by leave—I move:
That business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 to 5, standing in the names of Senators Pratt and Whish-Wilson for today, be called on immediately, dealt with together and take precedence over all general and government business until determined.
Today the Senate gets to reward or reject this government's five-year systematic campaign to undermine marine protections in Australia, a five-year systematic campaign that started with Mr Tony Abbott, in opposition, saying that, if elected, the Liberal government would review and rip up Labor and Greens plans to put in place one of the largest sets of marine protection parks and areas not just in Australia's history but in international history. What we're debating here today is momentous, and I thank the Senate for allowing us to have the time to properly debate this disallowance motion.
Senators can reward Mr Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party, who are in this place representing the big end of the fishing industry and the oil and gas industry. They can reward the big donors to the Liberal Party. We know that, around the last election, Senator Ruston, the South Australian Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party received the biggest election donation from the tuna industry that they had ever received. We know that they're in this place—as they are on so many things—representing the interests of a few vested interests. It has been a five-year campaign to undermine marine parks that took 20 years to put together, with thousands of stakeholders. I say this to the crossbench senators and to all senators in this place: you can reward or reject this deliberate attempt, on the behalf of a few vested interests, to undermine marine protections, at a time in history when they are most needed. Our oceans face 'their greatest threat in history'—that's not my quote; that's Mr David Attenborough's quote. They face their greatest threat in history from overfishing, pollution, warming waters and ocean acidification, and from plastic pollution. One thing we know for certain is that marine parks and marine protections work.
Would you take the word, Senators, of the 1,400 scientists who signed a petition calling on you to reject these plans? Would you take the word of 1,400 scientists and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who've campaigned for you to not support the government today and to support this disallowance? Would you take their word, or would you take the word of Mr Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party, and the big end of the fishing industry, and the oil and gas industry? You have a choice, a clear choice, to make today. You can stand up for the oceans, or you can stand up for Mr Tony Abbott. That is your choice here today.
I'm sorry if I'm passionate and loud on this. I have campaigned relentlessly since I've come into this place on every aspect of healthy oceans that is necessary. Today, we can decide whether we reward or reject a colossal, disgraceful attempt to reduce marine protections.
A little bit of history. The 2012 plans that were put in place took two decades of consultation. It's no secret that many in the environment movement weren't happy with those 2012 plans, but, after 20 years of campaigning, they agreed to put those plans in place—those lines on the map. Unfortunately, the operating permits—the management plans—didn't kick in for a couple of years. By that time—as he's done with so much of his time in parliament—the human wrecking ball, Mr Tony Abbott, and the Liberal Party had done what they did to climate action and so many other things in this place, and started a new process—a process to undermine the plans put in place to protect our oceans.
Our oceans are the womb of all life on this planet. They are facing their greatest threat in history. Sadly, I don't have time today to go into all the science and all the details, but I will refer anyone listening to this debate to this month's version of TheMonthly. There's an excellent article—
Senator Whish-Wilson, just before you do that, may I remind you that you really do need to explain to the Senate why we have a precedence motion. It seems to me you're going to the substantive motion. I have been listening carefully. It's really to explain why it should take precedence.
I still have 14 minutes left.
Yes, I appreciate that, but I have been listening carefully. I just remind you of that.
I will just finish my point, Deputy President, and I will address your issue immediately. In this article by Mr James Bradley, called 'The end of the oceans', it says how 'the world's oceans and all marine life are on the brink of total collapse'. Sadly, in my six years in this place, my observations, from chairing and participating in nearly a dozen committees around ocean and marine protection, lead me to very similar conclusions. And I can't stomach the fact that this Senate is about to support this government's attempt to reduce marine protections in Australia.
That's why this needs precedence. This needs to be debated by every senator in this place—including the crossbench senators, who I understand are not going to support this disallowance and are going to support Mr Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party's plan to rip up marine protections. We have been given 45 minutes only this afternoon to debate this. I know there are many senators in Labor who feel strongly about this, as there are in the Greens. I do believe that the crossbenchers should be given the full time allocated to explain their reasons.
Explain to the Senate why the people who've spoken to you in recent weeks, who have spent 20 years campaigning for these protections, are telling you: 'Do not support this government's five-year campaign to undermine marine protections.' They want you to support this disallowance. Surely the people who care most about our oceans, who have dedicated their life to protecting our oceans, should be listened to. Why would you turn your back on the 1,400 scientists who have signed a petition and sent it to you, saying: 'Do not support the government's campaign. Do not reward its bad behaviour. Put the oceans first'? For the life of me, I cannot understand what logic would be employed here, but I do believe those senators have the right to be heard and to have the time to explain to the Australian people why they are locking in failure, because that is what this is. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. This is certainly a very low bar for marine protections. They are marine protections in name only, because on paper they are nothing that protects the oceans.
Nearly half of the plan previously put in place has been ripped up by this government, at the behest of a few powerful vested interests who have donated to its party. I say to those crossbench senators who may have met with a scientist or two that the government has rolled out: remember that these scientists are hired guns for the fishing industry. They are fisheries scientists. They have their research paid for by the fisheries industry, and it is the fisheries industry—the big end of the commercial fishing town—that is delivering you this plan today. The government has made no secret of the fact that it has rejected the scientific advice of its own government-appointed panel. It has rejected that because it wants to bring 'balance' into this debate and this legislation. That 'balance' is code for giving the big end of town in the fishing industry and in oil and gas what they want. Do not give them what they want. Do not set this bar so low. Do not give them the opportunity to get out and campaign in the months going into the federal election, which I tell you they will do. They will probably spend taxpayers' money campaigning, saying—somehow—that they have protected our oceans. They haven't. They have ripped up protections at a time when they are most desperately needed.
We should be going the other way. That's why this debate should have precedence in the Senate today. I cannot think of anything more important for me personally and for the Senate to be debating than the future of our oceans. We have seen the Great Barrier Reef decline so rapidly, right in front of our eyes. I have been up there and dived on it. I've seen how much it has changed in six years. We have lost half of our coral reefs to global warming and coral bleaching. The impacts of that will be felt by future generations. The largest living organism on this planet, it may not recover from another bleaching event. One of the marine protected areas we will be debating today is the Coral Sea, which goes hand in glove with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that currently is in place. It will be the biggest area of protection on the planet, and it is being filleted and decimated by this government at the behest of big oil and gas and the fishing industry.
Senators, this debate needs precedence today. Everybody needs the chance to have their say on why they want to put the oceans first or put Mr Tony Abbott first. I am now going to wind up, having said my bit. Please let's spend the day debating our oceans. Let's give this precedence. This is what the Australian people want. Hundreds and thousands of Australians have emailed you this week saying they want you to support the disallowance that is in place and not reward this government's bad behaviour.
I move, as an amendment to the motion:
Omit all words after 'precedence', substitute 'for one hour immediately, after which the debate will be adjourned until 3.30 pm today, the debate then to resume, with questions on the motion to be put at 4.10 pm'.
For the benefit of the chamber, just to be clear, the effect of that would be to facilitate one hour and 40 minutes of debate.
The Turnbull government is trying to lock in the largest removal of area from conservation in history, so we believe this issue also deserves precedence before the chamber. We support both the motion and the amendment.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move:
That the South-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00326].
That the North Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00324].
That the North-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00322].
That the Temperate East Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00321].
That the Coral Sea Marine Park Management Plan 2018, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00327].
What we have in this debate is the Turnbull government now trying to lock in the largest removal of area in our nation's conservation history. There is not a government anywhere in the world that has ever removed this much area, land or sea, from conservation. There will be many losers as a result of a decision in this chamber not to disallow the redrawing of these boundaries at a time when ocean health is at critical levels right around the world. The people of the world are very, very sensitive to this issue.
We have an opportunity to create resilience in large protected areas, and this is being seriously damaged by a decision of this government to remove all of these protection areas. Recreational fishers have now lost the largest recreation-only fishing area in the world, and large-scale industrial fishing and supertrawlers have now received a standing invitation from this government to exploit Australia's marine life. It is now clear that the only way to protect our oceans is to change the government.
Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg will now forever be saddled with the global reputation of having removed more area from conservation than anyone else ever. Our Prime Minister likes to fancy himself as something of an environmentalist, but he is clearly not. At a time when other countries are putting more into their marine parks, the Australian government wants to take them away. That is despite the fact that we have some of the world's most wonderful marine assets that can and should be protected.
So let's take a look at some of the areas that this government is taking out of marine protection. Let's take a look at what Minister Frydenberg's own hand-picked panel on marine protection said. They said the expert scientific panel:
… is satisfied that the marine bioregional planning programme … was a sound basis and drew upon the best available information for designing the CMR—
Commonwealth marine park—
networks.
In consultation, the government's expert panel said that some of the stakeholders felt 'conservation fatigue'. Listen to this. How thoroughly did the last government do its job? How thoroughly did the Labor government do its job? Over years of consultation done by Labor, six rounds of consultation were held, 245 public and stakeholder meetings were attended by over 2,000 people, there were 210 days of public comment and around three-quarters of a million public submissions were considered.
In not supporting this disallowance motion, which would change the borders on these marine parks, the government is essentially taking us back to square one. The community is going to have to engage all over again to get this job done. And I tell you: we will. These plans revoke about 40 million hectares of high-level national marine parks, almost twice the area of Victoria. This is equivalent to revoking half of Australia's national parks on land. Think about that. These are areas that deserve national-park-type protection. Just because they're underwater does not mean that they don't deserve the same level of attention and that they are not as environmentally important.
Let's look at some examples. In the Coral Sea, Labor's network has 50.78 per cent marine national park protection—half a million square kilometres. The expert panel that considered the boundaries for this didn't do quite as well as Labor. They had 400,000 square kilometres. That's what the experts said should be there. But we now know that this government, in its changing of protection for the Coral Sea, has 24 per cent protection. This is a figure that the Turnbull government tries to go out and proudly promote as strong marine protection. It means, I'm sad to say, 50 per cent of the marine national park zoning is stripped away. It means Australia's largest recreational fishing zone is erased. It's erased in deference to large-scale industrial fishers, and midwater trawling and tuna long-lining are allowed in these areas that should be protected and should be available for recreational fishing. Our network had 18.4 per cent of the Coral Sea reserve set aside for recreational fishing, and the coalition have removed it entirely and replaced it with areas where commercial fishing is allowed in everything other than bottom trawling. I can tell you: I think the government are a bunch of bottom trawlers. It's true to say that recreational fishers can go there, but indeed so can commercial fishers.
We've seen unique reefs like Marion and Kenn stripped back to only partial protection. We've seen big problems too in the temperate eastern waters. The headline here is that one of Australia's longest-standing marine national park zones, Middleton Reef—part of the wonderful Lord Howe Island Marine Park—has been cut back. It was declared right back in 1987, by the Hawke government, and is incredibly important to the network, particularly as long-time marine national parks zones are rare and valuable. And yet you're cutting that back, an area that has been pristine and protected. You are stripping it right back. In the Commonwealth waters around my home state of Western Australia, the Diamantina Fracture Zone, in one of Australia's largest marine national parks, has been reduced to what is now the lowest possible zoning, where again everything is allowed except bottom trawling. Funnily enough, ruling out bottom trawling is not such a big deal, given that it's an area that's between five and seven kilometres deep. There is no fishing or mining out there. Why do you need to take this marine protection off the books?
Geographe Bay, a really precious area in Western Australia, deserves more protection, but this government has removed two of the very modest marine national parks in this important area. In the north-west, we've had large marine national parks that help sustain the marine life of the Kimberley and the Ningaloo being stripped of much of their protection. In the north, the large marine park on the Gulf of Carpentaria has been stripped away off the Wessel Islands, off Karumba and in the Torres Strait, leaving those important areas also open to bottom trawling and mining.
We have before the chamber today a choice: do we stand up and protect our marine assets or does this chamber lock in the largest removal of area in conservation history? Do we stand up for marine protection in our nation and for our role in protecting the world's oceans? We have some of the best and diverse marine assets in the world. This is a shameful decision coming from this government. Nowhere in the world has anyone ever removed this much from a conservation estate. I call on senators in this chamber to reconsider their position. I agree with the calls of Senator Whish-Wilson that those on the crossbench who have declared their support in opposing this disallowance should come to this chamber and explain themselves.
I can tell every senator in this place that this issue does not die with a decision on this disallowance today. There are hundreds of thousands of people who support strong marine park protection in our nation. They're very engaged citizens. I know you have email inboxes full of communications from these people. They will be ready and charged in the lead-up to the next election to make sure that we deliver a government that's prepared to stand up for strong marine protection for our nation's oceans.
In my six years in the Senate, this vote before the Senate today is one of the most important moments for me. I was involved in the marine protected areas campaign. I did some work for the Wilderness Society in South Australia over 10 years ago. Like my colleague Senator Siewert and hundreds of thousands of Australians, I've been campaigning to get better marine protections put in place for over a decade now. In fact, the campaign to get proper marine protections in Australia started well over two decades ago. What we have in the Senate today is the culmination or end point of a two-decade-long campaign for marine protections. However, it is a shameful version or blueprint of what campaigners in this country have been working on for decades now.
The decision is very clear for senators here today: we can reject or reward this government and their systematic attempt since they were elected in 2013, in the last five years, to completely gut plans that were put in place by the community, by the fishing industry, by campaigners right around this country; plans that were put in place by the Labor-Greens government in 2012; and plans that were put in place based on the best available science. In fact, the science has shifted since that time, as you would expect it would over a period of six years. The science shows we need increased protections in our marine environment, not reduced protections.
The government were elected in 2013 on the back of a promise that they would rip up marine protections, and that is exactly what they have done. This disallowance today does not give them the satisfaction of ripping up decades of hard work by campaigners around this country for marine protection. This disallowance today means we go back to the drawing board. It means we have momentum and a campaign to continue what we started decades ago to get proper marine protections in place in Australia.
I ask senators to reflect on the fact that the campaigners, the environmentalists, the stakeholders in the rec fishing industry, some in the commercial fishing industry and so many in the science industry are telling you to support the Greens-Labor disallowance today and not reward the government for what they have done to marine protections. Today is the culmination of their campaign to undermine marine protections in this country at a time when they are so desperately needed.
I myself have seen things change, with my own eyes, since I have been a senator. I was campaigning for marine conservation—as my colleague Senator Siewert was—well over 10 years ago. But I have seen changes in the marine environment where I live in Tasmania. I have seen them on the Great Barrier Reef. I have seen what is happening to our oceans. We talk a lot about the Great Barrier Reef, and so we should. But the south-west waters off Tasmania are known to be a global hotspot for climate change, for a changing ocean environment. And it is not just a greenie conservation thing. Our aquaculture and fishing industries in Tasmania are suffering because of what is going on in our oceans. We have seen our salmon industry have mass mortalities. Over a million fish died in Macquarie Harbour this summer because of warming waters and dissolved oxygen problems. Our abalone industry off the east coast of Tasmania, for the first time, voluntarily decided not to fish their quota because the industry is under so much pressure because of changes in the marine environment. We have seen the same thing in our rock lobster industry. We have seen our oyster industry decimated by viruses from our changing marine environment, from warming waters and from the pressure our marine environments are under.
And we know beyond any reasonable doubt that the only way, the best way, to put in place an insurance policy for these oceans and for future generations is to have proper protections in the ocean through marine parks. We know that is the case. I was interested to see the release of a marine report by scientists at IMAS in Tasmania. Professor Graham Edgar, rather than taking a fisheries management approach to estimating populations of fish, wrote a scientific report, published in peer-reviewed journals, that showed that, contrary to what the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and fisheries stakeholders are saying, we have seen a decline of more than a third in our large biomass fish. That is based on thousands of observations by divers and statistically fed into models. A third of our large biomass fish in our fisheries have disappeared in the last 10 years—a third. Interestingly, that corresponds with a 32 per cent decline in our official catch in these fisheries in the last 10 years. What that study also showed—because there is variability in different areas around those declines—was that, when marine protected areas were in place, they had much less drastic declines in fish biomass. And that just backs up what we have known for years. I won't go into detail today, but I do want senators, and anyone listening to this debate who wants to understand the pressure our oceans are under and just how dire the situation is, to read an article in The Monthly this month that talks about the pressure that our oceans are under. It's called 'The end of the oceans' by James Bradley. It says how the world's oceans and all marine life are on the brink of total collapse.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
I have never been an alarmist; I have always been evidence based and rational in my deliberations. You may laugh, Senator Macdonald, but I have chaired a number of inquiries in this Senate, initiated a number of inquiries and participated in a number of inquiries around what's going on in our oceans, from our Southern Ocean through to the Great Barrier Reef: warming waters; pollution from the salmon industry; opposing supertrawlers; looking at the impacts on our oceans from shark nets—a whole range of things. And I have to come to the same conclusion: things are dire in our oceans.
Senators, and those following this debate, this plan today is the culmination of six years of a systemic campaign by this government to undermine marine protections. This plan, that you can either reject or accept, has been brought to you by the same people who brought supertrawlers to the country. Senator Colbeck, when he was shadow fisheries minister, and Senator Ruston—both champing at the bit—are the champions of bringing supertrawlers and industrialised vessels to our fisheries. This is the same government that has ignored the recommendations of its own scientific panel. When it set out with its plan to reduce marine protections, it put in place an independent panel, and even its own independent panel recommended much stronger protections than we have in place here. In fact, we have had no explanation from this government as to why it has ignored the advice of its own scientific panel, and ignored the advice of the 1,400 scientists who signed a petition saying, 'Do not reduce marine protections'. And that's why we must have a proper debate today. All we know from Senator Ruston's comments is that she wants to bring more balance to the debate and that means: to give the stakeholders being represented here, the big end of the fishing industry and oil and gas, what they want. That's what that is code for. It is the same fishing industry that made big donations to the Liberal Party around the 2013 election—record donations to the South Australian Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party from the fishing industry. We all know how they're in the pocket of big oil and gas.
The decimation of the protected green zones in the Coral Sea are a classic example of representing the big end of town—a few vested interests. But it shouldn't be a surprise considering what is happening with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and what has happened with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park sits hand in glove with a future marine protected area for the Coral Sea. Combined, they will make one of the biggest marine protected areas in the world. And look at what this government is doing, giving a $444 million grant—seemingly, a captain's call by the Prime Minister—to a relatively unknown private charity with no track record in managing those kinds of funds or dealing with large, complex, scientific projects, supposedly to save the reef, as Senator Birmingham said in here yesterday. Well, we know what will save the reef, and it is not any of the projects that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation will look at. They have been labelled by scientists, including some of the best marine scientists in the world, as bandaid solutions. The Australian Academy of Science has put a submission into the inquiry, Senator Macdonald, which I am chairing, that call them bandaid solutions. They will not save the reef. Acting on climate, emissions and land clearing will save the reef. That's what will save the reef.
The corporatisation—the attempt to give companies the ability to greenwash the sad death of the Great Barrier Reef—is very similar to what we are seeing with a shameful six-year attempt to decimate marine protections in this country. Senators have a choice whether they support that today or they take a stand for our oceans and reject it. The choice is simple: oceans or Mr Abbott, the wrecking ball of Australian politics who started this in the first place—just like he did with climate action in this country, which still hasn't been solved to this day. This is a continuation of that legacy, and I urge senators to reject it.
I'm a politician. I wanted to read the words today of someone who I deeply, deeply respect. Unfortunately, I missed the chance to talk to him when he came to Launceston recently to launch his latest book. However, I was fortunate to receive a card from him. His name is Mr Tim Winton. He is, in my opinion, along with my brother, David Whish-Wilson, one of the best writers in this country. I love what he writes about and how he writes about the oceans. It reflects so much of my own childhood and my own experiences. I know he's a friend of Senator Siewert. Tim, like Senator Siewert and many others, has campaigned for years to get these marine protected areas in place. I'll read you what he said to me:
Dear Peter, I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to talk when I was in Launceston; it would have been a great pleasure. I saw your comments in Hansard last week and was grateful for your attempt to bring some sanity and perspective to this debate. Like Rachel, I've been working for more than 20 years towards these marine protected areas, so it will be a bitter defeat if they get legislated. My advice to the movement was to reject this plan outright. There's no honour or integrity in it. What we got under Tony Burke was a massive and painful compromise. To be fobbed off with a filleted version of that is unconscionable. Maybe we should talk about this further.
That's coming from a man who has, like so many people, hundreds of thousands—
Never heard of him.
Senator Macdonald hasn't heard of Tim Winton—interesting
Most people haven't.
Hundreds of thousands of Tasmanians and Australians have emailed senators this week urging them to support this disallowance. I would just ask you all to reflect on those people who have spent two decades campaigning for marine protections, including the many scientists who aren't members of the Greens, Senator Macdonald—the 1,400 scientists who have signed the petition calling on senators to support the disallowance and reject this plan. Why would these people be asking you to support the disallowance? You've heard the words of Tim Winton. That is the same sentiment I've heard from so many other people around this country. We have to continue the campaign to get proper marine protections in place in this country. There's never been a more important time, given what's going on in our oceans, to not only put marine protections in place but improve marine protections.
