted.
The government has indicated that any increased investment into Australia's schooling system, as recommended by Gonski, will be introduced over a lengthy period of years. That is not good enough for those schools that need it. So the Australian Greens are calling for the bill to be amended to ensure that the most disadvantaged government schools will be prioritised for any additional Commonwealth funding during the implementation of the national plan.
Investing properly in education is good for all of us. The Gonski review squarely sets out the benefits of a high quality schooling system for a nation. It says:
High-quality schooling fosters the development of creative, informed and resilient citizens who are able to participate fully in a dynamic and globalised world. It also leads to many benefits for individuals and society, including higher levels of employment and earnings, and better health, longevity, tolerance and social cohesion.
So it is good for all of us and we cannot afford not to urgently implement the Gonski recommendations, prioritising those most disadvantaged schools.
In the last sitting week of the Senate on the 20th anniversary of Fred Hollows' death, I spoke about Fred Hollows' life and the work of the foundation that stands in his name. The Fred Hollows Foundation envisages a world where there is no-one who is needlessly blind. It does great work in the prevention and treatment of blindness in 19 countries on three continents—in Australia, Asia and Africa. The foundation has helped restore the sight of more than one million people worldwide and has manufactured over four million intraocular lenses.
In Australia, the Fred Hollows Foundation has done tremendous work in remote Indigenous communities, particularly in the fight against trachoma, or sandy blight—an issue I have spoken about in this chamber on a number of occasions. In 2011, the Fred Hollows Foundation assessed the sight of 416 people and handed out over 1,000 pairs of affordable spectacles to people living in remote communities in the Northern Territory. The foundation is more than playing its part in closing the gap in eye health between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
This work could not be done without the strong support of many in our community who share the foundation's objectives. The Sydney Coastrek event has become a vital fundraising vehicle for the Fred Hollows Foundation as well as developing a reputation as a testing and challenging endurance event in its own right. As well as raising funds for the Fred Hollows Foundation, Coastrek aims to promote health and fitness as well as teamwork, mental and emotional toughness and fun.
On a near monsoonal Friday, 2 March this year, a record 2,000 competitors set off from Palm Beach on Sydney's northern beaches, competing in the 2013 Wild Women on Top Sydney Coastrek 50- or 100-kilometre team challenge. The Sydney Coastrek tracks are along the stunning picturesque Sydney coastline from Palm Beach to Coogee. Teams have the option of walking 50 kilometres from Palm Beach to Balmoral or 50 kilometres from Balmoral to Coogee, or the full 100 kilometres from Palm Beach to Coogee. It is a challenging course across the soft sand of ocean and harbour beaches, steep climbs and descents along headlands and cliff tops, creek crossings, rugged bush trails, suburban streets and through built-up areas.
I have no idea why, but after competing in last year's 50-kilometre Coastrek event from Palm Beach to Balmoral, held in miserable Sydney weather on waterlogged tracks, I was one of those competitors who came back for the full 100 kilometres of punishment this year
Our team, Achilles 100, comprised totally blind walker Ben Phillips, whose achievements in long distance walking, including his drenching along with me in last year's Coastrek, are well known to senators; elite Wild Women on Top global trekkers Wanda Nicholson and Genevieve Savill; and yours truly.
We made it across the finish line after the 100-kilometre slog in a very commendable 33 hours and 6 minutes, with Ben becoming the first totally blind walker to complete the 100-kilometre Sydney Coastrek. So congratulations Benny. He keeps chalking up the records and half killing me in the process. I am delighted to inform the Senate that, as of just a few minutes ago, the 2013 Wild Women on Top Sydney Coastrek had raised a record $1,772,746 for the crucial work of the Fred Hollows Foundation, exceeding its target of 1.7 million and smashing last year's record of $1.06 million. I do want to acknowledge the great work of Wild Women on Top, who coordinate this event for the Fred Hollows foundation. To Di Westaway, Lisa Marshall and all those in the Wild Women on Top team I simply say we certainly could not have finished without your help and many disadvantaged people are going to benefit from your great commitment to such an important cause.
Tonight I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Bec Herringe from the Lunachicks team. Bec is with us in the chamber and is very well known to all senators as one of our great team of Senate chamber assistants. Perhaps it is less well known that Bec is also a fanatical walker who, with her team—the well-named Lunachicks—finished the 50-kilometre Coastrek from Palm Beach to Balmoral in 15 hours and 54 minutes. So sincere congratulations to Bec and her team. To Wanda, Genevieve and all our fantastic support crew, I just say again that the Achilles 100 team could not have done it without you. They really are unsung heroes.
Benny Philips and I will be lacing up our boots again next month as part of the Tigers/True Believers Oxfam Trailwalker Team in the 2013 100-kilometre Melbourne Oxfam Trailwalker event. My colleague Anthony Byrne MP and his fantastic staff and very supportive volunteer crew will again be helping the Tigers compete in Melbourne, where we hope that Benny can break his world record for a 100-kilometre nonstop Oxfam Trailwalk.
I invite anybody who would like to make a donation to Oxfam and their vital work—and of course our team—that they can do so by visiting the Oxfam Trailwalker website and searching for Tigers/True Believers or visiting our online team space directly at the following website. I am going to impress everybody in the chamber with my knowledge of these things by having inserted in the Hansard this website, and here we go. This is a first! It is: trailwalker.oxfam.org.au/team/home/14157. I think that a lot of people will donate just having heard me try to present a website address in the Senate tonight! Congratulations again all of those who were involved in the Sydney Coastrek, all those involved with Wild Women on Top and the Fred Hollows foundation. This is a fantastic event, and it will mean a big difference to a lot of disadvantaged people around the world.
Senate adjourned at 19:27