If this disallowance gets up, there will be existing protections in place under international conservation measures. There will be protections in place under EPBC law and there will be protections in place under the directions of national parks. All the crossbench senators have had all this pointed out to them in recent weeks. Of course, this debate would've been much easier if the Labor and Greens plans had come into force earlier. What we're seeing here today would've been a much starker compromise. But do not be fooled by the argument that, if we don't get these marine protected areas up, we're going to have no marine protections on the water. That is not the case. If you support this today, you are supporting the government's campaign, and the vested interests behind it, to gut marine protections and set an extremely bad example, to reward bad behaviour. It will be noticed all around the world. The environment movement is asking you to stand with them and continue the campaign to get proper protections in place, to make a difference at a time when it's so critically needed.
There are many other things I would love to say today, but I won't have the time. Many other senators need to contribute to this debate. It's not something that we should be sweeping under the carpet. It's one of the most important things I can think of to debate in the Senate—that is, the future of our oceans for the communities that depend on them, be they rec fishers or commercial fishers, future generations, divers, surfers or any Australian who loves their ocean.
I can't understand how we can vote for a plan today that would deliberately set out, from the beginning—in an election promise—to rip up marine protections, to gut 20 years of hard work by so many people. I can't understand how we could do that today. I admit I will be deeply disappointed and shocked if the Senate doesn't support the Labor and Greens disallowance, if it gives satisfaction to those vested interests who have manipulated parliament. It doesn't surprise me that they manipulate the Liberal and National parties. That's why those opposite are here—to represent their mates. But, for those hundreds of thousands of Australians, those millions of Australians, who care about the ocean, please know that I put on the record today my respect for your decades of hard work and I will express my disappointment if this plan gets up. If this goes into force tomorrow then it will officially happen. This is our last chance. We have today and this afternoon to convince senators to not support this government's deliberate attempt to decimate marine protections at a time when they are most desperately needed.
But don't give up heart; don't give up hope. Whatever happens today, the movement will continue to campaign for proper marine protections, and the Greens will continue to campaign for proper marine protections. It doesn't end here today. In fact, I've got no doubt that a Labor government, hopefully, will be elected at the next federal election and will make a difference by putting in place proper marine protected areas.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
You can laugh all you like, Senator Macdonald. You won't be here, which is a good thing in my opinion. However, in my last 23 seconds—do not give this mob the satisfaction. You can choose between the oceans and Mr Tony Abbott. That's your choice here today. You can choose between protecting the oceans for future generations and giving this mob what they want.
What utter humbug and hypocrisy is the argument of the Greens, particularly, and the Labor Party on this issue! Let me just explain that to anyone who might be listening. The government is bringing forward some plans for marine protection. The disallowance motion of the Labor Party and the Greens is about stopping those marine protection plans. You've just heard 20 minutes of humbug from a Greens senator about protecting the marine environment, and what they are doing today is stopping protections for our marine parks. You always know when the Greens have run out of arguments, which the previous speaker did after about 30 seconds—they start using the old arguments of vested interests. When they run out of any sensible arguments, it's the vested interests that the Greens, particularly, and the Labor Party always try to bring up on any debate to try and align sensible Australians with coalition policy.
Of course, you know they've run out of arguments when they start talking about donors. The Greens talk about large corporate donors, but of course we remember that the Greens political party was the party that received the largest single donation from any corporate entity anywhere in Australia's political history. That was, of course, when Mr Graeme Wood gave them $1.6 million, the biggest donation to a political party ever. Lo and behold, would you believe, I was in a committee a few weeks later when Mr Bob Brown, then Senator Bob Brown, actually tried to get a taxation committee to give an exemption for the sort of online newspaper that Graeme Wood was hoping to set up. They talk about vested interests and hypocrisy and corruption, but the Greens should look in the mirror when it comes to those sort of things.
Now, back to the issue—
Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order?
Point of order. Senator Macdonald just made a previous reflection on a previous senator in this place, Bob Brown, as being corrupt. He's a total coward to use parliamentary privilege to do so. I ask him to withdraw that comment.
I don't believe former members of this place are actually covered by the standing order, so I won't rule that way. However, if I'm wrong, someone will tell me shortly and we will revisit it, but I'm pretty sure I'm right there. Senator Macdonald, you have the call.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Dare I say, I believe you're correct. The record will show that I didn't accuse former Senator Bob Brown of being corrupt, but if that's the way that Senator Whish-Wilson thinks he was, then that's a matter for Senator Whish-Wilson, not for me. I said the Greens political party were corrupt. They were corrupt. Did that not happen? Didn't then Senator Brown, a couple of weeks after this donation was received by the Greens political party, move at a Senate economics committee or make advocacy for getting a tax exemption for online newspapers that were about to start up? And wasn't it Mr Graeme Wood thinking about doing that at the time? I'm not going to accuse any individual of being corrupt, but I'm going to say the Greens political party is corrupt, and you tell me where I'm wrong, because I know you cannot. I know you cannot.
We heard from Senator Whish-Wilson arguments about the dire straits of our oceans, but he forgets to mention that the government that introduced marine protected areas anywhere in the world was a Liberal government when then Senator Robert Hill was Minister for the Environment. It was a Liberal government who did those sorts of things. Don't take my word for it. Have a look at this book put out by the sensible conservation group. It's titled, A Big Blue Legacy. The Liberal National tradition of marine conservation. You should read this book—unfortunately I only have one copy—because it goes through in detail all the marine conservation work done by various Liberal governments over the last few decades, starting, of course, with Malcolm Fraser's protection of Fraser Island and the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and it goes on. None of the Greens are interested in this book, because it's the conservation groups themselves telling the world the truth about which government it is that has actually done something.
It's okay for the Greens to talk; they know they'll never be in government and never have to deliver. The Labor Party, unfortunately, talk a lot and never deliver either. The only party that has ever delivered on marine conservation is the Liberal-National Party, and we continue to do that in these plans that the Greens and the Labor Party are trying to stop. What sort of logic is that? They want to protect the oceans, and yet here they are today trying to defeat the five plans that will protect the oceans. I know what annoys the Labor Party, because under these plans we're going protect 509 conservation features, including reefs, sea mounts and canyons, and 344 sites have received the highest level of protection compared with those under the Labor plan of 331. The Greens urge the people to vote for the Labor Party so they can be in government—because we know the Greens and the Labor Party are one and the same in any case. But answer this: we're putting aside 344 sites of the highest level of protection; Labor wants 331, which is 13 less, and yet the Greens say the Labor Party's plan is a better one than ours—can you please explain that? We are protecting more sites, but you want to go back to the Labor plan that protects fewer sites. We have green zones that are more than 20 times the size of Kakadu and half the size of New South Wales. We protect sea-floor habitats totalling almost the size of Victoria.
I enter into this debate because I'm a Queensland senator. I'm interested in northern Australia, as you may have heard me say before, and part of my electorate, Northern Queensland, actually contains the Great Barrier Reef, and the communities of hundreds of thousands of people who make their living from the Great Barrier Reef. They are the ones who are demanding that we do what we do.
And can I tell you—and I'll specifically refer to the Coral Sea marine park that the Greens and the Labor Party are today trying to stop—there is a plan in place, and the Greens and the Labor Party are trying to abandon it, to stop it, to abolish it. This marine plan that the coalition has introduced, which the Greens and Labor are trying to stop, enables our recreational fishers—those five million Aussies who enjoy a once-in-a-lifetime wilderness experience in the Coral Sea—to continue doing so whilst protecting the Coral Sea.
We've given these fishers up my way, off Cairns, off Innisfail, off Tully, off Cardwell and, indeed, even off Mooloolaba, the chance to fish at iconic reefs such as Kenn Reef, Bougainville Reef, Marion Reef and Wreck Reef in a very, very sustainable way. These are recreational fishers, not commercial fishermen. These are recreational fishers being given that opportunity for very sustainable recreational fishing. That is what the people of North Queensland, of my state, want to happen. And we're doing that in a way that is sustainable and protects an increasing number of parts of our marine environment.
We want some of our professional fishers, including Walker Seafoods, based at Mooloolaba, to continue to export their Marine-Stewardship-Council-certified tuna to markets around the globe. For those who don't understand, if you get the Marine Stewardship Council's tick of approval—which the Greens used to promote years ago, although I don't know what they're doing these days; they're such hypocrites in the Greens' political party that probably they don't like the Marine Stewardship Council anymore—it's for fishing that is done sustainably. And Walker Seafoods in Mooloolaba have got that sustainable tick of approval for certified tuna, and they export to the world. This plan allows for that. The Greens and the Labor Party want to abolish the plan, so that not only could Walkers but anyone could do anything. It's open slather if this motion passes today because there are no plans, no management arrangements, at all. And, would you believe, that's what the Greens and the Labor Party are trying to get the Senate to do: to have no plans—to have an open slather, so everyone can go out and do whatever they want and catch whatever they want. That's what Senator Whish-Wilson is asking you to do today. How sensible is that? What absolute humbug! What absolute hypocrisy!
( Quorum formed ) You know you've got them on the run when they do those sorts of things, like calling a quorum, to interrupt my speech. Thank you for that, Senator Ketter. That is a real compliment to me. When the arguments start to bite home and the Labor Party and the Greens realise the hypocrisy and utter humbug of the approach they're taking, they then call a quorum so that they shut me up for a minute or two.
What the Labor Party and the Greens are asking you to do today is to remove the current protections of our marine areas. They want it to be open slather. We've just had a Greens senator telling us for 20 minutes that all they were interested in was marine protection, and yet they want to dismiss it. They want to abandon it. They want to abolish it. What absolute and utter humbug and hypocrisy from the Greens political party. Nothing surprises me about hypocrisy and humbug from the Greens, but this one must take the cake. Here we have the biggest amount of marine protection plans anywhere in Australia, ever in Australia. As I recall, under these plans we have the second highest marine protected and conserved areas anywhere in the world, but the Greens and the Labor Party want to stop it. What hypocrisy. What absolute humbug.
I was talking about Walker Seafoods, a great company out of Mooloolaba in my state. They have the Marine Stewardship Council tick for their fishing in the Coral Sea allowed by these plans. The Greens and the Labor Party want to stop that and destroy the jobs and small businesses of tens of thousands of people along the coast of my state of Queensland. They want to deprive the hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders, and other Australians from all over, of the enjoyment of sustainable recreational fishing in the Coral Sea.
We want our northern prawn fishers to continue to supply us with those magnificent banana prawns that you can only get off the coast of Queensland. And yet the Labor Party and the Greens want to stop that. They want us to import vannamei prawns from Vietnam, grown in the—I better not say that, because we like our Vietnamese people. The vannamei prawns from Vietnam, which the Greens and Labor Party would rather us be consuming, are not in the same category—not in the same world—as the wonderful, fresh banana prawns we get out of the Coral Sea in Queensland. It keeps Queenslanders in jobs and it keeps tourists coming to our state, because there aren't many places in the world where you can enjoy fresh fish and fresh prawns straight out of the Coral Sea, farmed and caught in a sustainable way. I know that Senator Ruston, here in the chamber, runs a fisheries regime as fisheries minister which won't even countenance any suggestion of overfishing. The fisheries plans that Senator Ruston oversees and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority carefully limit fishing for our fish stocks to make sure that they are forever sustainable.
Relentless campaigns by Labor and the dark forces who oppose fishing have galvanised and unified—and this is an achievement in itself, I have to say—our professional and recreational fishers. They don't often get on together but they are determined in their support for these plans. I'm not sure I even like to say this, because I've said some nasty things about the Pew regime over the years, but I'm told by Senator Ruston that even the Pew foundation, the great American conservation so-called foundation which originated in oil money out of the Gulf of Mexico—and the Pew foundation, in my view, are always trying to salve their consciences by splashing money around on conservation issues around the world—are in this building this week supporting these plans, and why wouldn't they? If you do what the Labor Party and the Greens want you to do, you'll get rid of every marine conservation plan in Australia and it will be open slather. That's what Senator Whish-Wilson wants. He wants open slather in our marine environment. He just spent 20 minutes telling us how he was so concerned about conservation of our marine areas, and what he is proposing today is that we get rid of all of these plans. What hypocrisy! What utter and absolute humbug! It's the sort of hypocrisy and lies that we've come to expect of the Greens political party, because we know they will simply say and do anything to try and make a point.
This is almost such a simple proposition that it really doesn't warrant much more discussion. You can go with the plans that are already in place, which protect the greatest areas of the Australian marine environment, or you can go with the Greens and the Labor Party and abolish those plans so that there'll be nothing there. It is such a simple proposition that I can't imagine any senator would contemplate joining the Greens and the Labor Party. Those two are only doing it because they hate anything that the coalition government does. They can't stand this booklet that says the only people who have done any work in the marine conservation area are Liberal governments. They hate that. So, for political and ideological reasons, they would have you abandon these plans that are in place and lead you back to open slather with nothing. What hypocrisy!
It is not a pleasure to follow Senator Macdonald in speaking, in terms of the load of baloney that the minister—that the senator just delivered to this chamber.
An honourable senator: He never made minister!
He did for a short time, in actual fact. Comments that Senator Macdonald made were derogatory to the Greens and to those that have worked for so long and hard to put in place marine protection. His No. 1 argument is, 'Well, you'd rather have nothing and you're trying to get rid of these marine plans.' That's what that side of the chamber did, when they got rid of the management plans for the marine parks in the marine protected areas, in the first place. So how can he come into this chamber and say, 'Ooh, Labor and the Greens seek to get rid of these management plans,' when that's exactly what his side did?
They got rid of the world's leading series of marine protected areas. They're well acknowledged around the world as being world leading. I cannot believe that he would have the audacity to have a go at us for trying to take it back to what it was, because that government have reduced marine protection in very important areas, bowing to the pressure from the fishing industry. That's exactly what that government did. They took away the protection that had just been put in place.
I, for one, will freely acknowledge that previous coalition governments have done work on marine protection, but to say they're the only ones is a pack of nonsense, when quite clearly we're standing here trying to protect and get back what the previous Labor government put in place. And, yes, we were critical of the things that weren't included in those areas. We wanted them to do better. I'm on the record as having said that. But this government came in place and got rid of those areas. They can play around with wording, but there is absolutely no doubt in the community's mind that that's what they did. They took away that series of marine protected areas and they took away the bioregional marine parks that were put in place as part of that process.
I've been working on marine protection since the mid-eighties. I've been through the highs and the lows. I've been through building community awareness. I've been through the process of arguing that marine protected areas and no-take zones don't protect fishing stocks. We had that really ridiculous argument when people tried to argue that they don't play a role in protecting fish stocks. We've been through that. Some people still like to deny the evidence. We've been through that. We now have acceptance of the importance of marine protection, both for the protection of marine biodiversity and for fish stocks. We've been through that. Now we have a government bowing to pressure from recreational fishers and commercial fishers and it will compromise the protection of really important areas.
I'd like to focus on Western Australia. Andrew Bartlett will talk about the travesty of the cuts to the Coral Sea, but I want to talk about my home state of Western Australia. Overwhelmingly, people in Western Australia love the marine environment. Most Western Australians live by the coast. I think it would be freely acknowledged in this place that we have a lot of very special coast. I go back to the marine campaign. Tim Winton was involved in the campaign to protect the Ningaloo Coast, to make sure that we did not have inappropriate development in Coral Bay that would have damaged the Ningaloo Coast. The Ningaloo rally was one of the biggest rallies we've ever had in Western Australia. I remember marching in Fremantle all those years ago to protect that coast, as did Tim and thousands and thousands of Western Australians. Have no doubt that Western Australians love their marine environment. They love Ningaloo and they love the south-west.
Just for a little bit of one-up-personship: the south-west marine area has the highest number of marine endemic species—far higher than other areas around the Australian coast—so it's very important that we have adequate marine protection there. We are still, in fact, developing our understanding of some of those areas. In Western Australia, under the plans that this government wants to put in place, we've seen cuts to Geographe Bay. It's halved from the 2012 area. We've seen the green zones moved offshore in those really important areas around Bremer, and allowing scallop trawling. We have seen the more intense protection for the Rowley Shoals reduced by 45 per cent. We've seen around Gascoyne and Ningaloo a 75 per cent reduction. They have mucked around the Perth Canyon and moved the protection to the wrong spot. These are important areas for marine biodiversity from around the world, growing more so every day as we understand the impact of climate change on our marine environment. These parks do not now deliver the best system in the world. We did have that, but, because of pressure from industry, and from Senator Macdonald's— (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018. Labor has a track record that demonstrates our determination to ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies have the resources they need and the powers that are necessary to keep Australians safe. Labor also believes strongly in the importance of upholding the rights and freedoms that define us as a democratic nation, and I'm sure you would agree with that, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall. It's essential, in designing legislation to protect our way of life, we do not compromise the very rights and freedoms that define us as a democratic nation and that foster harmony in our community.
National security is a fundamental duty of all parliamentarians, but, in putting in place laws to keep us safe, we must ensure those laws are consistent with the kind of society we're seeking to protect and to strengthen. Labor approaches questions of national security in a bipartisan spirit. However, bipartisanship does mean that Labor will simply agree with every measure the government proposes. Bipartisanship means that Labor will engage constructively with the proposals put forward by the government with a view to testing and, where possible, improving those measures.
It was in this spirit of constructive bipartisanship that, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's statutory review process, Labor worked hard over 2017 and 2018 to improve several security and law enforcement powers on the Commonwealth statute books. The important work of the bipartisan intelligence committee has seen a significant review into police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime in division 3A of part 1AA of the Crimes Act 1914. As well, there's been a review by the intelligence committee of sections 119.2, and 119.3 of the Criminal Code that declared areas provisions. There was a further and important review of the intelligence committee that resulted in its report, The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
This bill responds in part to these three reviews. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 was introduced into the other place on 24 May 2018. The Attorney-General referred the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for a review the same day. The government's complete adoption of the Phocis's recommendations is a welcome continuance of those longstanding conventions that the government of the day implements without reservation the bipartisan recommendation of the intelligence security. The intelligence and security committee's review of the police stop, search and seizure power provided under division 3A of part 1AA of the Crimes Act 1914 recommended that these powers be continued.
The bill inserts new provision CA into division 3 of part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914 to require reporting to the minister, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the intelligence committee on the use of stop, search and seizure powers under division 3 of part IAA as soon as practicable after the exercise of power or powers, and an annual report to the minister. This recommendation is entirely in keeping with Labor's abiding commitment that our law enforcement and security agency officers should have the power needed to keep Australians safe. However, the report also recommends that these powers, which are extraordinary, should also be the subject of future review by the parliament and should not be allowed to simply fall into the permanence of the Commonwealth statute book. Similarly, the intelligence committee's recommendation that the control over the regime provided for under division 104 of the Criminal Code be continued, with the provisions sunsetting after three years. The bill adopts these recommendations. These control order powers have only rarely been used. The small number of occasions where they have been used is something that the intelligence committee commented upon in its report.
One feature of the bill is that it introduces new section 104.11A in the new subdivision CA of the Criminal Code. This would enable the court to vary the terms of an interim control order where there is a written agreement between senior Australian Federal Police members and a controlee. The explanatory memorandum states that this new section is designed to facilitate minor and uncontroversial variations to an interim control order, such as changed mobile telephone numbers, change of residential addresses or change in the educational or employment arrangements of a controlee. Labor supports this change as well because it is clearly desirable that there should be a speedy and, as far as possible, informal mechanism for the variation of the control order that deals with minor matters of this nature.
This bill also inserts a new section 104.28AA into the Criminal Code to set out the limitations on the issuing court's abilities to make cost orders in control order proceedings. Under proposed subsection 104.28AA(1), the issuing court must not make an order for costs against the controlee. However, if the issuing court is satisfied that the controlee has acted unreasonably in the conduct of proceedings, it may order costs against the controlee to the extent of the unreasonable conduct. Labor considers it essential that all the powers considered by this review be available to our agencies for as long as they are necessary to ensure the peace, safety and security of the Australian community.
However, Labor also considers powers such as these must continue to be seen and understood as extraordinary. These powers were brought into our criminal law and the law enforcement framework to meet the complex circumstances that have faced security and law enforcement agencies over the last two decades. Because these powers are extraordinary, it is essential that they are subject to sunsetting and continued parliamentary oversight through regular review of the intelligence committee. It was for this reason that the intelligence committee made the recommendation, which the government has also adopted, to amend the Intelligence Services Act for the purpose of providing greater parliamentary scrutiny of these powers. This is something that the intelligence committee, in its report on this bill, has welcomed.
I also note that the bill extends the sunset period for the declared areas provisions contained in the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new exception to the declared area offences in 119.2(1) for individuals performing official duties for the International Committee of the Red Cross. This is a welcome protection for people in organisations carrying out humanitarian work in some of the most dangerous conflict zones in the world. The bill also amends schedule 1 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to provide:
… that the decisions of senior AFP members to provide or refuse consent to vary interim control orders under new section 104.11A of the Criminal Code will not be reviewable under the ADJR Act.
The bill extends the sunset date for the ASIO questioning and detention powers under division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 by 12 months to 7 September 2019. In paragraph 1.32 of its report on the bill, the intelligence committee commented on this particular provision in the bill in these terms:
The Committee notes that while the Bill implements one recommendation from the Committee's report into ASIO's questioning and detention powers, the remainder of that report (including the Committee's recommendation for repeal of the questioning and detention warrant power) is still being considered by the Government. As noted above, the intent of this recommendation was that there be sufficient time for a reformed ASIO compulsory questioning framework to be developed and then reviewed by this Committee.
This bill is somewhat unusual in that it responds to a single recommendation of the intelligence committee's report on ASIO's questioning and detention warrant power. While it did recommend the extension of the powers in division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act, which includes the powers provided for questioning and detention warrants, I note that the committee also recommended that the ASIO questioning and detention warrants regime should be repealed. This is a power that has never used by ASIO and, in light of the fact that ASIO is an intelligence agency and not a law enforcement agency, it's a power that Labor agrees is unnecessary because of the fact that ASIO works very closely with the Australian Federal Police. It's also worth noting that the two previous Independent National Security Legislation Monitors had recommended, before this earlier report of the intelligence committee, that this power be repealed.
It's important to note again that this bill does not repeal the ASIO questioning and detention warrant power. Indeed, the effect of this bill is to extend for a year a power that the PJCIS has recommended should be repealed. It's understood, and the intelligence committee has noted that it understands, that in extending both ASIO's powers, the questioning and detention warrant power and the questioning warrant power, the government simply is seeking to leave the whole regime in place for a period of 12 months while the government seeks to work through a replacement regime for that. Labor accepts that the short extension of the whole regime is appropriate, as did the intelligence committee, in order to allow time for a reformed compulsory-questioning framework to be developed.
It's worth noting that the government has accepted all the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's recommendations in respect of the approximately 10 national security bills that have been brought to this parliament since 2014. While this is the first occasion we're aware of that the government has seen fit to extend a power that is the subject of a repeal recommendation, we in Labor thank the government for its continued commitment to the implementation of the PJCIS report recommendations. We look forward to the full implementation of this recommendation. It's Labor's view that finding the right balance between our security and our rights and freedoms is a critical ongoing task that all parliamentarians must engage in.
Because new threats to our national security may suddenly arise or diminish as a consequence of events unfolding overseas or indeed in our own country, it's particularly important that our national security laws and capabilities are, to some extent at least, never taken for granted as a set-and-forget proposition. It was in recognition of the need for an ongoing review of our national security laws that Labor established the Office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, and it was in recognition of the ongoing nature of this function that Labor fought hard for the retention of the monitor, even as the Abbott government announced in 2014 that the office would be abolished, in the misguided belief that its purpose was somehow complete. I'm pleased that the then Abbott government eventually backed down on its proposal to abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The continued worth of the monitor has been shown in this bill, which picked up in a very real sense the 2017 review of the stop, search and seizure powers by the then Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the Hon. Roger Giles AO.
I also note that the government's own independent intelligence review conducted by Michael L'Estrange and Stephen Merchant, which reported in the middle of last year, recommended that the intelligence committee should be given a broader power of oversight. I think that there would be general support in this place for the expansion of the intelligence and security committee's oversight role in light of that recommendation of the government's independent intelligence review.
We in Labor have a great respect for the law enforcement and national security officers who are currently serving our nation. We also acknowledge that the laws that we make also play a role in the safeguarding of our rights and freedoms. Members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party recognise that in Australia, as in many other similar democracies, the powers of intelligence and security agencies have been strengthened and expanded significantly in recent years as a consequence of an increasingly complex and unpredictable security environment. Labor agrees that the maintenance of public safety in the current security environment requires enhanced powers for the agency charged with this critical responsibility.
However, with legislative changes extending those powers, the requirement for reliable, effective external oversight and other safeguards is always critical to maintaining an essential level of trust in the community about the vital work of our security agencies. Labor will always work to keep Australians safe and at the same time will ensure that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Australians are upheld. Getting this balance right can be a challenging task, but we always approach this task in a bipartisan and constructive manner which should leave the Australian community in no doubt that Labor will always seek to ensure that the requirements of our safety and security are proportionate and balanced against the fundamental rights and freedoms that we hold dear as a nation.
This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018, continues the slow, zombie shuffle into authoritarianism in this country. It joins the over 200 pieces of legislation that have been passed in the last 20 years in state, territory and Commonwealth parliaments that erode fundamental rights, freedoms and liberties in Australia. These are rights and freedoms that we have sent our people overseas to fight and die to protect and enhance over many decades. We are now trading them away with absolutely no reasonable argument that in doing so we are making our community any safer. That's why the Greens have consistently advocated for a counterterrorism white paper so that the arguments can be advanced, considered and assessed as to whether or not these erosions of fundamental rights and freedoms, which are ongoing and accelerating in our country, are doing as the bipartisan Labor and Liberal parties in this place are claiming—that is, making our community safer.
But it's not just legislation that's having a chilling effect on our democracy. We've seen decisions like the one taken recently by the Attorney-General to charge Mr Bernard Collaery and Witness K with conspiracy, a decision that will have a chilling effect on our democracy and the capacity of citizens in Australia to hold a government to account for its actions. That was a disgraceful decision. The Attorney-General has attempted to pass responsibility for it to the DPP, but ultimately this was a political decision made at the political level by the Attorney-General to charge Mr Collaery and Witness K. In fact there is a very strong argument that the crime here was committed by representatives of the government when they made the decision to bug the East Timorese government in an attempt to defraud Timor-Leste of its rights over the Timor Sea oil and gas fields. That's why—and I want to acknowledge Senator Patrick for his leadership role here—a number of us have referred that matter to the Australian Federal Police, because to the best of our knowledge there was never an investigation made into whether or not the decision to bug the Timor-Leste government was a crime. I believe it was a crime, I believe it went right to senior levels in government and I believe that those people who were involved in that crime need to be held to account for their actions.
This piece of legislation effectively rolls over a piece of legislation that otherwise would have sunsetted on 7 September 2018. Of course, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills did raise significant concerns regarding this bill's trampling of personal rights and liberties and noted that those measures were originally introduced on the basis of being a temporary response to an emergency situation. I would argue strongly that the emergency situation no longer exists, and yet this oppressive authoritarianism marches on in Australia. There are countries around the world which are debating loudly, in the public domain, the slow march to fascism, but that's not a debate that's happening to a meaningful degree in our country. We see this ongoing erosion of the rule of law and of fundamental rights and freedoms—which are part of what actually sets us apart from the people that many call terrorists—without proper checks and balances, only assessed through the closed shop of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is just a bipartisan closed shop; there is no representation from the crossbench on that committee. And when we see this ongoing march towards authoritarianism, totalitarianism and ultimately, unless we put the brakes on, a fascist state in Australia, we all ought to be very concerned. I say to both the parties that get together behind the closed doors of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security: I truly believe history will judge you very harshly for the decisions that you make in the name of public safety and counterterrorism.
This bill deals with two main areas—preventive detention orders and declared areas. In regard to preventive detention orders, I understand that federal law enforcement agencies have yet to use the preventive detention order powers, despite having had the power to do so for a decade. It's important to place on the record that these powers run contrary to the rule of law. They run contrary to the presumption of innocence and they undermine basic rights and freedoms in this country. We've seen no real evidence that these measures make our community any safer, and the government is continuing to fail in its argument for such measures. They have to be seen for what they are: a power grab from a power-hungry government within a police state, cheered on by the Labor Party. While most people read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four as a warning, Peter Dutton read it as a blueprint.
The declared areas part of this legislation is another example of legislation that in effect presumes guilt without evidence. A prosecution need not establish proof of intent to engage in terrorist activities. We're very concerned about this. Those concerns are shared by Professor George Williams and Dr Nicola McGarrity of the University of New South Wales, and those concerns are on onus of proof, the fact that defences are too limited and the fact that legitimate reasons such as religious pilgrimage, conducting business or commercial transactions or visiting friends are ignored.
As I've said before, the Australian control order regime is, in broad terms, based on the UK model. But there's a big difference between Australia and the United Kingdom: the United Kingdom has protections in terms of the Human Rights Act. Australia remains the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of charter or bill of rights, and that's why the Australian Greens will soon be moving for an inquiry into the form that such a charter of rights should take in Australia and which rights should be protected and enshrined. It's not good enough that we remain the only liberal democracy in the world that doesn't respect civil liberties and human rights enough to enshrine them in some way in law.
This government, as I have said, has consistently failed to make the case for the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms in our country. Again, we in the Australian Greens have consistently argued for not only a charter of rights but also a counterterrorism white paper so that we can assess on a strategic and holistic basis whether or not this ongoing erosion of civil and human rights and freedoms in Australia in the name of counterterrorism is proportional, whether it's warranted, whether the government's made the case, whether Labor has made the case and whether, in fact, this ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms is making us any safer whatsoever. But the government won't do that, despite the fact that we've been calling for it for a while and despite the fact that there has been a counterterrorism white paper in the past. The argument that's put against a counterterrorism white paper, which is that this is a rapidly evolving strategic environment, doesn't stack up. Yes, it is a rapidly evolving strategic environment, but what we need is a living, breathing, evolving white-paper process so that our strategic considerations of how we respond to threats to our community can actually evolve as those threats increase, diminish or change.
We take no comfort at all from the government's assertion that control orders will only be invoked in limited circumstances. History is replete with powers being created for one specific purpose that, down the track, become normalised and used by subsequent governments for a range of other purposes. The danger here is that control orders could become a new normal, and that's particularly true when you fit this piece of legislation into the ongoing and continuing erosion of civil and human rights in Australia.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported three times in relation to this legislation and continues to raise concerns about it. I want to place on the record that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights most recently, on 26 June, continued to, in its own words, 'raise serious concerns about the compatibility of the regime with human rights'. Clearly, this bill engages and limits a number of fundamental rights—rights that Australia has signed up in international treaties and protocols to protect and defend. Again, it's the view of the Australian Greens that the government has abjectly failed to make the case around the necessity of those limitations or, in fact, whether those limitations are reasonable and proportionate.
We will be opposing this legislation on the basis that the government has abjectly failed to make the case; on the basis that the government continues to refuse to engage in a process like a white paper on counterterrorism so that it gets an opportunity not only to try and make the case but also to be held to account for any failures to make the case; on the basis that this has only been subjected to an inquiry in the closed shop of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; and on the basis that this continues the slow zombie shuffle into authoritarianism in our country.
I rise to contribute to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018. It is the latest in a long line of national security bills that have been introduced into this parliament since the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. As outlined in the Bills Digest, this bill has three key purposes: to extend the provisions relating to control orders, preventative detention orders and the declared area offence, and terrorism-related stop, search and seizure powers, for a further three years; to extend the provisions relating to questioning warrants and questioning and detention warrants for a further 12 months; and to implement the government's response to certain recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the PJCIS in their most recent reviews of those provisions.
Centre Alliance will be supporting the bill. Centre Alliance supports appropriate powers being granted to our law enforcement and national security agencies to keep Australians safe. However, Centre Alliance also strongly supports robust oversight measures to ensure that the rights and freedoms that these laws are designed to protect are not compromised. I am pleased to see that the government has agreed to amend the Intelligence Services Act for the purpose of providing greater parliamentary scrutiny of these additional powers.
I note that the PJCIS, in its report on the bill, welcomed this. At paragraph 134 of the committee's report, the committee said:
The Committee also welcomes extension of its oversight to include Division 3A of Part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914 together with the additional reporting requirements that will be imposed. As the Committee noted in its earlier report, Committee oversight of the stop, search and seizure powers is in line with other review and oversight functions exercised by the Committee in relation to counter-terrorism.
It would come as no surprise that I want to address the need for the Intelligence Services Act to be amended to extend parliamentary scrutiny to the operations of Australia's national security and intelligence agencies. Most senators would be aware that I have attempted to effect this change through a series of amendments, for which I have been unsuccessful in getting support from this chamber. I've also attempted to refer amendments to the PJCIS but once again failed to get the support of the Senate.
On Tuesday this week, I introduced a private senator's bill, the Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018. As stated in the second reading speech to the bill, the PJCIS is explicitly prohibited from reviewing the operations of Australia's intelligence agencies. The PJCIS is prohibited by the Intelligence Services Act 2001 from reviewing intelligence-gathering priorities and operations of Australian intelligence agencies or the assessments and reports they produce. The committee is further barred from examining sources of information, operational activities and methods or any operations that have been, are being or are proposed to be undertaken by intelligence and national security agencies. The PJCIS is also prohibited from reviewing the privacy rules made by ministers that regulate the communication and retention by agencies of intelligence information concerning Australian persons. These limitations on parliamentary scrutiny have reflected the historical reluctance of past governments and intelligence officials to trust members of parliament outside of the executive with the most sensitive intelligence information. However, the PJCIS can't hold these agencies properly accountable for their activities if the parliament continues to ban its own committee from reviewing their operations and other activities. Nor can expenditure and administration be adequately examined without consideration and reference to operational performance.
I acknowledge the advocacy of former Senator Faulkner, who strongly urged this broad reform. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong, has also rightly observed that parliamentarians cannot outsource their duty to ensure the security of our nation and the people who entrust us with the responsibility of governing. This is absolutely true. If democratically elected MPs and senators cannot be trusted to deal directly with these questions, then there is something wrong with the relationship between the intelligence community and the parliament that it is ultimately meant to serve.
While I won't be moving amendments that reflect the bill I introduced, I will be seeking the support of the Senate next week to refer it to the PJCIS for inquiry and report. I note that Mr Dreyfus, in his second reading speech on this bill, said:
Labor continues to press for the significant changes to the role of the intelligence and security committee that were recommended by Senator John Faulkner in reforms, which were subsequently have been taken up in a private senator's bill by Senator Penny Wong, and by the independent intelligence review of 2017. These powers of oversight go beyond the expanded powers provided for in this bill, because necessarily the reviews which are reflected in this legislation are limited to the powers that are reviewed. We look forward to the government positively responding to its own review and assisting Labor with the implementation of the Faulkner reforms.
I want to make it clear that Centre Alliance fully supports our intelligence services, but they're not infallible in their judgement and they're not infallible in the execution of their tasking. No-one can be at the top of their game all of the time. So I'm not suggesting any criticism here.
I had the Parliamentary Library look into the times where our intelligence services' decisions have been called into question or the conduct or effectiveness of their operations has been called into question. It is quite a lengthy document, but it covers a number of decades. I will give you a few examples I have pulled from there: ASIS and the Chilean coup, I think it was in 1973; the Sydney Hilton bombing; the Sheraton Hotel incident; the Haneef affair; and, of course, the 2004 bugging of the East Timor cabinet rooms, which most people will be familiar with as the witness K story.
I note that people are still using the word 'alleged' when they refer to that bugging. But I think we can be absolutely satisfied that there was truth in that. There are proceedings on foot in the ACT in relation to what I presume is the revealing of those operations. I'm not conceding that on anyone's behalf, but I suggest that you can't bring proceedings about the release of information about a fictitious operation. That doesn't make any sense. So I think we can get away from calling the operation 'alleged'; it occurred. That operation occurred back in 2004, at about the same time that Jemaah Islamiyah were engaged in planning and actually bombing the Australian Embassy. At that time, we diverted our intelligence resources from the counterterrorism task to spying on the East Timorese during negotiations over oil rights in the Timor Sea.
East Timor has been a good ally and loyal friend of Australia. Their support of our soldiers fighting the Japanese in 1942 was vital. The East Timorese suffered 40,000 deaths due to aerial bombings and the Japanese destruction of villages suspected of sheltering Australian troops. Australian troops were protected—and I quote from Senator Neville Bonner—'at the expense of the lives of many, many East Timorese'. So I find it unconscionable, immoral and illegal conduct for our spying agencies, when we are engaged in a joint-venture negotiation with one of the poorest countries in our region, to spy on them to gain advantage during those negotiations. Hopefully, the AFP will conduct its investigations into the matter thoroughly. I put it that there has been a breach of ACT law in respect of that. If we had parliamentary scrutiny in place at the time, that operation may never have occurred. It was an operation that was authorised by the Liberal government—and perhaps the weight of the moral compass of the Labor Party at the time would have made sure that did not occur.
We now have an intelligence service that has 7,000 officials working in the field and a budget of about $2 billion. This parliament has extended its powers—and some of them are secret powers, powers exercised in secrecy. When we do that, we need to make sure we have the right checks and balances in place. I congratulate the government in this instance as they have increased a power, or extended the time associated with a power, to balance that correctly with parliamentary oversight. Parliamentary oversight is a good thing. Our allies use it. Our Five Eyes allies have parliamentary or congressional oversight. The USA has very, very strong parliamentary oversight. The Canadians have parliamentary oversight. The UK has parliamentary oversight. So we are an outlier. Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services would strengthen the public's confidence in our intelligence services. I commend this bill to the Senate, but I strongly urge that we get on and deal with proper oversight of our intelligence services at the first available opportunity.
I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018. This bill extends powers that are due to sunset on 7 September 2018. It's almost not necessary to explain why I oppose this bill, because just reading out what those powers are that are being extended is almost sufficient by itself. I will go through them. The bill extends for three years the Commonwealth control order regime. This allows a court to impose restrictions on a person without needing to suspect the person of a crime or to intend to charge the person with a crime and where noncompliance with that order can lead to five years imprisonment.
The bill extends for three years the Commonwealth preventive detention regime, which allows the Australian Federal Police to detain a person for up to 48 hours without needing to suspect the person of a crime or to intend to charge the person with a crime and where, again, noncompliance with that detention can lead to five years imprisonment. It extends for three years the Commonwealth's declared areas provisions, which make it an offence punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment to enter or remain in an area in a foreign country declared by the foreign minister. It extends for three years the Commonwealth's stop, search and seizure powers, which allow a person in a Commonwealth place in a prescribed security zone to be searched without a warrant and without the need for reasonable suspicion. The bill also extends for one year ASIO's power to have a person who is not suspected of a crime forcibly taken into custody, detained for up to seven days, required to answer questions and provide documents, and required to not disclose the questioning and detention, with noncompliance punishable by up to five years imprisonment.
These five powers—four to be extended for three years, one for one year—are scarcely used. The control order regime has been used just six times. The preventive detention regime has never been used. The declared areas provisions have never been used. The stop, search and seizure powers have never been used. ASIO's power to hold people for questioning for up to seven days, which they're not allowed to tell anyone about, has been used 16 times. So the question is: if those powers are not being used, why are they there? There is no specific threat referred to as justification for extending them. On the one hand, in a liberal democracy—a true, free society—they are of little use and benefit. They would, on the other hand, be of considerable benefit to an authoritarian regime which was seeking to establish its authority. Therefore, this is a risk to society. This is a risk to our freedom. This is a risk to liberal democracy. We are handing powers, which we say are fine—they haven't been used; they will only be used in rare instances—to authorities basically as a blank cheque. As Senator Patrick has so eloquently discussed just prior to me speaking, there is no parliamentary oversight for the use of those powers. This is a travesty of democracy. It is contrary to the principles of a free society. I emphatically oppose this bill.
I thank the honourable senators for their contribution to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018. Since September 2014, Australia's national terrorism threat level has been at 'probable'. This means that there is credible intelligence assessed by our security agencies indicating that individuals or groups continue to possess the intent, the capacity and the capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia.
In this prevailing threat environment, it is critical that our law enforcement and security agencies have the powers they need to protect the community from the threat of a terrorist act. Consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, this bill extends the operation of the control order regime, the preventive detention order regime, the declared area provisions and the terrorism stop, search and seize powers beyond their sunset date of 7 September 2018. These powers will operate for a future three years, until 7 September 2021.
Each of these powers plays an important role in equipping our agencies with the capabilities they need to address the threat of terrorism. The control order and PDO regimes are vital preventive powers that enable law enforcement agencies to take proactive steps to mitigate the threat of a terrorist act where traditional law enforcement powers are not available. The declared areas offence forms an important element of managing the risk posed by the return of Australians who have participated in conflicts overseas with a listed terrorist organisation. It equips our law enforcement and prosecution agencies with the tools to arrest, charge and prosecute returning foreign fighters. Terrorism stop, search and seize powers under the Crimes Act enable law enforcement agencies to act immediately in the event of a terrorism threat to or a terrorism incident within Commonwealth places such as airports and defence establishments.
The bill will continue the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's questioning and questioning and detention powers in relation to terrorism offences for a further 12 months. This will enable the continuation of these important intelligence gathering powers while the government considers the PJCIS's other recommendation in relation to ASIO's powers.
In accordance with the recommendations of the PJCIS and the INSLM, the bill also makes other amendments to these counterterrorism provisions to ensure they continue to meet the operational needs of law enforcement agencies whilst also ensuring the proportionality of these regimes. The bill also increases independent oversight of these counterterrorism provisions to promote greater accountability and transparency around their use. Enhanced oversight provides confidence that these extraordinary powers are being exercised judiciously and in appropriate circumstances by Commonwealth agencies.
I'd like to thank the PJCIS and the INSLM for their detailed consideration of each of the sunsetting counterterrorism powers and offences. The work of the PJCIS and the INSLM was invaluable in informing the deliberations of government on the necessity and effectiveness of these critical counterterrorism provisions and ways to improve their operation. I also thank my colleagues across all sides of the chamber for recognising the need for these important measures. This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that Australia's counterterrorism legislative framework remains robust and that our law enforcement and security agencies have the powers they need to respond to the evolving threat of terrorism.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
As no amendments have been circulated, does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I recall this deeply informed speech that I was giving the other night for four minutes—closer to six, by the look of it—so I'm very happy to continue my remarks on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Indeed. As I recall, I was reflecting last time on the great distress that so many regional Queenslanders in particular have experienced with the poor rollout of the NBN under the Turnbull government. I was reflecting the other night on the level of complaints that I and my office receive both from regional Queensland and on the Gold Coast, where my electorate office is, from both households and businesses about the poor service that they're receiving from the NBN. The complaints that we receive on an incredibly regular basis go to two issues. The first type is from people who, after all this time, are still waiting for the NBN to be connected at their home or their business, and the second type of complaint that we receive on an all too regular basis is from people who have the NBN, but the service that they receive is extremely poor.
I don't have the exact statistics in front of me, but I remember very well that there are still many parts of the Gold Coast—that large and growing city, the second biggest city in Queensland—that are still waiting for NBN connections to be installed. When you get around the Gold Coast and talk to people about this, you hear that it's having a really big impact on their business competitiveness. From a household perspective, it also continues to affect businesses because of the large number of home-based businesses on the Gold Coast, but it's also as simple as children being able to do their assignments and homework for school and university students being able to submit assignments. So it is having a very direct impact on people's lives.
In some ways the even more distressing complaints that we receive regularly from residents and businesses both on the Gold Coast and in regional Queensland are from people who do have the NBN installed but are greatly affected by the poor level of service that they are now receiving. We receive a range of complaints from people who have bought a particular NBN package and are paying a certain amount on a monthly basis for certain download speeds, but their download speeds don't even get close to reaching what they're paying for. Understandably, people are very disappointed that they're paying for a service that they're not receiving.
I remember, for instance, a gentleman by the name of Max, who runs a refrigeration business on the northern Gold Coast, who has paid for an NBN service. He's a small-business operator and relatively new in business, so he's not exactly flush with cash. He's paying for an NBN service to receive a particular download speed, but he has pretty much given up on that, and he's now running his business off the personal hotspot on his own mobile phone because that supplies him with a more regular and reliable and quicker download speed than he gets from the NBN package he is paying for.
When it comes to regional Queensland, I remember a few months ago spending some time in Central Queensland, particularly in Rockhampton. I hosted a roundtable about the NBN with our shadow minister for regional communications—
Debate interrupted.
I present the eighth report of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 8 OF 2018
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 August 2018 at 7.25 PM.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Freedom of Speech Legislation Amendment (Censorship) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 December 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Freedom of Speech Legislation Amendment (Insult and Offend) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 December 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) the Freedom of Speech Legislation Amendment (Security) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 December 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018
National Energy Guarantee Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
5. The committee considered an issue relating the membership requirements of the committee and decided not to recommend any change to the standing orders.
(David Bushby)
Chair
16 August 2018
I move:
That the report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Non-controversial government business—
No. 5 Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) Bill 2018
No. 6 Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018
No. 7 Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018
No. 8 Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018
No. 9 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2018
No. 10 Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018
Underwater Cultural Heritage (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018
No. 11 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018
No. 12 Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018
No. 13 Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017
No. 14 Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Bill 2018
No. 15 Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notices of motion:
no. 968 standing in the name of Senator Hinch relating to Pure Compound Sodium Fluoroacetate, and
no. 966 standing in the name of Senator Collins relating to the National Energy Guarantee; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I seek leave to add the names of Senators Abetz, Bushby, Colbeck, Martin, Brown, Urquhart, Singh, Bilyk, Whish-Wilson and McKim to the motion.
Leave granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Polley, Abetz, Bushby, Colbeck, Martin, Brown, Urquhart, Singh, Bilyk, Whish-Wilson and McKim, move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes with deep regret the recent decision by WIN TV to produce and read Tasmanian local news out of New South Wales, and the loss of local jobs and content as a result of this decision; and
(b) reaffirms the importance of local news content, and calls on all media outlets to maximise local news production and content as part of their operations.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators O'Neill, Payne, McAllister, Molan, Cameron, Fierravanti-Wells, Williams, Leyonhjelm and Burston, move:
That the Senate congratulates the New South Wales' (NSW) State of Origin coach, Mr Brad Fittler, and the NSW Blues for winning the 2018 State of Origin series.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that today, 4 million Australians, or almost 20 per cent of the population, are living with allergy and allergic diseases;
(b) recognises that over the last 20 years, hospital admissions due to anaphylaxis have increased five-fold, 10 per cent of infants now have food allergies, drug allergy-induced anaphylaxis deaths have increased by 300 per cent, and drug allergy-induced anaphylaxis presentations have trebled;
(c) is deeply concerned by the recent death of a young child in Western Australia, and several near misses across the country, as a result of food allergies;
(d) recognises the work of Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) and Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australia (A&AA), as well as other partner organisations, in developing the National Allergy Strategy for Australia, published three years ago in August 2015;
(e) recognises that the National Allergy Strategy is the single, national resource for the community, medical profession and policy makers in providing strategic goals to reduce the incidence of allergy-related deaths and harm in Australia; and
(f) calls on the Federal Government to ensure significant ongoing, long-term funding for the National Allergy Strategy.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government today announced an investment of $2.17 million in projects to improve the lives of Australians who live with allergies. The funding will be used to back a range of projects identified as part of the National Allergy Strategy, which was developed by the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy and Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australia. Further funding is subject to further discussions about the National Allergy Strategy, noting that the government receives proposals and initiatives from a wide array of different chronic disease organisations.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that the draft report of the Productivity Commission, assessing the efficiency and competitiveness of superannuation, concluded that Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA) behind-closed-doors approach to regulation:
(i) makes it difficult to assess whether the regulator is effectively curtailing poor behaviour, and
(ii) suggests that, even if APRA's approach is effective, the lack of public enforcement provides limited discouragement for poor behaviour elsewhere;
(b) notes the observations of counsel assisting, Michael Hodge, QC, in his opening address to the fifth round of hearings of the Royal Commission Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Royal Commission) that, regarding the regulation of superannuation:
(i) there may be an inherent tension between regulators maintaining financial system stability and regulators taking public enforcement action, and
(ii) there is not a dedicated conduct regulator for superannuation trustees in Australia;
(c) notes the revelation from the Royal Commission on 14 August 2018 that:
(i) Colonial First State failed to transfer 15 000 members into MySuper accounts within the legislated timeframe, and
(ii) APRA failed to prosecute Colonial First State for these breaches which amount to 15 000 individual offences that could attract a total maximum fine of $157 million; and
(d) expresses concern:
(i) that the responsibility for conduct regulation of superannuation is ambiguous,
(ii) that APRA's approach to compliance and enforcement of breaches by superannuation funds falls short of community expectations, and
(iii) that the best of interests of members are not being served as a result.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government acknowledges the issues raised in the royal commission and supports a superannuation system with a strong regulatory framework that protects members' money and members' interests above all else. The government currently has a bill before parliament, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, which will strengthen APRA's powers and penalties. We will consider the findings and recommendations of the royal commission when it completes its inquiry.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that the Medical Board of Australia has proposed a new code of conduct that arguably curtails the free speech of doctors;
(b) further notes that the Australian Medical Association in its submission on the revised code states "Section 2 of the draft revised Code could be seen as trying to control what doctors say in the public arena by stifling doctors' right to publicly express both personal and professional opinions, while also undermining doctors' contribution to the diversity of public opinion, debate, and discourse"; and
(c) welcomes the voices of common sense defending free speech and urges the Minister for Health to work with responsible ministers and agencies to ensure doctors retain their freedom of speech.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The health minister has asked the Chief Medical Officer to convey his concerns do the Medical Board of Australia about any actions that would limit freedom of speech or thought. The health minister has assurance from the chair of the board that the intention of the draft revised code of conduct is to prevent behaviour that is unethical or unscientific, and it is not intended to stifle the right to free speech. We are advised that the code will be revised following the current period of consultation.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes the growing concerns around Australia of the sustained historically high levels of immigration to Australia; and
(b) calls upon the Australian Government to halve the current immigration intake.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not be voting for this motion. But while the government does not support this motion as drafted, we do support the principle that migration and population growth must be managed in such a way as to benefit all Australians. In 2017-18 the permanent migration program fell for the second year running, to 162,417 places. This decline has occurred at a time of unprecedented jobs growth. The coalition's policies are ensuring that Australians have priority in the labour market. We're also taking further steps to reform our immigration system and have been undertaking a comprehensive review of the visa system to focus it on delivering the best possible outcomes for Australians.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will be opposing this motion. Australia is a nation built on migration. We have welcomed 7.5 million migrants since World War II, who have helped to build Australia into the strong, vibrant multicultural society it is today. The size and composition of Australia's permanent migration program is set each year through the budget process, and is based on evidence. Senator Bernardi has moved this motion as a stunt to gain attention and to justify his existence in this place. Of course we understand that Australians are frustrated with stagnant wages, unaffordable housing and clogged infrastructure. But migrants are not to blame; that falls squarely with the Turnbull government. Only Labor has the policies to tackle housing affordability, build the infrastructure our cities need and ensure that local workers get the first shot at local jobs.
I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I rise simply to indicate that I won't be supporting this motion either. A focus on the number of immigrants is irrelevant. It's the quality of the immigrants, skilled immigrants versus family reunions, and where they go that matters. It's a much more nuanced debate than simply about numbers, and I can't support a motion that simply focuses on numbers.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the absolute right of the Australian people to determine who comes to this country;
(b) notes that, in reference to the immigration policy of this government giving preference to Europeans, former Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies stated, "I don't want to see reproduced in Australia the kind of problem they have in South Africa or in America or increasingly in Great Britain. I think it's been a very good policy and it's been of great value to us"; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to hold a plebiscite to allow the Australian people to decide whether they want:
(i) to continue the current indiscriminate immigration policy that allows Muslims to come into this country, or
(ii) to return to the predominantly European immigration policy supported by Sir Robert Menzies.
All I am asking here is that the Australian people get a say not only in how many people come to this country but also, more particularly, on who comes to this country. That's what I am asking. I think, overwhelmingly, the Australian people need to have a say in who comes to this country and what our society will look like in the future. Thank you, Mr President.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I say from the outset that Labor will oppose this motion. Senator Anning's comments in this place were disgusting and divisive and have been rightly condemned by all sides of politics. Now, with this motion, the senator is attempting to continue his time in the spotlight. Australia is a nation built on migration, and our non-discriminatory immigration policy is our strength and our pride. Following the White Australia policy being dismantled, the Racial Discrimination Act was passed by the Whitlam government in 1975 to ensure Australia would not return to the backward, unjust and discriminatory days of the past. Labor believe in a fair go for all, and we'll always stand up for the multicultural and migrant communities of Australia and defend our non-discriminatory immigration policy. This motion and the racist and discriminatory views it stands for have no place in this parliament.
I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This motion is a disgrace, particularly coming off the back of Senator Anning's comments earlier this week, which were disgusting and divisive and brought this entire parliament into disrepute. I want to make a couple of points. Firstly, it was good to see this parliament come together to condemn Senator Anning, but what Senator Anning said does not happen in isolation. This government has been sleep-walking Australia down this path for a long time now, demonising African people in Melbourne and joining with the Labor Party in a discriminatory migration policy which locks up only people with brown and black skins in places like Manus Island and Nauru. We have to see Senator Anning's comments in that context. I say very clearly that, if the Labor and Liberal parties had not been joining in discriminatory migration, those comments could not have been made.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the growing prominence of business events that enable direct and private access to senior members of Parliament, such as the Australian Labor Party's Business Observer Summit, the Liberal Party's Millennium Forum and The National's National Policy Forum, and
(ii) the failure of Australia's political donation laws to require the disclosure of payments for these events because there is contractual consideration, they are therefore not classified as a 'gift' under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that would mandate public disclosure;
(b) acknowledges that political donations enable access and influence policy decisions made by political parties and that these events are shrouded in secrecy; and
(c) resolves that, in the interest of good government, political parties should voluntarily disclose the attendees of these events and the amount of money provided by these businesses to political parties during these events.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens claim they oppose corporate donations, but the truth is that they accepted a $1.6 million donation from the founder of online travel company Wotif—at the time, the largest single political donation in Australian history. Greens senator Lee Rhiannon was so outraged by her party's hypocrisy that she ghostwrote a poison-pen letter attacking the Greens leadership. At the last election, the Greens accepted a half-million-dollar donation from professional gambler Duncan Turpie, a member of secretive gambling syndicate the Punters Club. The ATO accused the Punters Club of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax fraud, money which should have funded Australian schools and hospitals, a claim which the Punters Club settled out of court. The Greens virtue signalling on political donations is yet another example of the rank hypocrisy that has come to characterise the Greens under Senator Di Natale's leadership.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I want to put on the record that I support this. This is a very sensible move by the Greens, surprisingly. But I do have a question: are these related entities and are they subject to the disclosure regime, notwithstanding this motion itself? That's my understanding of the Electoral Act. But the principle behind this is one of voluntary participation, and I think it's well worthy of consideration.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I had the privilege of chairing an inquiry into political donations. What we learned through that was the extent to which our donation laws can be avoided and money taken from big businesses, from the big end of town, can be hidden from public view. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party use their business forums to launder money into their political war chests. They do it because they charge; they have a cash-for-access arrangement. Because they serve a bit of food, because they have a table at a venue, they can take tens of thousands of dollars and not disclose a cent of it. In the absence of laws that would compel disclosure—and obviously that is what should happen—this motion calls on political parties to voluntarily disclose which companies have paid, and how much, to get an ear of senior members of parliament. We are very happy to work with any side to ensure that we get more transparency and end the state-sanctioned bribery that is our political donations regime.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants enables the United Nations General Assembly to work towards a global compact for migration, including an intergovernmental conference to occur later this year;
(b) further notes the comments attributed to the Minister for Home Affairs that Australia will not sign any migration compact in its current form, notwithstanding Australia's prior role in developing the agreement; and
(c) calls upon the Minister for Home Affairs, and other relevant ministers, to desist from taking any further steps towards Australia becoming a signatory to, or enacting, any elements of the global compact.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia's approach to the global compact is informed by our national experience and the coalition government's steadfast commitment to secure borders and integrity in our migration programs. Australia engaged constructively in the negotiations to develop a compact that would make migration safer, more regular and more orderly. As the government has stated, we will not sign up to anything that diminishes, undermines or limits our ability to keep Australians safe.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will oppose this motion. Australia is a nation built on migration, and Labor recognises the significant benefits that many nations, including Australia, have gained from well-managed migration programs over decades. We understand the strains placed on global migration through the pressures of conflict and disadvantage. These pressures have seen the mass movement of people in the tens of millions across the globe, particularly through irregular means. Australia should play an active role in contributing to solutions to these challenges.
I suggest that Senator Bernardi actually read the compact, which explicitly states:
The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law.
Ultimately a decision on whether to agree to or become a party to international agreements is a matter for the government of the day. We would expect any such decision, where there would be significant national interest involved, to— (Time expired)
The question is the motion moved by Senator Bernardi be agreed to.
I move:
That, if by 13 September 2018:
(a) the government business order of the day relating to the consideration of the National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017; and
(b) the government business order of the day relating to the consideration of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
have not been finally considered, these orders of the day shall be discharged from the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government does not support this motion. Senators should oppose it not on the basis of the substance of these bills but to defend the principle that legislation ought to be afforded the opportunity of a proper debate on its merit before the Senate discharges it. It is the orthodox and longstanding practice of the Senate that the government of the day determines the listing and order of items of government business. This motion begs the question: why are the Greens so afraid of a proper debate about the modest and sensible measures in these bills to enhance the transparency and accountability of the ABC and SBS?
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor strongly opposes these bills, but we do not support the motion to discharge them from the Notice Paper. The bills were introduced last year pursuant to yet another backroom deal between the government and One Nation as part of a full-scale attack on the ABC, which we've witnessed ever since. While it may suit the government and One Nation to have these bills hanging over the ABC and SBS as part of their strategy to menace and harass the public broadcasters, debate is a cornerstone of our democracy. Labor is prepared to debate these bills to demonstrate they are unnecessary, vindictive and hypocritical, to say the least. Labor calls on the government to bring these bills on for debate so the Senate can have its say on them substantively. We note the bills are, yet again, another example of the close relationship between the Turnbull government and One Nation.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government has had 12 months to bring these bills forward for debate. This motion says that the bills must be debated by 13 September. There is still time, if the government wishes, for this place to debate these bills that were, of course, a result of a dirty deal done between the Turnbull government and One Nation. This just proves that the government has no guts in following through with these bills. It is holding them over the heads of the ABC and its staff. This is more attack from the Liberal Party and this government on the ABC and our public broadcasters. It's a disgrace. If you are prepared to debate the bills, bring it on. We will be more than happy to show you what the will of the people really is when it comes to defending our public broadcasters.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Birmingham for today, relating to consideration of disallowance motions.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that over recent times, the Senate has witnessed:
(i) Senator Hanson wear a burqa in the Senate chamber, with the purpose to ridicule a religious community,
(ii) Senator Leyonhjelm use sexism to attempt to belittle and intimidate a fellow parliamentarian, and
(iii) Senator Anning use racism and hate speech, including language from the Holocaust, to incite hatred against the entire Muslim community;
(b) seeks to ensure that hate speech and intimidatory behaviour do not go unfettered in the Senate under the name of parliamentary privilege;
(c) notes that the Member for Indi, Ms McGowan, has tabled a motion in the House of Representatives to develop a code of conduct for members of Parliament and their staff;
(d) agrees that, as a Parliament, we must stand up against unacceptable behaviours; and
(e) gives in-principle support to include in the Senate standing orders a code of conduct, with the aim of preventing a senator behaving in such a way, or using language, which is discriminatory or incites hatred towards a community.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The opposition will not be supporting this motion from Senator Di Natale. We have made clear our position on the actions of others in this place who have sought to use race as an instrument of division and who have conducted themselves in a way that does not conform with the standards the Australian people expect of us. Labor has led the charge in encouraging parliamentarians to express their support for a voluntary commitment to inclusion and race ethics. The invitation from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister for government members to join all opposition members in signing this statement remains open.
We welcome the support across the chamber for Senator Wong's motion yesterday. Further, we fully support the comments of the President in his statement to the chamber on Monday this week. Consistent with our past actions and the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, the opposition does not support the inclusion of a code of conduct in the standing orders of the Senate, recognising that standing orders 193 and 203 already regulate conduct in the chamber.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
We should be held to a higher standard than the standard that we set within our community, not to a lower standard. If it's hate speech outside the parliament; it's hate speech inside the parliament. People will tell you it's not appropriate to be wearing a burqa to completely belittle a religious community. People will tell you it's inappropriate to use sexist, misogynist language directly against a member of this place. People will tell you it is not appropriate to invoke the Holocaust to support your racist views of the world. It is no good to simply say, 'We condemn the behaviour,' when then you go ahead and vote against a censure motion, as the government and the ALP did yesterday. They now won't back up their words with serious action. It is long overdue that this parliament had a code of conduct that defined what was acceptable behaviour and that we all stuck to it.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges:
(i) that, earlier this year, Australian Greens representatives travelled to Brussels to promote a documentary film, and repeat claims that kangaroo populations are at serious risk of extinction across Australia,
(ii) a media statement made, on 5 March 2018, by former Senator Rhiannon stating "myths about kangaroos are uncritically repeated as facts in Australia and abroad",
(iii) that despite the repeated claims by the Australian Greens to the contrary, it is widely and publically recorded that there have been no adverse long-term impacts on kangaroo populations after more than 30 years of harvesting under commercial management plans; in fact, there are an estimated 48 million kangaroos across Australia today, compared with only 27 million in 2010,
(iv) that more than three decades of data proves the sustainable harvest quota for kangaroos is always well below actual population estimates, and the actual quota levels have almost never been met,
(v) that there have been decades of sound, sustainable management of kangaroo harvesting that has been consistently confirmed by kangaroo management reviews, carried out by independent scientists,
(vi) that, despite making this data publically available, the kangaroo meat and hide industry has long been forced to battle against the boisterous, yet unfounded, claims by the Greens, and the broader animal liberation movement, that kangaroos are somehow at risk of extinction, and
(vii) that the National Code of Practice for the Humane shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes, agreed to by all states in 2008, must be complied with under each state's management plans;
(b) recognises the thousands of families across rural Australia that derive some income from the kangaroo harvesting trade; and
(c) supports public policy that:
(i) encourages the humane and sustainable harvesting of the kangaroo population, and
(ii) encourages trade expansion of kangaroo products.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the release of the Australian Council of Social Service and UNSW Sydney report, Inequality in Australia 2018;
(b) recognises that the report found that wealth inequality is increasing and, with regards to income inequality, someone in the top 1 per cent of the income scale earns more in a fortnight than someone in the lowest 5 per cent earns in a year;
(c) acknowledges that our social safety net currently fails to protect those seeking work from falling into poverty;
(d) notes that the Australian Council of Social Service calls for an increase of $75 a week to allowance payments for single people from 1 January 2019; and
(e) urges the Federal Government to increase the single rate of Newstart and related allowances by $75 a week.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The rate of Newstart is too low. It is so low it is acting as a barrier to people finding work. That is why Bill Shorten has said that we want to see a root and branch review into the adequacy of Newstart. The fact is that this government actually wants to cut Newstart by scrapping the energy supplement for anyone who has started to receive Newstart since September 2016. Mr Turnbull wants to cut Newstart by $8.80 per fortnight. Labor opposes this, and we will reverse it.
Let's be very clear: this is a stunt by the Greens political party, and we've a seen a few of them today. It won't pass the parliament. The Greens know appropriation bills have to be introduced by a minister in the House. Labor isn't interested in stunts. We want to address this complex issue. We will review the adequacy of Newstart and related supports in government. After all, that is how the biggest increase to the pension in history came about—after a proper review by a Labor government.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Liberals and Nationals know the best form of welfare is a job.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
If I hear one more time from the government that glib comment that the best form of welfare is a job, I'll throw up. I should put on the record that the Justice Party could support the Greens on this, because I believe that Newstart must be increased, but you cannot set a figure of $75 and try to get them to change their minds. I'm sorry, but I have to vote against it.
The question is that motion No. 974 be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) that the Australian Defence Force has recently drawn headlines following an indication it could end the use of gender-specific pronouns, and enforce a new language regime on our defence personnel,
(ii) that the Victorian public service, with support from the Victorian Government, has commenced a campaign to enforce the belief that masculine and feminine pronouns are somehow restricting,
(iii) that in 2016, the Queensland Government ended its inclusion of male or female in drivers' licence information, following complaints from the gender-diverse community,
(iv) the bully and intimidation from some within the gender-diverse community towards iconic Australian comedian Mr Barry Humphries – a man who has been a public trailblazer in challenging community expectations surrounding gender stereotypes – when he questioned the legitimacy of expanding bathrooms, and indoctrinating children in certain social outlooks relating to gender,
(v) that Qantas made international headlines earlier this year when it was revealed it would focus on directing staff language and behaviour, as part of a so-called 'Spirit of Inclusion' month that would "recognise reality" by forcing staff to follow a strict language regime by replacing language such as husband, wife, mum and dad to avoid any potential offence potentially felt by same-gender couples, and
(vi) that the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Parkinson, has repeatedly stated his belief in the highly contentious concept of "unconscious bias", and has spent millions of taxpayer dollars attempting to find evidence to support his personal beliefs and alter the personal actions of staff under his control;
(b) reaffirms its support for free and fearless speech, and open and honest discourse as foundations of western civilisation;
(c) rejects any attempt to enforce an overhaul of longstanding language usage for innocuous and benevolent terms that are spoken with no intended malice; and
(d) condemns any form of crusading, bullying, intimidation and use of authority by government, activists and corporate leaders that attempts to stifle free speech by enforcing a specific world viewpoint on linguistics and social policy.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
While the government strongly supports freedom of speech, we note factual inaccuracies in the wording of this motion and cannot support it on that basis.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens oppose this motion. Expanding the use of some simple words and making efforts to improve inclusive language practices in government and business does not pose a threat to Senator O'Sullivan or anyone else for that matter. None of the examples that Senator O'Sullivan has presented restrict the personal freedoms of any Australian. Gender-inclusive pronouns and gender-neutral language demonstrate our commitment to equality and respect for all Australians, regardless of sex and gender. Language evolves. It always has and it always will. Not long ago, the use of sexist language such as the use of the word 'mankind' was widespread, and that is changing. The ease with which my younger friends use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a person regardless of their gender shows me that it's only a matter of time before gender-inclusive language becomes the norm also.
At the request of Senator Sterle, I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) since recordkeeping commenced in 1925, there have been over 190 000 deaths on Australia's roads,
(ii) over the last ten years, there have been 14 525 road fatalities in Australia,
(iii) during the 2017 calendar year, there were 1 225 road deaths across Australia,
(iv) in 2018 so far, there have been 665 deaths on Australian roads, and
(v) the annual economic cost of road crashes in Australia is estimated at $27 billion per annum, and the social impacts are devastating;
(b) recognises that according to the Government's own website, "the Australian Government is responsible for regulating safety standards for new vehicles, and for allocating infrastructure resources, including for safety, across the national highway and local road networks", and "the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities has a range of functions that support the Australian Government's role in road safety. These include: administering vehicle safety standards for new vehicles, administering the National Black Spot Program and other road funding, administering the keys2drive program, producing national road safety statistics, and coordinating the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020"; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) acknowledge that almost 90 per cent of the National Road Safety Strategy targets will not be met by 2020,
(ii) acknowledge that fewer than one in ten KPls are likely to be met and that a quarter of KPls still are not even being measured, and
(iii) provide a guarantee that the National Road Safety Strategy is being monitored, and that changes will be made to reach the agreed targets if they are not on track to be met.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government acknowledges the motion's understandable passion for improving road safety across our nation—a passion shared by the government. The coalition government is focused on delivering world-class infrastructure, including local roads, which increase productivity, but, more importantly, improve safety so that Australians can get home to their families sooner and safer. Programs, including the Black Spot Program and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, as well as the record $10 billion investment in the Bruce Highway and the billions spent on duplicating the Pacific Highway are all examples showing that this government is committed to improving road safety. The government also acknowledges the opposition for its bipartisan support in helping move our nation towards zero.
The question is that motion No. 965 be agreed to.
I move:
That government business order of the day No. 14 (Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Bill 2018) be postponed till the next day of sitting.
Question agreed to.
I take the opportunity to commend the Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) Bill 2018 and recommend it to the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) Bill 2018. It's lunchtime on a Thursday in the Senate, and we all know what that means. It means senators are wining and dining themselves in the members' and senators' dining room and the bureaucrats take charge of this asylum we call the Senate. Over the next hour these bureaucrats will rush 12 bills reflecting their grand plans through this near-empty Senate chamber, aided by a government lackey and a collaborating senator from the opposition.
The first bill to be rushed through today is the Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) Bill 2018. It inserts one line into Australian law and, by doing so, makes a 48-page international tax treaty Australian law. This undermines our sovereignty. Where are the red-blooded nationalists we normally hear so much from—the senators from One Nation, the Greens and the old Xenophon team, and the solo senators representing Katter's Australian Party, Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, the Australian Conservatives and the Justice Party? Perhaps they are nattering about the dangers of globalisation up in the senators' and members' dining room, over their plates of foie gras.
I represent the Liberal Democrats, a serious, small-government party, so I've read the bill before us today and I have an understanding of what it will do. By absorbing a vague 48-page international tax treaty into Australian law, the bill will make our tax system harder to understand, which will make it harder to do business in Australia, which, over time, will make everyday Australians worse off. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I oppose this bill. Unfortunately, we don't currently have enough representatives of serious, small-government parties in this place to block this bill. For the sake of Australia's sovereignty, this must change.
I thank senators for their contributions in this place on this particular bill and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018. Labor moved an amendment to the start date of schedule 3 in the House, and Labor will support this bill. The bill contains a series of tax integrity measures. I will note now that the shadow Assistant Treasurer moved an amendment to the bill in the House, which I will detail later in my remarks after discussing the other schedules.
Schedules 1 and 2 to the bill implement parts of the OECD hybrid mismatch rules. The OECD hybrid mismatch rules are designed to prevent entities that are liable for income tax in Australia from being able to avoid income taxation or obtain a double non-taxation benefit by exploiting differences between the tax treatment of entities and instruments across different countries. As detailed in the explanatory memorandum, the new amendments involve limiting the scope of the exemption for foreign branch income and preventing a deduction from arising for payments made by an Australian branch of a foreign bank to its head office, in some circumstances, and denying imputation benefits on franked distributions made by an Australian corporate tax entity if all or part of the distribution gives rise to a foreign income tax deduction, and preventing foreign equity distributions received directly or indirectly by an Australian tax entity from being non-assessable non-exempt income if all or part of the distribution gives rise to a foreign income tax donation.
It appears that delays between announcement and legislation mean the government has missed its originally proposed implementation date of 1 July 2018. The implementation date is now 1 July 2019. The measures have an unquantifiable gain to revenue. Labor has led the multinational taxation debate. Our transfer pricing laws, introduced in 2012 and 2013, were instrumental in delivering the tax office's High Court victory against Chevron. Labor in opposition carried the torch further by announcing a comprehensive package that included closing debt deduction loopholes and sweeping transparency measures around the use of tax havens. We welcome the government implementing the OECD rules and urge them to adopt Labor's package.
Schedule 4 to this bill amends the two income tax assessment acts to provide an income tax exemption for the IBC, the International Cricket Council Business Corporation, and to exempt from withholding tax payments of interest, dividend and royalties made to the IBC. This provides support to the International Cricket Council staging the ICC World Twenty20 in Australia in 2020. The measure applies to assessable income derived on and from 1 July 2018 and to interest, dividend and royalty withholding tax liabilities arising on and from 1 July 2018. This measure was announced by the Treasurer on 8 May 2018 as part of the 2018-19 budget. It's common for major events to receive this tax treatment, and it is consistent with what the previous Labor government did in relation to the Cricket World Cup held here in Australia in 2015.
Schedule 5 to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to list Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee Inc as a DGR under the income tax law. This means donations of more than $2 given to the memorial between January 2018 and 31 December 2019 inclusive are tax deductible. This was announced as part of a measure contained in the 2017-18 MYEFO to list a number of DGRs. The total cost to revenue of that measure was $1.1 million in the forward estimates to 2021.
Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that the producer offset is better targeted to support the Australian film industry when an offshore location is used for principal photography. The amendment, as originally drafted, applied to expenditure incurred in relation to films that commenced principal photography on or after 1 July 2017. The government argues that the measure means the offset works as intended. The measure reduces expenditure by $6 million over the forward estimates. We appreciate the briefing from Treasury on the matter, which followed our request. However, the legislation itself came as somewhat of a surprise to many. Multiple film sector stakeholders contacted the shadow Assistant Treasurer and the shadow minister for the arts about the measure, citing concerns about a lack of consultation, about retrospectivity and about the lack of a regulatory impact statement. Labor is happy to lend its support to tax integrity measures, particularly so that certain concessions work as intended. However, noting the lack of sector consultation and the retrospective aspect of the legislation's start date, Labor moved a detailed amendment in the house to make the start date 1 July, 2018. The government supported that amendment, which we think is a good outcome for the parliament and for the sector. As such, we reiterate our support for the bill.
I rise to oppose the misnamed Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018. It's not about tax integrity; it's about tax increases, and specifically about corporate tax increases. The coalition government pretends to be a low-tax party by calling for modest reductions in the corporate tax rate, but what it does on the quiet is regularly ramp up corporate tax, such as through this bill.
For instance, when there are various interpretations about how the tax regimes of different countries interact, the bill requires that the interpretation that leads to the highest tax being payable is the interpretation that must apply. The bill denies imputation credits in certain circumstances. The bill reduces access to a film producer offset. The bill reduces access to an exemption for foreign branch income. The bill denies deductions for certain payments made by banks. The bill removes a provision that treated certain income received by Australian companies as non-assessable.
This all represents a creeping corporate tax hike and makes the tax law that little bit more complicated. This all makes it less and less likely that global businesses will establish operations in Australia, will invest in Australia and will employ Australians. Those who hate business, particularly those businesses that dare to look beyond national borders, will cheer this bill—or they would if they bothered to turn up to this empty Senate chamber. But those people are unwittingly driving us slowly to oblivion.
I thank senators for their contribution to this debate and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018. The bill provides the Governor-General with the discretion to appoint a second deputy chairperson of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. APRA is the prudential regulator of the Australian financial services industry. It's an independent Australian government body which overseas banks, credit unions, building societies, general insurance and reinsurance companies, life insurance, private health insurance, friendly societies and most of the superannuation industry.
APRA is governed by a full-time executive group of at least three and no more than five members. The terms and conditions of the appointment of members is set out in the APRA Act. Members are appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the relevant minister. Currently, one member must be appointed chair and another member may be appointed deputy chair. Currently, APRA has only three members. This bill provides for the Governor-General to appoint a second deputy chair of APRA. Currently, the Governor-General only has the discretion to appoint one full-time APRA member as the deputy chair. Labor supports an additional deputy chairperson.
As the explanatory memorandum notes, amending the APRA Act to provide for two deputy chairpersons will assist APRA in operating as an effective and efficient regulator. The proposed changes will provide greater flexibility in the way in which APRA is governed and enhance the skills and capabilities available to APRA and its members. It will improve the ability of the members to manage new or more complex issues.
Given the shocking evidence presented to the royal commission so far, it's clear that we need strong and effective financial regulators. It was this government that actually cut funding to another Australian financial regulator, ASIC, by $120 million in the 2014-15 budget. The government only moved to restore funding after Labor called for a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector. And even then it was so it could look like it was doing something while stubbornly refusing a royal commission. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison spent the last two years telling the Australian people that a royal commission was unnecessary. In fact this government spent 601 days bitterly resisting the urgent need for a royal commission into banking. And, when the Prime Minister finally announced it, he still called it regrettable. Eventually, those opposite grudgingly acknowledged that there was an error in their judgement in protecting—
You're not including me in that, are you?
Senator Williams, I do acknowledge your efforts in this regard, very much so. Eventually, those opposite grudgingly acknowledged their error of judgement in protecting the banks for so long and set up the royal commission. We have heard some shocking evidence presented to the royal commission, and yet those opposite still want to give the banks a $17 billion tax cut. We need Australia's financial regulators to be strong and to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. That's why Labor will be supporting this bill.
I thank the senator for her contribution to this debate and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018 and condemns the coalition for still receiving tobacco donations. The measures in schedule 1 of the bill amend several acts to create a new illicit tobacco offence regime following the announcement by the Treasurer in the 2016-17 budget on 3 May 2016. According to the explanatory memorandum, the government's committed to reducing the harmful effects of tobacco consumption. This bill supports the National Tobacco Strategy 2012-18, endorsed by all Australian health ministers, to reduce the affordability of tobacco products, and the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which commits nations to implement policies on tobacco prices and tax increases.
As part of the 2016-17 budget the government committed to reform the excise and customs acts to provide enforcement agencies with access to tiered offences with appropriate penalties to increase the range of enforcement options available for illicit tobacco offences. Tobacco and tobacco-duty-related offences are currently administered by the Australian Taxation Office—tobacco produced or manufactured in Australia under the Excise Act, and the Department of Home Affairs excise-equivalent customs duty on imported tobacco under the Customs Act.
The offences in this bill remove complications that arise from whence the illicit tobacco came and deal with the substantive issue of possession and trading of illicit tobacco. In the 2016-17 budget the government adopted Labor's policies to increase excise and excise-equivalent duties on tobacco. Although higher excise and excise-equivalent customs duty rates for tobacco improve the health of Australians by discouraging tobacco consumption and reducing their exposure to tobacco products, they increase the risk of illicit tobacco being produced or manufactured domestically or imported into Australia.
Labor supports this bill. I do, however, want to make some brief remarks about credibility and tobacco donations. It is a matter of fact that the coalition continues to receive tobacco donations—something that Labor does not. This, and the lack of credibility the government has on reducing smoking-related illnesses and deaths, should be emphasised in the second reading debate. As my colleague in the other place the shadow Assistant Treasurer said, the coalition is yet to kick the habit. The coalition continues to accept donations from big tobacco. The Australian Electoral Commission returns from 2015-16 show that the sum of $14,940 was given by big tobacco to the National Party of Australia. The returns from 2016 show that the sum of $15,700 was received by the National Party of Australia. I seek leave to table the Australian Electoral Commission returns showing these tobacco donations.
Leave granted.
The Prime Minister needs to explain why he thinks it is acceptable for his coalition partners to fill their coffers with donations from an industry that profits from a product that, if used according to directions, will kill more than half of its users. While these donations continue, Senator McKenzie's position as the Minister for Rural Health is completely untenable. Smoking is the single highest preventable cause of ill-health and death in Australia, accounting for more than 15,000 deaths each year. The likelihood of being a daily smoker is up to twice as high in rural and remote Australia as it is in metropolitan Australia. Yet the National Party continues to accept money from big tobacco despite the additional harm that smoking related deaths do in regional and rural Australia.
By contrast, it is Labor's longstanding policy not to accept donations from tobacco companies, a position that is reflected in our national platform. Labor introduced and fought for world-leading plain-packaging legislation which, combined with other policies, has seen the adolescent smoking rate drop to a record low. I was here in this place watching how the coalition behaved as that plain-packaging legislation made its way through. You could see clearly, and early on, that they wanted to vote against it. They were doing their level best to square up to vote down plain packaging. In the end, after a great deal of delay, they finally did the right thing. But they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a point of supporting plain-packaging laws which are now being looked at by countries around the world who are asking themselves: how do we reduce smoking rates in our country too?
This is a government that lacks credibility on tackling big tobacco. The measures in this bill today, however, are uncontroversial, and this bill will receive Labor's support. But we do urge the coalition to do the right thing and stop accepting tobacco donations.
I am often accused of being influenced by the donations the Liberal Democrats have received from big tobacco—proudly, openly, unashamedly accepted donations. Smoking is legal and voluntary—and, I might add, its rate in Australia is not falling. Plain packaging and high taxes notwithstanding, its rate in Australia is not falling. And the reason for that is that neither Labor nor the Liberals are serious about reducing smoking. Instead, they posture about donations. If they were serious about reducing smoking, they would legalise vaping tomorrow.
Notwithstanding my support for choice in relation to tobacco smoking, and my party's acceptance of donations from tobacco companies, I am today opposing a bill that big tobacco loves. The bill is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018. This bill makes it easier to prosecute someone for possessing tobacco that hasn't been taxed, and it massively increases the penalties, including by imposing up to five years imprisonment, for tobacco smuggling. The tobacco companies like this bill because it doesn't relate to their tobacco. Their tobacco is taxed to the hilt and the tobacco companies have no affection for tobacco smugglers. But I do, and so do the Liberal Democrats. Tobacco is a legal product, so smuggling tobacco is not about putting a product on the market that shouldn't be available. Smuggling tobacco is, instead, about avoiding tax, and tax should be avoided when it is unconscionably high. Tobacco tax represents about three-quarters of the price. This is highway robbery. The only way the government gets away with it is that there is little public sympathy for smokers. Smokers are sneered at by the elites of our society. The Liberal Democrats don't sneer at smokers, and we think tobacco smugglers are patriots. I oppose this bill.
I thank senators who made a contribution on this debate in the chamber and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2018 is an omnibus bill relating to criminal justice arrangements. It's a bill that covers a wide range of areas, including the AFP's international cooperation work, disclosure of information in the context of controlled operations, custody notification and vulnerable witnesses. Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the AFP's international cooperation work. The schedule would amend the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to enable the AFP to assist or cooperate with an international organisation or a non-governmental organisation outside Australia in relation to the provision of police services or police support services. Crime is becoming increasingly international. Seventy per cent of our serious criminal threats now have an international dimension. Our law enforcement agencies are up against complex transnational threats, from fraud syndicates working across countries to child exploitation material being produced and distributed globally, and, of course, there is the scourge of human trafficking and slavery in our supply chains. International partnerships allow the AFP to meet these challenges and threats.
Allowing the AFP to assist organisations overseas is a sensible change that Labor supports. But, of course, laws alone cannot prevent crime. If we want to stop complex international threats, we must support the Australian Federal Police. Unfortunately, this government has chosen to cut AFP funding and slash staff. In budget estimates, the Australian Federal Police commissioner confirmed that the government's recent budget contains a $205 million cut to resourcing for the AFP over the forward estimates. As a result, Australian Federal Police staffing is predicted to fall from 6,448 personnel in the financial year 2018-19 to 5,881 personnel in the 2021-22 year. That's 567 AFP personnel to go over the next four years. Labor will be supporting this bill and the measures it contains to assist the Australian Federal Police in their work, but we also remain deeply concerned by this government's savage cuts to AFP funding.
Schedule 4 of this bill would increase the maximum penalty of breach of the general dishonesty offences in the Criminal Code from five years imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment. This change is designed to allow courts to impose appropriate sentences in circumstances where multiple instances of relatively minor fraud, when added together, amount to serious fraud. An absolutely critical part of this bill is the changes it makes to the custody notification obligations in the Crimes Act. Custody notification is an incredibly important protection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This requirement ensures that police get in touch with Aboriginal legal assistance organisations before they question a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin in custody. Custody notification saves lives.
This bill seeks to amend a drafting error in our Commonwealth custody notification obligations. This error came to light in a 2013 case where the ACT Supreme Court found that, due to drafting issues, investigating officials are actually not currently required to notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation person before commencing questioning. However, the bill, as originally drafted, would have removed the absolute requirement to notify a legal assistance organisation and replaced it with a requirement to take 'reasonable steps' to notify a legal assistance organisation and wait for two hours before questioning the person. As stakeholders noted, there are many reasons why an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation may not be able to respond, and these proposed changes may leave individuals without important protections. The change would have been particularly concerning for people in remote and regional areas where it's not always possible to access legal services, certainly not within two hours.
Custody notification prevents deaths in custody. Custody notification schemes were a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and it's important that they must not be watered down. Labor listened to evidence from stakeholders on the importance of this scheme, met with the minister and raised these issues in our additional comments on the bill. These concerns were heard and addressed by the minister in amendments to this bill, which would ensure that the absolute notification requirement remains in place. This is fantastic news and an example of parliament working at its best.
I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service; the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia; the Aboriginal Legal Service (New South Wales/ACT); the Law Council of Australia; Legal Aid New South Wales; and the Australian Human Rights Commission for their work in fighting for the retention of these important obligations. Not only did they make valuable and important contributions to the parliamentary process but many of these organisations work every day to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the justice system.
Labor will be supporting the measures in this bill to strengthen protections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, but there's so much more to do in this space. We must do more to address the systemic injustice and prejudice that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders still face in the criminal justice system and in society more broadly.
I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2018. Half of this bill is terrible; the other half includes one of my greatest achievements. In order to be upbeat, let me just focus on the achievement.
Schedule 3 amends offences for disclosing information about the AFP's controlled operations. Currently, a person faces up to two years imprisonment for any disclosure and 10 years imprisonment if the disclosure endangers a person or operation or if the discloser intended to endanger a person or operation. Under the amendment, this will be changed for entrusted persons. Other people, like journalists, will only face the two-year penalty if the disclosure endangers a person or operation. They will only face the 10-year penalty if they intended or knew the disclosure would endanger a person or operation. They will enjoy a defence of prior publication in instances where they do not believe disclosure would endanger a person or operation. This provides a level of protection for the media and innocent people caught up in these control operations.
The only reason this schedule exists is because I read the bills that we pass in this place. I realised that we needed this change to make the disclosure regime relating to the AFP consistent with the disclosure regime relating to ASIO. And indeed the ASIO disclosure regime was only changed not in response to the protests I raised at the time but later when the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security recommended that it be changed. Following that, I wrote to the former Attorney-General asking for this change and he agreed, so a great deal of credit to him. I can't vote for half the bill—otherwise, I would—but I do record the fact that it does reflect one of my achievements, which makes it not entirely bad.
I thank senators for their contribution to this debate and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak to the Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 and the consequential and transitional provisions. Labor supports the Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill. The purpose of the bill, as stated, indicates that it aims to update the original aims as laid out in Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 to maintain compliance with modern standards of regulatory compliance and enforcement. The original 1976 act was last amended in 1985. That does not account for the changes in Australian and international law after the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which happened in 1994. This includes the rights and obligations extended to states in the convention that were not outlined in the original act.
This bill triggers parts of the Regulatory Powers Act 2014 providing for monitoring and investigative powers, and enforcement provisions including civil penalties and infringement notices. Contraventions of the act will be regulated more strictly to reflect the extensive national cultural legacy of Australia's underwater cultural heritage. There is also an expansion of the protective scope of this bill. This includes replacement of the terms referring to 'shipwrecks' and 'wrecks' with terms referring instead to 'underwater cultural heritage'. The protective scope of the bill includes articles that appear to have been constructed or used by a person associated with a vessel, and provides for the protection of secondary heritage sites such as shipwreck survivor or salvage camps. Certain articles of underwater cultural heritage are automatically protected, in contrast to the previous ministerial approach under the Historic Shipwrecks Act. The minister may still declare articles to be protected, but they will now be assessed against prescribed significance criteria.
Whilst the bill does not seek to assert sovereignty over waters that are not considered Australian under international law, it will also include a clause to protect Australian underwater cultural heritage articles located outside Australian waters. This bill also has provisions to limit and regulate the possession and movement of underwater cultural heritage material that has been removed from Australian waters. Labor supports this bill.
Before commending the bills to the Senate, could I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 and related bill. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I commend the bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Labor support the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018, which implements relatively minor recommendations in the Productivity Commission's review of Australia's intellectual property system. We note that the government has not chosen to include in the bill the highly contentious changes that it supported in its response to the commission's review, including abolishing innovation patents and lifting parallel import restrictions on the sale of Australian books.
The bill amends a range of legislation, including the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Plant Breeder's Rights Act, the Patents Act, the Designs Act and the Olympic Insignia Protection Act. Some of the changes respond to uncertainties created by recent court decisions. For example, the bill clarifies circumstances in which the parallel import of trademarked goods is permissible. These changes arise from a submission to the Productivity Commission by the Law Council of Australia, and will give consumers greater certainty about what they are purchasing.
The bill also reduces the grace period for non-use of trademarks, aligning Australia with the practices of other jurisdictions reducing the number of unregistered trademarks. The bill gives greater protection for plant varieties by broadening those circumstances in which an essentially derived variety can be applied for. This will boost an important export industry by providing breeders with an incentive to develop improved varieties. The bill also makes administrative changes to harmonise procedures within the intellectual property system, such as transferring to the Registrar of Plant Breeders' Rights certain powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. This will give the registrar the same powers as the heads of comparable registries, such as the registrar of trademarks.
Labor is pleased to support these measures, which will reduce the potential for confusion in the application of intellectual property legislation and make the system operate more effectively. However, we caution the government against proceeding with other changes that would weaken intellectual property protections for innovative Australian firms and our creative industries.
I thank those opposite for their contributions to this debate and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 makes a range of technical amendments to two key pieces of federal legislation: the Legislation Act 2003 and the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. It also makes some other consequential amendments to other federal acts. The main purpose of the bill is to harmonise and streamline the operation of sunsetting provisions. The sunsetting framework is designed to ensure that legislative instruments only remain in force for as long as they are needed by stipulating that they are automatically repealed 10 years after commencement.
The changes to be made by this bill implement the recommendations of a committee that last year conducted a review of sunsetting provisions in the Legislation Act. The committee was made up of three senior Commonwealth officials—Mr Ian Anderson, who also chaired the committee, Mr Peter Quiggin PSM and Ms Alison Larkins. The committee made 45 recommendations in its sunsetting review report, which was tabled in this house on 23 October 2017. This bill complements guidelines issued by the Attorney-General's Department to improve the management of sunsetting for legislative instruments.
The measures in the bill broaden the scope of the Attorney-General's power to defer sunsetting; remove the restriction on the parliament's power to roll over the sunsetting dates of a legislative instrument; provide a carve-out to ensure that the rules made by federal courts are not subject to the sunsetting framework; clarify the definition of 'sitting day' for the purposes of disallowance under the Legislation Act, consistent with current practice; and clarify that provision in the Legislation Act allowing a legislative or notifiable instrument to commence before the instrument is registered operates despite any rule or principle of common law to the contrary, subject to a prohibition on any retrospective effect that adversely affects the rights or liabilities of a person other than the Commonwealth.
Labor supports this bill because the sunsetting framework helps to keep the statute books free from redundant instruments. I note that the sunsetting framework put in place by this bill does not apply to acts of the parliament but only to regulations. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I thank those opposite for their contributions to this debate and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill. It makes a number of changes that will ensure improvements to the collection and reporting of agricultural levies and charges to ensure better consistency between legislation and industry changes. It's the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to collect, administer and disperse agricultural levies and charges to the 15 research and development corporations on behalf of the Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries.
The changes made by this bill will ensure that all our RDCs are able to communicate effectively with their levy payers. Currently, only a few RDCs have the capacity to do so. However, Labor stresses that both the department of agriculture and our RDCs will have to responsibly use the data that will now be able to be collected and possibly shared with third parties, with written approval from the secretary.
I thank those opposite for their contribution on this debate. I can assure those opposite that the security and confidentiality of the information contained will be assured by very, very tight protections. It gives me an enormous amount of pleasure to commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. I make clear from the outset that Labor will support this bill. The bill makes a number of mostly technical changes to superannuation arrangements for public servants, judges and Commonwealth parliamentarians. Perhaps most significantly, the bill ensures that the minimum superannuation guarantee requirements will be met for parliamentarians in all circumstances in the future.
I'll go to the issues surrounding the super guarantee in a moment, but first I will touch briefly on other aspects of the bill. The bill allows members of the Judges' Pensions Scheme to now be able to meet their division 293 tax liability requirements through a lump sum payment. Some members currently can't meet their liability through the scheme. This change rectifies that and is consistent with other Commonwealth schemes.
The bill provides certainty for the children of members of several Commonwealth superannuation schemes, specifically around what happens to members' superannuation balances should they die. These schemes will be standardised and modernised when it comes to reversionary superannuation benefits paid to children of deceased members. The amendment increases the minimum-age test for children to be in full-time education from 16 to age 18, and it removes the requirement for an eligible child to not be employed. These changes reflect the fact that the majority of children do not leave formal education until they're 18 years of age and that part-time and casual employment amongst young people is common.
The bill seeks to reduce the size of the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Board from 11 to nine directors and modernises the governance arrangements. The bill also gives the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust the flexibility to pass a resolution without a meeting and allows other actuaries, rather than only the Australian Government Actuary, to provide advice to theParliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. Again, this is consistent with other Commonwealth schemes.
As I mentioned, this bill also ensures that, under any scenario, any payments under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 will meet the minimum superannuation guarantee requirements. The Australian Government Actuary found there were some limited circumstances where this could still be an issue—all hypothetical and unlikely scenarios. Nonetheless, we support this measure to ensure that SG contribution requirements are met.
Unfortunately, for many Australian workers, not being paid the superannuation guarantee that they're entitled to isn't a hypothetical. Industry Super Australia estimates that 2.4 million workers are losing $5.6 billion in payments each year. For those workers, that's the equivalent of losing $2,000 a year that should be going into their retirement savings. Super is part of a worker's pay and conditions. Every worker deserves to receive the superannuation that they're entitled to. Yet we have a Prime Minister and a government who always side against them when it comes to super.
The Liberals recently proposed a 12-month amnesty for employers who haven't made compulsory superannuation payments to their staff since 1992. That means that the dodgy bosses who haven't paid their staff any superannuation for a quarter of a century won't be penalised at all if they pay it back during the amnesty period. What's even worse is that, under the Liberals' plan, the superannuation guarantee charge would be tax deductible for employers, so dodgy bosses would get a tax break for doing the wrong thing.
As I said, these amendments are mostly technical and they won't affect the vast majority of Australians. We will support this bill, especially the changes that ensure that compulsory super guarantee payments are always made.
I thank those opposite for their contribution to this debate and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—Before we move off the non-controversial matters, I would like to give Senator Ruston an opportunity to indicate that she will accept documents that were tabled in the course of that debate.
Yes.
This is now my third partial contribution on this bill, and it would appear I probably have enough time to finish before question time, so I will try and make this about as exciting as Star Wars: Episode III, given this is part 3 of my NBN speech. What I've really tried to do in my previous two contributions is to outline some of the complaints that my office receives on a regular basis—I know many others do as well—about poor NBN service quality and lack of coverage in too many parts of Queensland. I think in my first contribution I spoke about what this bill seeks to do, and I put forward Labor's position on that, so I may leave it at that in terms of the content of the bill itself. In my remaining time, I just want to pick up on some very concerning news that emerged overnight that demonstrates how much this government is leaving regional Australia behind when it comes to telecommunications and, in particular, the NBN.
As I say, on a regular basis my office receives complaints from people in regional Queensland—particularly Central Queensland, where I'm most active—about poor NBN service quality. When I ceased my previous contribution, I was talking about some of the horror stories that were put forward by Central Queensland businesses when I hosted a roundtable several months ago with our regional communications shadow minister, Steven Jones. I should point out two of the participants in this roundtable that stick in my mind most confessed that they were pretty much lifelong LNP supporters but that the poor service they had been receiving from the NBN under this government was actually most likely to shift their vote at the next election. So, even if the government isn't serious about delivering good-quality telecommunications and NBN to rural and regional Australia because it is the right thing to do—especially in a geographically decentralised state like Queensland, where good telecommunications are essential to businesses being able to compete with big urban centres and with the rest of the world—there is a very good political reason for this government to start acting on regional communications as well.
One of the instances from that roundtable that sticks most in my mind was a motorcycle dealership. The proprietor of that shop was talking to me about the immense frustration she had had with NBN services interfering with phone services and EFTPOS services. She was telling me that, pretty much from the time the NBN was installed in her dealership, she had technical difficulties that kept arising with all of her technology. She was able to point to numerous examples where customers had come into her store and walked up to the counter with, in some cases, literally over $1,000 worth of goods that they wanted to buy—it might have been motorcycle helmets, jackets or all sorts of motorcycle related materials. They'd go to pay by EFTPOS but couldn't actually pay, because the NBN difficulties were causing all of the shop's technology to go down, including their EFTPOS. They couldn't get a connection to bank services online, which meant that the customer couldn't pay for these goods, so the customer would say, 'Look, I'll go up the road and get a bit of money out of the ATM.' And, too often, customers would leave the store, leave their goods on the counter, walk out the door—allegedly to go out and get some money out of the ATM—and never come back. So, over and over again, this store was having customers walk out the door and effectively deciding not to go ahead with their purchase because of the EFTPOS and NBN related difficulties that this store was having.
Even worse was the example of a florist who attended our roundtable. Everyone who is in the habit of buying flowers for our spouses on Valentine's Day or for our mothers on Mother's Day understands that, if you are running a florist business, these are probably the two biggest days of that year. This florist was able to tell me that on both Mother's Day and Valentine's Day, the biggest days of the year—I am pretty sure she was talking about last year—her phone line went down, her NBN line went down, all of her technology went down because of NBN problems. You might as well cripple a florist store if it can't work effectively on Valentine's Day and Mother's Day—and that's what was happening here. Understandably, people who rang up this florist to try to get their flowers organised and were told that they couldn't pay for them, that it couldn't be done, went to the florist up the road and used that service instead.
These are real-life examples of how people in south-east Queensland are already suffering from the poor NBN rollout under this government. We got some more news about this overnight which showed yet again how out-of-touch NBN Co and this government, as its overseer, are with the needs of regional Australia when it comes to telecommunications. It emerged at the NBN joint committee last night that NBN Co was planning a significant price rise for regional customers. What came out in the questioning was that NBN Co is preparing to introduce new wholesale prices that discriminate between rural and regional areas on the one hand and big metropolitan centres like capital cities on the other. If you are a customer in a metropolitan area on a fixed line service—it might be Brisbane, it might be Sydney, it might be Melbourne—the wholesale rate that is going to be applied will be $45. But if you live in a rural or regional area and you are on a fixed wireless network—it might be Rockhampton, it might be Townsville, it might be Mackay, it might be Western Queensland—then the price will be $65. So there will be a $20 difference based on simply where you live and the technology that you are utilising.
Good telecommunication is really an essential tool of business no matter where it is located in this day and age. It is the way people can connect to their customers and their suppliers on a quick and efficient basis. But under this government the NBN rollout has been so poor that rural and regional Queenslanders and Australians are being left behind. Not only is that occurring as a result of the poor rollout; now NBN Co wants to discriminate on the basis of price as well. So rural and regional Queenslanders are going to be paying more for the privilege of having a worse service from the NBN than people living in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne.
It is unbelievable that a government that claims to represent rural and regional Australia would allow that to happen. We hear over and over again from our National party representatives in Queensland that they are the guardians of the bush, the guardians of rural and regional Queensland. But here is yet another example where they have let rural and regional Queensland down. They do it on penalty rates, they do it on my behalf, they do it on poor funding for rural and regional hospitals and schools—and now they are doing it when it comes to NBN as well. Is there a single National Party representative from Queensland who is actually prepared to get up and have a go at the government for the second-rate system of NBN that continues to be laid out in regional Queensland and for discriminating against rural and regional Queenslanders when it comes to prices? Unfortunately, we are still waiting for that to happen.
This bill does go some way to providing all Australians, whether they be city based Australians or rural and regional Australians, with the kind of guarantee of good service they are entitled to. As I mentioned in a previous contribution, the first aspect of this bill is to legislate with certainty that all premises in Australia can continue to access high-speed broadband infrastructure beyond the NBN rollout. It really says it all about this government's poor NBN rollout. Simply having the NBN say to people that they will ensure that all Australians can continue to access high-speed broadband infrastructure isn't enough. They have actually got to go the extra mile and now enshrine it in legislation because the NBN, under this government, cannot be relied upon to deliver. We are pleased to see this government actually put it beyond doubt in legislation that all Australians, no matter where they live, are going to have access to high-speed broadband infrastructure once the NBN is rolled out. But, as I say, it says something very grave about this government's rollout of the NBN that it actually has to take that step.
The NBN really has become one of the running sores of this government. No matter which electorate people represent here in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, every single day people are coming to our electorate offices complaining about the poor NBN rollout and service under this government. It has become an embarrassment. The number of countries that have better NBN services and better broadband than Australia, including in parts of the developing world, really put this government to shame when it comes to the NBN. So I hope that this bill is the beginning of a change of attitude, a proper rollout of the NBN, guaranteeing people the services that they need to be able to function properly in the new millennium.
I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018. As my colleague Senator Watt has just indicated, yesterday afternoon we heard some very concerning details about the Turnbull government's plans for regional broadband users, details that clearly demonstrate that the Liberal and National parties do not care about regional Australia, details that clearly demonstrate that the Liberal and National parties are happy for people in regional Australia—families on the fringe of towns, businesses on the land, and hard-working small-business people who work from home—to pay more for less.
Yesterday before a Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, NBN Co admitted its plans to charge regional Australians on the fixed wireless network $20 per month more than a customer on the same 50 megabits-per-second speed who lives in the city—$20 a month, $240 a year. And this charge is likely to attract the 10 per cent GST so, in fact, it will be an impost on those Australians who happen to be on the fixed wireless service of over $264 a year. This equates in percentage terms to someone in the regions paying 44 per cent more than someone in a nearby town for the same 50 megabits per second. What sort of government would allow this to happen? Well, let me tell you, the Turnbull government allowed this to happen. What sort of government would abandon Australians like this? The Turnbull National-Liberal government is a government led by a man who knows the fine details of the swing against him in the Braddon by-election, who claims to have created the internet and who even claims to have created the term 'Battery of the Nation', who does not care about the regions, who doesn't care about small family businesses, and who doesn't care about creating opportunities for all Australians.
You see, the people who are typically on fixed wireless are those living on the outskirts of our regional towns and cities. They may be farmers, they may have a small land holding or they may be on a normal residential block. They have either moved to the urban fringe to enjoy the country lifestyle or because the price of housing is more affordable than in a town or city. They face the same cost-of-living challenges as those in the towns, except they need to get in the car every time they need anything. To impose an arbitrary $264 charge on these households per year will only make things harder. It will mean that many will go without decent broadband for their small business or family, or they will go without something else—maybe a family holiday, a trip away. This Prime Minister cannot—
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted. Senator Urquhart, you will be in continuation.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the article in this morning's Australian entitled 'NEG rebels try to force walkouts'. Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister held a second round of crisis talks with members of his own party room yesterday to stop them voting against his energy policy?
No, I can't confirm that. What I can confirm is that in this government there is ongoing policy discussion on matters of national interest. Do you know what we are interested in? We on this side of politics are interested in lower electricity prices and more reliable energy supplies. In the lead-up to the next election, Labor will go to the election with an agenda of higher electricity prices, which will hurt families, which will hurt pensioners and which will cost jobs. We will be going with an agenda that will bring down the cost of electricity and improve the reliability of our energy supplies.
Our Prime Minister is a very consultative Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister is a very inclusive Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister is somebody who enjoys engaging in policy discussions with his colleagues. We on this side of the chamber are absolutely committed to getting this reform absolutely right. I cannot confirm what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate asserted, but I can confirm that, as a matter of business as usual, we continue to have discussions as appropriate about the right policy decisions for the future.
Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Has the Prime Minister met or had discussions with any members of the executive in order to urge them not to vote against his energy policy?
The Prime Minister meets with members of the executive on a daily basis.
Senator Wong, a further supplementary question.
Can the minister rule out having raised with any senator the prospect of government and taxpayer funding of new coal-fired power stations in exchange for a senator's support for either the National Energy Guarantee or the government's company tax cuts?
I stand by my answer to my first question. We continue to talk about which policies can best deliver lower electricity prices for households, for families and for pensioners and which policies can best deliver lower electricity prices so that our businesses can continue to be internationally competitive, create more jobs and create better opportunities for families to get ahead.
You can't rule it out.
Here we go—they want me to play the rule in, rule out game.
Yes, we do.
I'm not going to play the rule in, rule out game. What I am going to do, together with all of my colleagues, is continue to assess all of the issues and continue to work on the best way forward in our national interest.
You've got to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.
Is that how you do it?
Order! Senator Cormann and Senator Carr.
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
Senator Carr, we will try to keep peace during questions.
My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on the latest labour force figures released today?
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senators Cameron and Macdonald, during the question I insist upon silence.
I thank Senator Bushby for the question. I am very pleased to advise the Senate that today's labour force figures show that full-time jobs are being created because of the policies put in place by the Turnbull government. Today's labour force figures show that more Australian are in full-time jobs than ever before. That's right, colleagues: full-time employment in Australia is at a record high.
I'm also pleased to advise that the national unemployment rate has fallen to 5.3 per cent. This is actually the lowest unemployment rate since November 2012. It compares to an unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent when Labor left office. Under the policies that this government, the Turnbull government, has put in place, in the 12 months to July 2018 in excess of 300,300 jobs have been created. The good news for Australians is that two-thirds of those jobs, 200,000 of them, are full-time jobs. The level of employment in Australia has now increased for 10 of the last 12 months. In the month of July, last month, we actually saw a net increase of 19,000 full-time jobs across Australia.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Cameron, this actually compares to your last 12 months in office when, you should be ashamed to know, the economy under Labor actually shed almost 17,000 full-time jobs in the last 12 months. In July of this year the economy, under us, created 19,000 full-time jobs. Full-time job creation is what you get when you put in place the right economic policies that businesses can lever off. (Time expired)
Senator Bushby, is there a supplementary question?
How is the Turnbull government's commitment to lower taxes for businesses and individuals delivering these results?
It's very simple. On this side of the chamber, the Turnbull government, we understand that lower taxes for business mean they are able to reinvest back into the business they own. They can then grow that business, and in growing that business they create more jobs for Australians. That is what the labour force figures released today show. We also note that lower taxes for individual working Australians mean that they are able to keep more of their hard-earned money and in doing so they are able to go and spend more on goods and services. The labour force figures released today show that the economic policies that the Turnbull government has embraced and is putting in place are helping businesses to prosper and grow, and in prospering and growing they are creating more jobs and, as I've said, a record number of Australians in full-time employment. That is something that our policies have delivered.
Senator Bushby, is there a second supplementary question?
Is the minister aware of any risks to this plan for more jobs and a stronger economy?
Yes, there are risks. They're the policies of those opposite, those from the Labor side of politics, led by Mr Bill Shorten, who have openly committed to taking to the election policies that, if ever implemented, would increase taxes, not just on Australian businesses—I don't know why they've declared a war on the engine room of the Australian economy, businesses that create jobs for Australians—but also on individual tax-paying Australians. It is a fact that if you increase taxes on businesses they will not be able to expand, they will not be able to prosper and they will not be able to grow. The logical end point of that is that, under the policies that the Labor Party have committed to take to the next election, we will see businesses shed employees. That is not good for the Australian people. On this side of the chamber we know that if you put in place the right economic policies you see more Australians in work.
Before I call Senator Marshall, I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Rt Hon. The Baroness Caroline Cox, of Queensbury. 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 Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. On Friday the minister joined the Minister for the Environment and Energy in attempting to persuade state and territory governments to support the Turnbull government's National Energy Guarantee. Has the minister joined the Minister for the Environment and Energy or the Prime Minister in recent meetings to persuade members of the coalition party room to support the government's position? If so, when and with whom were these meetings held?
No, I have not. But Senator Marshall is correct; I was at the COAG Energy Council last week to discuss the future energy policy of this nation. It is instructive that we have a Victorian government that's running in lock step with GetUp! and Greenpeace on these issues. We have a Labor Party that are not interested in lowering power bills for Australian people. They're not interested in securing the future jobs in our manufacturing sector in Australia. They are not interested in the people of this country who are at their kitchen tables struggling to pay their bills right now. They're not interested in the pensioners that have to put extra doonas on to keep themselves warm in winter. They are not interested in these things. They are focused on an election where they need the support of GetUp! to win marginal seats in Melbourne. That's what they are focused on.
At that meeting last week, it was very, very clear from the delegation from Victoria that they were focused on one thing: their re-election, not the reduction of power bills for the Australian people. That was their focus. Right through this process, the Victorian government have otherwise supported the National Energy Guarantee. They've supported good policy to try and find a stable and consistent policy framework for our nation in this space. And then, guess what? Just as they receive a few emails from GetUp! and some people that they're scared of, they jump to that tune. We know who sings the song for the Labor Party in Victoria, and it ain't the average families in this country. It is the activists in Melbourne who are leading the Victorian government down a garden path that is not about lowering prices but meeting emissions reduction targets and nothing else.
Senator Marshall, a supplementary question.
In an article in this morning's Australian entitled 'NEG rebels try to force walkouts', it was revealed that the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nationals MP Mr Keith Pitt:
…was considering stepping down from his frontbench position so he could oppose the NEG.
Has the minister attempted to persuade Assistant Minister Pitt to support the government's position?
I have tried to persuade all I've spoken to about the common sense of adopting the National Energy Guarantee. It is the right approach to help bring down power bills for the Australian people. If you'd like to have a briefing on why the National Energy Guarantee is the right approach, Senator Marshall, I'd love to have that discussion with you. We still to this day don't know what the Labor Party's position is on the National Energy Guarantee. When I hear Mr Butler, the energy spokesperson for the Labor Party, get up and speak, all I hear him talk about is emissions reductions. That's all he talks about. He doesn't talk about lowering power bills for the Australian people.
Order! Senator Cameron, on a point of order.
This is on relevance. This was a very specific question: has the minister attempted to persuade Assistant Minister Pitt to support the government's position? The minister's attention should be drawn to the specific question.
You've very kindly done so, Senator Cameron. I note the minister has 14 seconds remaining to answer.
As I said, I try to convince everybody of common sense and good policy in this nation, and this policy is common sense. It does provide the potential to lower power bills, and that's what this government is focused on.
Senator Marshall, a final supplementary question.
Last night Senator Molan said Minister Frydenberg was worthy of admiration for his ability to 'put lipstick on a pig'. On whether the NEG will deliver lower prices, former Prime Minister Abbott said, 'Pigs might fly.' Can the minister confirm that, according to government MPs, the prospect of the government's NEG delivering lower prices is akin to a flying pig wearing lipstick?
I haven't seen those quotes, and I can't comment on quotes from my colleagues or others that I haven't seen in context. But it is instructive. I don't think the power bills of the Australian people at the moment are a laughing matter. I don't think when people receive that little envelope with their bill inside of it that they see that as a laughing matter. They expect us to try to solve these problems. That is what we are focused on doing. We are focused on finding a plan.
We still don't know the Labor Party's plan. All we know from the Labor Party is that they are focused on one thing, and that is doing whatever the Greens tell them to do. That is what they are doing in this space. We, however, will focus on good policy that can bring down power prices for Australians and secure their jobs.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Data from the National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline has recently been published, revealing nearly 500 reports of abuse and neglect between July 2016 and June 2018. This adds to the multiple, detailed, ample evidence provided by the 2015 Senate inquiry into this issue. Minister, I have sent your counterpart letters. I have had conversations with you in public and in private. I have brought this matter up in the chamber many times—as have my colleagues before me, with your colleagues and before you. In light of this subsequent information, will the government now commit to a royal commission into the violent abuse and neglect of disabled people in institutional and residential settings?
Senator Steele-John, this is, of course, an issue that we take very seriously. I note the comments that you have made. I will refer this matter to the minister and come back to the chamber with a response for you.
Senator Steele-John, a supplementary question.
There comes a moment in the process of all institutional failures when silence and inaction become complicity. That moment, Minister, has long since passed. Will the government now assume responsibility for any further atrocities that occur in institutional and residential settings?
Senator Steele-John, as we know there are some institutions that are under state jurisdiction, and I have made comments in the past in relation to those. In relation to matters that are pertinent to aged care and residential aged care, I will take those matters on notice and refer those matters to the appropriate minister and come back to the chamber.
Senator Steele-John, a final supplementary question.
We have waited for years for a royal commission into this issue, Minister. I do not like to think of the number of abuse cases that have transpired in that time. Will the government, at least here, offer its apologies to the individuals and families that have been affected in the time that has elapsed since your government was told that something needed to be done?
Again, Senator Steele-John, I take the comments that you have made. I will refer them to the appropriate ministers and I will come back to the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Earlier today the minister said in relation to the Australian Federal Police investigation: 'You would also know that I am not being interviewed. I have not been under investigation, nor my office.' Can the minister now confirm to the Senate that she has not been interviewed by the Australian Federal Police?
I have to say, Senator Cameron, that I would have thought it would be more appropriate to ask about the labour force figures and the employment in this country.
Government senators interjecting—
That's right—they are not interested. Senator Cameron, I have confirmed time and time again that this is not an investigation into me or my office, no matter how many times you try to say that it is. I have also stated that, as you know, the AFP have requested public interest immunity in relation to this, and I respect what they have requested. But I have to say, colleagues, that it is now 12 months—
Order, Senator Cash! Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Mr President, this is a serious question. The point of order is direct relevance. The minister has been asked to confirm an out-of-chamber statement that she has not been interviewed. We're asking her to confirm it here in the chamber.
Senator Cormann, on the point of order.
Thank you, Mr President. Senator Cash could not have been more directly relevant to the question that was asked. As the President often advises and confirms for the chamber, the opposition can ask questions. As long as the minister is directly relevant to the question, which she was, you are not able to direct the minister on how to answer the question.
Quite right. I will rule on the point of order. I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question as long as they're being directly relevant to the question. I believe, in this case, the minister is being directly relevant to the question.
As I've stated, it's 12 months now, almost to the day—in fact, it's slightly longer—since the issue first arose of whether or not the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the head of the AWU, actually had the appropriate authorisations in relation to a $100,000 donation to GetUp! and a $25,000 donation to the campaign. I would have thought those on the other side, who say they stand up for workers, would have wanted to know that the workers' money was being expended appropriately.
Government senators interjecting—
Order! I want silence during the question. Senator Cameron, on a supplementary question.
Can the minister now confirm to the Senate that she has not been interviewed by the Australian Federal Police?
Again, as the senator knows, this investigation is not into me and it is not into my office, no matter how many times you say it.
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
The point is direct relevance. We are putting to the minister a statement she made publicly just a few hours ago. We're asking her to repeat that guarantee to the Senate. She ought to be required to answer.
On the point of order, Senator Cormann?
On the same point of order, Mr President, I submit that Minister Cash was being directly relevant to the question asked.
On the point of order: I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. Senator Wong, you've drawn the minister's attention to a very specific question. She has been speaking for eight seconds. She has 52 seconds, if she wishes to continue her answer, but you have reminded her of the terms of it.
Again, the AFP have confirmed, and I quote: 'As this matter is under investigation, it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter further.' But, again, for the record, I will confirm: it is not an investigation into me; it is not an investigation into my office.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I'll call Senator Cameron when there's silence. Senator Cameron.
Is the government continuing to provide legal advice to Senator Cash in relation to the Australian Federal Police investigation and possible prosecution by the Commonwealth prosecutor? If yes, what is the total cost to date?
I raise a point of order. That is not a supplementary question and it's not a question that relates to the minister's portfolio. This is a question that relates to the Attorney-General's portfolio and the Finance portfolio. This is a question about legal indemnity for ministers of the Crown, as has been available to ministers of the Labor government and as is available to ministers on both sides of government. It does not relate to the portfolio of Jobs and Innovation.
Senator Wong, did you want to respond?
Mr President, we would accept, as is my recollection, that the money and the decision may well come from the Attorney-General's Department, but I would have thought that the question of whether or not her legal advice is being paid for would be something Senator Cash might know, and that it clearly relates to matters about which she's being questioned.
Ministers can be questioned on statements they have made. I'm obviously not familiar with every statement the minister has made, but the minister is free to answer the question to the extent of that. The point that Senator Cormann has made is relevant, but ministers can also be questioned on statements they've made. So, to that extent, I'll invite the minister to answer that part of the question she is able or willing to provide information about within her responsibilities and public statements.
Thank you, Mr President. I've stated before that it is common practice for legal assistance to be provided to ministers when it relates to proceedings involving their ministerial duties. Senator Wong received legal assistance via the Australian government—this is not an unusual procedure—as did Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd. So the answer is: yes, I'm following the normal government procedure.
Senator Cameron, on a point of order?
On direct relevance. What we're asking is: what has been the total cost to date? The minister has provided information on cost to estimates. She should provide the same to the Senate.
Senator Cameron, I provide people with liberal opportunity to restate the question when they're raising a point of order on direct relevance. You know as well as I do that I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question. The minister was actually answering, in one word, part of your question when you rose.
On the point of order, that precise part of the question that Senator Cameron just quoted relates to a portfolio that is not Minister Cash's portfolio. It's not in her area of responsibility at all, and she's not in a position—
On the point of order, Mr President, you correctly identified that ministers can be questioned about issues and public statements that they've previously made. I don't think it is in dispute that the minister has provided evidence before about her legal costs. We accept that she may need to refer this question to the Attorney-General for a precise amount if she doesn't know, but I don't think it's in dispute that she's previously made statements about this.
My point on this is that, as I interrupted the senator there, I heard Senator Cash directly addressing part of the question. That was directly relevant. Senator Cash, have you concluded your answer or do you wish to continue?
Mr President, these questions have been answered in detail at estimates. I'm going through the normal process. I'll take on notice and refer to the Attorney-General's Department any further questions.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. I raise my concern that the only employee of the National Competition Council is a secondee from the ACCC. Isn't it the case that the only current matter before the council is explicitly opposed by the secondee's employer, the ACCC, in its formal submission to the National Competition Council?
I thank Senator Burston for that question and for some notice of it. The National Competition Council is a Commonwealth statutory agency established by section 29A of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. While the National Competition Council, which was first established in 1995, is an independent statutory entity to maintain the sustainability and efficiency of its operations, the NCC entered into an arrangement with the ACCC, with effect from 1 July 2014, whereby the ACCC provides the NCC with secretariat services. As part of these arrangements there are strict protocols in place to ensure the agencies operate separately and independently and to ensure the confidentiality and appropriateness of advice it provides in relation to its responsibilities under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The NCC received a submission from the Port of Newcastle in July 2018 proposing the revocation of the port's declaration under the National Access Regime. The NCC will shortly begin a public consultation process in relation to the Port of Newcastle, including inviting submissions from interested parties before forming a preliminary view. As part of the consultation process the NCC will then publicly release its preliminary view and invite further submissions before making a recommendation to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will then make the final decision on whether to revoke the declaration of the Port of Newcastle under the National Access Regime.
Senator Burston, a supplementary question.
Minister, isn't there a clear conflict between these two agencies which may impact upon the important regulatory decision?
The NCC is, as I said in answer to the primary question, an independent regulatory statutory agency established by section 29A of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It comprises a president and two councillors appointed by the Governor-General. The NCC's role in relation to the National Access Regime is to make recommendations to the Treasurer in relation to applications for declaration of services. It does not have a decision-making role; the decision-maker is the Treasurer.
While the NCC has had an arrangement since 2014 whereby it utilises staffing resources and corporate services from the ACCC, there are strict protocols in place to ensure that the agencies operate separately and independently and to protect confidential information. The arrangements also ensure that there is transparency in decision-making and perceived or actual conflicts of interest are avoided. In addition, the NCC engages in an extensive and transparent public consultation process before making any recommendations to the Treasurer in relation to the— (Time expired)
) ( ): My question is to Senator Scullion, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who, as a senator like me, represents many Indigenous people in his electorate, in their traditional areas. I ask the minister: what is the coalition government doing to support the economic and business aspirations of Indigenous Australians?
Thank you, Senator, for that question—a very important one, indeed. Helping people get a job and growing the economic pie so that more Australians have more opportunities to start a small business are the most important things we can do in this place. I can't speak for all senators, but I can say that the focus of each and every one of my coalition colleagues is helping move people from the misery of passive welfare into the dignity of work.
Since we came to government, there have been over a million jobs created—400,000 jobs last year. And a bit of a tip to those opposite: it doesn't happen by accident. In the 12 months before we came to government, those opposite were responsible for 89,000 job creations, but—wait for it—there was, in fact, a loss of 17,000 full-time jobs. Just in my portfolio, there have been over 60,000 jobs created for Indigenous jobseekers and there has been a 23.3 per cent increase in the number of Indigenous jobs since the 2011 census. Our Indigenous jobs program is working very well. It can be pretty nauseating listening to those opposite lecture me about my job program when their record was a dismal 89,000 jobs and ours is 400,000. I do listen to them carry on about my job program. Our record is 26,000 jobs under CDP compared to the RJCP, which had complete disengagement. In fact, only seven per cent of people turned up for jobs. Take small business: 30 Indigenous businesses; $6.2 million in Commonwealth contracts; 1,000 Indigenous businesses winning over a billion dollars in contracts since 2015. That's our record—a fantastic record. I can tell you what: we are getting more Indigenous Australians—in fact, all Australians—off the misery of passive welfare into the dignity of work.
Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question.
I know the minister has been in my home state of Queensland very regularly assisting the progress of Torres Strait and Aboriginal people in that area. I ask the minister: what has the government done to support Torres Strait Islanders and Indigenous Australians who are entrepreneurs, particularly in my home state of Queensland?
Thank you, Senator, for that question. I was, indeed, last week, in Weipa—up your way, in Far North Queensland—to view nothing less than a remarkable new Indigenous tropical hardwood harvesting project. Rio's new Amrun bauxite operation, south of Weipa, is clearing about 1,500 hectares of forest a year. I know the Greens will be very interested to know this. This would have been cleared anyway. It's in front of a bauxite mine. But Indigenous entrepreneur Gina Castelain saw that the timber would have otherwise gone to waste, so Wik Timber negotiated a partnership with Rio to harvest the timber and produce 125,000 tonnes of timber for export and domestic markets. New businesses are employing 70 local Indigenous jobseekers. Through the IEF, we assisted Wik Timber to purchase a shovel logger, a log skidder and a wood chipper so they can harvest the timber that would otherwise have gone up in smoke. We've also had 22 Queensland Indigenous businesses— (Time expired)
Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question.
I thank the minister for his answers today about Indigenous jobs and about Indigenous entrepreneurs. I ask the minister: what impact does the growth of the Indigenous business sector actually have on the employment of Indigenous people?
Our Indigenous business policies are not only helping create small-business opportunities but getting more Indigenous jobseekers off the misery of welfare and into the dignity of work. Of the thousand new Indigenous businesses, over a billion dollars of contracts—
Why are you cutting housing funding?
You should be ashamed of your record, mate. We've now given Indigenous Australians, under that procurement policy—they're three per cent of the population, but the average workforce across those Indigenous businesses is in fact 50 per cent. Every time we back Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander small businesses, we get more jobseekers into work and contributing to the economy.
We support all Australian businesses with a more competitive tax rate so they can keep more of their own money and invest it in their own future. That's going to mean more business activity. There is only one side of politics that has the runs on the board on jobs and growth, and the Australian people know that. (Time expired)
My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. South Australians deserve reliable information about the sustainability of the Murray-Darling system. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has recently commissioned the University of Melbourne to deliver a report into return flows. Will the University of Melbourne collect any new primary data on return flows, for instance through remote sensing, or will the research rely largely on the review of old data?
I thank Senator Storer for his question. I do not have detailed information, I'm sorry, on the University of Melbourne work. I will have to take that question on notice and come back to the senator. We do of course share his interest in ensuring that the Murray-Darling is returned to environmental health, but we also want to ensure that communities that rely on the use of water have their jobs and industry sustained as well and that those communities continue into the future in a healthy way. We believe we have done that. I want to pay tribute to the work that Minister Littleproud has done—and to the work that other parties in this place have done—to finalise a Murray-Darling Basin plan that will help achieve those things.
Senator Storer, a supplementary question.
Is it the case that no new primary data measurement is being, or will be, undertaken by or for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to accurately measure return flows, including surface flows and deep drainage?
Sorry, I will have to apologise. As I'm not the responsible minister myself, I'll have to take that detail on notice and come back to the Senate.
Senator Storer, a final supplementary question?
How is it possible to have an accurate reconciliation, as required by law in 2004, unless that return-flow data has been measured?
Once again, I do apologise, but I will take it on notice and come back to the Senate with that information.
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. On 12 February, in answer to a question I asked on funding for remote housing, the minister said, 'We're certainly not walking away from funding remote housing.' Can the minister confirm that, despite asserting he's been negotiating with state governments for over a year, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia have had no ongoing funding since 1 July?
What I can confirm is that the statements in the question were not only erroneous but mischievously misleading.
Has there been funding? Show us the money!
You may not be interested, Senator, but I'm sure a number of Australians are, in Western Australia, in Queensland and in South Australia. Let's start with Western Australia. Did you mention the $130 million I paid them four weeks ago, Senator? Maybe you're not really on the clicker phone with them. Forty million of that has yet to be expended. So the entire NPARIH was paid off in good faith, plus a $40 million payment. In Queensland, we've already made sure a similar amount has been paid. And I have already told you personally and this place that there is at least a year's ongoing work that is still part of the original NPARIH. We are well advanced in our negotiations in South Australia.
It's a very simple narrative, and I can just use the Queensland example. As I've indicated, I thought that the Labor Party, which first started off the NPARIH process—it was quite a wise process because it was non-subjective and quite formulaic.
Senator Cameron, on a point of order?
Yes, on direct relevance. The question is about ongoing funding. The minister has not dealt with that issue of ongoing funding.
Senator Cameron, as I've said, I take a very liberal approach to people restating the question, but it should be phrased in terms of direct relevance and not as a demand for part of a question to be answered when the minister is clearly relevant to the question.
In the Queensland context, we have 387 houses that didn't meet the formula. That's why the Labor Party—and there's no mischief in this—didn't put a population growth indicator in that. We should have, at the end of 10 years, built so many houses for so many people in the population, but we're 387 houses short. Our deal with the Queensland government is that we'll pay for half of the houses and they'll have to pay for the 57 houses in the future from NAHA. It's a solid arrangement that I'm sure will be accepted. It has certainly been accepted in South Australia. We're well and truly ahead in our negotiations with Western Australia and Queensland. Any suggestion that there are no further funds is absolutely spurious and mischievous.
I remind senators to address their comments to the chair, particularly when answering questions. Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question.
The Turnbull government has cut more than $410 million in annual funding for remote housing. Why is it that Minister Frydenberg can hand almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to a private foundation in 11 days but that the minister has still failed to secure funding for remote housing?
I've just detailed the long-term security and the fair-dinkum approach that we've had both with the states and with the Northern Territory. We've actually doubled the amount of money going to remote housing in the Northern Territory in the next five years compared with in the previous agreement. I don't know where Labor get the $410 million figure. It's just a figure they've pulled. They say, 'By the way, Senator, you've cut $410 million.' It's absolute garbage. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should take a bit of responsibility and indicate where that figure might have come from, because it's absolutely without substance. I call on Labor to demonstrate where the cut of $410 million is. It does not exist. Let me tell you, in this very important area, the First People of Australia deserve the facts. They deserve more than the leadership that those opposite are currently providing.
Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question.
The minister's failure to secure funding for remote housing means the Commonwealth's $5.4 billion investment over the past decade and the marked process in addressing overcrowding is being squandered. Does the minister lack the support of his colleagues or does this reflect the priorities of the Turnbull government or both?
I will repeat, for the benefit of those opposite, that we are committed to ongoing funding and we are committing to working in partnership with the states and territories. We have advanced, as I have explained, the formulaic approach that has been agreed to by the jurisdictions. There are no cuts to housing. We will insist that, for the money we provide to the jurisdictions of states and territories for the most needy through our NAHA process, they hypothecate—and in Queensland forever it's only 15 per cent—to Indigenous First People so that the formula can mean that you will always have houses according to population growth from now into the future. As for the rest of the questions, you really need to study this more. I'm more than happy to give you a brief. You know, Senator—through you, Mr President—that that offer is always on the table.
My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie. I'm sure Senator Farrell will be very excited about this one. The coalition government has recently released Australia's first ever comprehensive sports plan, which will set Australian sport up for a vibrant and prosperous future. Can the minister update the government's plans for sport in Australia?
Thank you, Senator Brockman, for your question. As the Minister for Sport, teamwork makes the dream work. That means that federal, state and local governments and sporting organisations are all going to have to work together to achieve our dream to be the most active and healthy nation known internationally for our integrity and our sporting success.
Earlier this month, I released Sport 2030, which is a comprehensive strategy to increase participation across this nation in sport and physical activity, to refocus our high-performance effort across the country so that we ensure sporting excellence, strengthen our sports industry and safeguard our integrity in sport. What we want to see, as the Australian government, is more Australians more active more often, and not just because it's fun. The cost of inactivity across the country is $13 billion, and 80 per cent of young Australians are not getting enough physical activity for health benefits. It's good for your physical health, mental health and social cohesion. We've set an ambitious target to decrease physical inactivity by 15 per cent.
We're looking forward to receiving a business case from the AIS to redevelop and focus them as a 21st century high-performance institute meeting the needs of our elite athletes. We want to safeguard the integrity of sport, and we're considering the recommendations brought down by Justice Wood on sports integrity, wanting to minimise the disruption and the influence of organised crime and match fixing, not just at the elite but at the subelite level. He made 52 recommendations, which we're considering in detail. It's a comprehensive plan, and I look forward to working with the states to achieve it.
Senator Brockman, is there a supplementary question?
What is the government doing to support and develop grassroots sports in our community?
Sport, as we all know, underpins our local communities. In regional Australia local clubs are more than just a sporting team—they are community leaders. In cities local sporting clubs provide that pivot point for developing networks and community in often busy and overcrowded suburbs. But our local clubs need facilities, not just for the future but right now. For example, as I've travelled around the country I've heard about the tsunami of increase of young women, in particular, on the back of our elite female athletes such as the Southern Stars, the Matildas, our AFLWs and Rugby Sevens. They are flooding into club-land, and we do not have the community infrastructure that those sporting clubs need to meet that increased demand from young women. That's why we've announced $30 million for local community sporting infrastructure, grants of up to half a million dollars for our local clubs to provide the essential infrastructure that they need to meet increasing demand.
Senator Brockman, is there a final supplementary question?
Can the minister outline the important role that sport plays for Australian jobs and the Australian economy?
We're not just good at it on the court or in the pool; we're actually very good at sport right across the economy. We have a thriving sport and recreation industry which contributes $83 billion to our economy every year, employs over 220,000 Australians and adds three per cent to our GDP. We are also known worldwide for hosting high-quality sporting events so vital for tourism and business revenue. For every $1 we invest in sport in this country, we see a return of $7 to our local economy. Events such as the Australian Open contributed $280 million to the economy, with 80,000 people travelling from overseas to attend the event. But it is not just capital city and international events that benefit from sport tourism. The Blue Derby mountain bike trail in Tasmania added $15 million to their local economy. Enacting the Sports Plan will provide opportunities for jobs and growth right across the Australian economy.
My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. In an article in this morning's Australian, entitled 'CSIRO slams grant to reef foundation', it is revealed that CSIRO has raised the alarm that the government's half-a-billion-dollar grant to the small private foundation creates 'layers and layers of bureaucracy' and 'made the oversight of scientific funding for the reef more complex'. Why did the government choose to add layers and layers of bureaucracy by bypassing Australia's premier scientific agencies?
I thank Senator Carr for the question. Senator Carr, I completely reject the premise of what you have said. The arrangements to govern scientific advice for the partnership program avoid duplication and ensure linkages and existing arrangements. As you would know, AIMS and CSIRO are involved in the foundation's scientific advisory body, the International Scientific Advisory Committee. They are also on the government's Reef 2050 Plan's Independent Expert Panel, which is providing advice to the foundation. Those on the other side continue to want to play politics with the reef. We on this side of the chamber want to ensure the sustainability of the Great Barrier Reef and, importantly, the 64,000 jobs that rely on and are derived from the great, iconic Great Barrier Reef.
Senator Carr, you would know very well that AIMS and CSIRO, both in the portfolio, do extraordinary work in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. You would also know, I hope, that both AIMS and CSIRO have worked closely with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation for many, many years—and I am very pleased to say, Senator Carr, that they will continue to do so. It is also a fact that AIMS and CSIRO are actually leading the Reef Restoration and Adaptation program, which will inform how the Great Barrier Reef Foundation's funds will be spent. This work will include providing the Great Barrier Reef Foundation with a prioritised list of funding options for its research and development activities. Senator Carr, you would also, I hope, know that the CSIRO has already seconded a scientist to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. (Time expired)
Senator Carr, a supplementary question.
Rather than the assumptions I've made, these are the documents that you have tabled in this chamber. The documents further state that the CSIRO is concerned that the foundation would 'burn millions in overheads, duplicating activities of the science agencies and a senior officer to hold the foundation's hand'. Why does Prime Minister Turnbull think that this duplication is a good use of taxpayers' money?
Senator Carr, if you had actually listened to my first answer, in the first instance I completely rejected the premise of your question. But then I advised you that the arrangements to govern scientific advice for the partnership program avoid duplication and ensure linkages with existing arrangements. Again, as we all know, both AIMS and CSIRO are involved in the foundation's scientific advisory body, the International Scientific Advisory Committee. They are also, because they do fantastic work, ensuring that we are able to ensure the sustainability of the Great Barrier Reef. They are also on the government's Reef 2050 Plan Independent Expert Panel, which is providing advice to the foundation.
We on this side of the chamber will continue to invest in the sustainability of the Great Barrier Reef and also ensure the protection of the 64,000 jobs. (Time expired)
Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.
When asked yesterday whether CSIRO would have liked to have received almost half a billion dollars in funding for its work, CSIRO Chief Scientist Dr Cathy Foley said, 'Of course, we would.' How can the Prime Minister defend the government's decision to give the grant to a small, private foundation run by his mates over Australia's premier science agencies?
Again, AIMS and CSIRO work very closely together. They have a very good relationship. They all do extraordinary work in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. They will bring together a set of complementary skills. Both AIMS and CSIRO have worked closely with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation in the past, and they will continue to do so. As I have stated, it is actually AIMS and CSIRO that are leading the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program. This is the program that will actually inform how the Great Barrier Reef Foundation's funds will be spent.
Those on the other side would also know that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has to have some form of credibility—even if they don't want it to—because when Labor were in government they themselves invested $12.5 million in the foundation. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Would the minister advise the Senate as to how the Turnbull government's new childcare package has been supporting families since its commencement on Monday 2 July?
I thank Senator Gichuhi for her question about a very important reform that the Turnbull government delivered at the start of July, a reform that alongside tax relief and jobs growth policies is delivering support for Australian families and particularly for hardworking Australian families. Our new childcare package, introduced on 2 July, is providing benefits to nearly one million Australian families. It's the result of a $2.5 billion additional investment. Indeed, the typical Australian family, based on early analysis, will be better off by around $1,300 per child, per annum. Put than on top of the tax relief the Turnbull government is providing, the fact we are driving down energy costs and the fact we have driven up full-time jobs and it is demonstration of the fact that our policies for a stronger economy are delivering for Australian families and households.
Our reforms have been welcomed by many and I do note the Australian Childcare Alliance has said that a good proportion of families are better off from an affordability perspective, which is an indisputable, fantastic outcome. And they are better off because we abolished the annual childcare rebate cap of around $7,600 to ensure especially low- and middle-income families aren't limited by the annual cap on their child care and that they are able to, with confidence, plan to work the extra shift, work the extra day, knowing they won't run out of support for paying their childcare bills part way through the financial year. Around 85 per cent of families using child care will feel the benefits of the reforms. Many more will feel the benefits of support from the increased subsidy from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for more than 370,000 low-income families, all of it backed by a strong safety net giving more support to the hardest working families.
Senator Gichuhi on a supplementary question.
Will the minister update the Senate on how families and providers transitioned to the new system?
The scale of implementing these changes was significant. More than one million Australian families transitioned on to the new package that commenced on 2 July but successfully they did so, engaging through the system to update their details and register for the new childcare subsidy. I want to thank the 99.9 per cent of eligible childcare providers who transitioned successfully for their support. Many provided direct assistance to families to make sure that they were able to successfully update the details required to receive every cent, every dollar they're entitled to. But we made sure we built in safety nets as well so that the small number of families who may not have transitioned in time or who experienced disruption in payments are eligible for back payments. We are making sure communications continue to those families and have been helping them every step of the way with letters, text messages, forums and advice through services and dedicated call lines to make sure families get the support they need for their childcare fees.
Senator Gichuhi on a final supplementary question.
Will the minister outline any other options for these families?
It is worth remembering that those opposite decided to vote against the additional support for Australian families. It is remarkable to think that was the case, that we could come along with reforms to abolish a cap on childcare support, to increase the rate of subsidy, to invest an additional $2.5 billion and yet the Labor Party just played politics and voted against it. So desperate were they to find failure, that when the reforms commenced at the start of July, the Labor Party set up a website to invite people to register their complaints and their concerns about the new childcare subsidy. But do you know what happened around three weeks after the website went up? It vanished. So little interest was there in the Labor Party's complaints website that they slunk away and they shut it down because, of course, Australian families were feeling the benefit of the changes. And they will continue to see the benefit, especially when we get to early next year and they no longer hit up against that cap and they continue to get support for those services.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In Senate estimates the department of environment officials gave evidence that 'the quality of the people on the foundation board' gave the government 'assurance' before they handed over $444 million of public money to the private Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Can the minister confirm that recently resigned foundation director Stephen Roberts is now facing criminal charges for alleged cartel conduct relating to his time at Citigroup and that Mr Roberts has previously been hosted at the Prime Minister's residence?
I'm not aware of what Senator Keneally alleges. I am aware that there are criminal cartel charges laid against the CFMEU and its ACT branch secretary.
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Do I need to make a submission on direct relevance?
That's all you need to say, Senator Wong. Senator Cormann, I would ask you to be directly relevant to the question.
I was very happy to receive a question about criminal charges, and I'm also happy to confirm that if there were criminal charges laid against the CFMEU and its ACT branch secretary—
Senator Cormann, one needs to be directly relevant to the question. I remind you of the terms of the question asked.
On the point of order, I actually answered the question right up front by saying that I'm not aware of the allegations that Senator Keneally raises but that I am aware of some other matters that directly relate to an aspect of the question she asks.
Senator Wong, on the point of order?
The fact that a minister is not aware of the question that he or she is asked does not give licence to say something that is demonstrably—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Mr President, if I may.
I was listening carefully, and I didn't hear any background noise, Senator Wong.
It's not that. It's just so boring.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
It's Thursday afternoon, senators.
It's Thursday afternoon. Can't you just stop talking for one minute?
Senator Macdonald and Senator Wong, both of you. Senator Wong, would you like to continue your point of order?
When he stops. He's stopped. Thank you. I'll start again. Just because a minister doesn't know something about criminal cartel behaviour of a—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator Wong, I was listening carefully. If all senators would like me to insist on absolute and utter silence in the chamber at all times, I'm sure that would make it somewhat different to what it is now. I will ask senators to be silent while I hear the point of order.
Just because a minister doesn't know anything about, or says he doesn't know anything about, criminal charges for cartel conduct relating to a friend of the Prime Minister's does not give this minister the licence to talk about criminal action which is entirely unrelated to the grant or to any other activities. It would be a travesty if the ruling is that direct relevance means you can talk about anything if you don't know the answer to the question.
I am prepared to rule on the point of order, if I could. The Senate several years ago required question time answers to be directly relevant. A minister can add material that is directly relevant to part of the question, but it should not be interpreted as liberally as has been put to me in this case. Minister Cormann, I would ask that you be directly relevant to the question.
Thank you very much, Mr President. As I said right up front, I am not aware of the allegations that Senator Keneally has raised. I am happy to take that part of the question on notice. I would say again, though, that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation of course is the lead charity for the Great Barrier Reef, having raised over $90 million since it was established.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I am happy to take you through it. You are obviously not interested in investment in the health of the Great Barrier Reef. The foundation has raised $58.97 million from corporate and philanthropic contributions, of which $52.87 million is from the corporate sector and $6 million is from private philanthropy. The foundation has received $3.28 million from other sources, such as interest and research partners, including James Cook University and the University of Queensland. In addition, the GBRF has received pro bono and in-kind services to the value of $4.74 million from the corporate sector. In total, support from non-government sources equates to $66.689 million. The GBRF has been granted $29.71 million from government sources. This includes $22.35 million previously from the Australian government and $7.36 million from the Queensland government.
The Great Barrier Reef is a global icon and, as part of the Reef Trust partnership, their fundraising plan, of course, is designed to identify opportunities within Australia and overseas to raise additional funds for the protection of the reef. (Time expired)
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.
Can the minister also confirm that current foundation director Stephen Fitzgerald worked with the Prime Minister during his time at Goldman Sachs, and that another former Goldman Sachs director Keith Tuffley resigned from the foundation's board on budget day this year?
I'm not aware of what Senator Keneally is proposing there. Even if there was a past connection, does that make the foundation an inappropriate foundation?
The Labor Party provides grants to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation to support its work in relation to the health of the reef, and that is okay. The Labor government can provide grants to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation; that's okay. But we provide grants to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and, 'Oh, that's terrible, awful.' And here you are trying to besmirch people in the pursuit of your base political interests in relation to a grant that you supported. Senator Keneally came into this chamber and she voted in favour of it.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senators, there is one question remaining. I'll ask for silence. Senator Keneally.
Does the minister believe it was appropriate for the Prime Minister to personally hand out half a billion dollars to a private foundation behind closed doors without a grant application or tender process just because it's run by a couple of his mates?
It's strange to hear a former Labor premier from New South Wales talk about mates, because we of course know all about Labor mates. We all know about Labor mates, and we know where too many of them have ended up!
This is an absolutely appropriate grant for a proper public purpose, which is a decision of the government following proper policy consideration processes of government. The government stands by this investment. It's a very important investment in the future health of the Great Barrier Reef, an incredibly important national asset. The Labor Party can continue to argue against public investment enhancing the health of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. We'll continue to implement our plan to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef can continue to be the amazing national icon that it is today.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I wish to add to remarks I made in question time yesterday in response to a question from Senator Siewert regarding debt recovery to people with a vulnerability indicator who are receiving income support. I've confirmed that no farmers have been included in the initial phase of the trial.
I also wish to add to an answer regarding your question, Senator Siewert, about the number of people involved in the trial. I am advised that less than 300 people have been contacted by the Department of Human Services to update their details in the initial phase. Further, I can advise the Senate that the Department of Human Services ceased contacting recipients in these cohorts on 2 August 2018 whilst the minister assesses the recent outcomes.
I have further information to add to my answer to a question from Senator Steele-John earlier today in question time. The government does not believe that an expensive and lengthy royal commission will deliver outcomes for people with a disability—which we are already delivering. We believe that immediate action is required. That is why the government has now established the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.
That covers only 10 per cent of the population, as you well know.
Order, Senator Steele-John! Please continue, Minister.
This commission has been established through extensive consultation with stakeholders, including the states and territories. Further to this, the government is seeking to put in place further protections for participants, their families and carers. The NDIS worker screening scheme will provide protections to vulnerable people with a disability today, not after another lengthy review.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senator Marshall today relating to the National Energy Guarantee.
Like a couple arguing in the food court, this spat about energy has now become extremely embarrassing for everybody else around them. It's awkward enough watching the Prime Minister abandon the principles that he was willing to stand by when he lost the Liberal leadership the first time around, but it is truly tragic that, despite the fact that he has capitulated on all fronts, given up everything and lost the last shred of credibility he may have been clinging to, he still can't keep this party room together. He emerged out of the party room meeting and he was claiming victory, but it is possible that he spoke too soon, because, shortly after that, it seems we saw backbencher after backbencher ringing Sky News just to make sure that, in the constant news coverage, everybody understood who'd be crossing the floor. People wanted to know about their heroic plans, and so Mr Abbott, Mr Christensen, Mr Gee, Mr Hastie, Mr Kelly, Mr Andrews, Mr Joyce, Senator O'Sullivan, Senator Abetz and Mr Pasin were all on the front page of the paper, indicating: 'Our intention is, in fact, not to support the NEG. In fact, so much so that we are not going to vote for it.'
This is a group of people who are split on policy, split on the personalities and almost congenitally unable to craft an energy policy. We are now five years into a government and we are still waiting for a coherent energy policy that can resolve the crisis that this government has placed us in as a nation. A lot of it, of course, is driven by Mr Abbott. It has produced some hilarious moments, including this, reported in the paper, when the Prime Minister asked Mr Abbott:
"Could you please do me the courtesy of allowing me to finish my sentence?"
Colleagues of Mr Abbott said he responded: "I would have, if you had allowed me the courtesy of finishing my term."
So it's obviously quite a little bit personal. Mr Abbott has then gone on to describe, in other remarks, Mr Turnbull's ideas as 'merchant banker gobbledegook'. He has also criticised Mr Frydenberg. He said that, in John Howard's time, a submission of the kind that Mr Frydenberg presented would have had to go back to the drawing board.
But it's not just confined to Mr Abbott. We've had frontbenchers as well. Mr Dutton was asked by Ray Hadley on 2GB: 'Is the NEG suboptimal?' What did the Minister for Home Affairs say? A ringing endorsement? He said, 'Well, it's a policy that the government's got.' That's just the kind of back-up you want, isn't it? When you're out there prosecuting a policy case, one of your front-line guys says, 'Well, it's a policy the government's got.' Thank you very much, Mr Dutton. The Australian is now reporting that other frontbenchers, including the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Pitt, are, in fact, considering resigning their places because of their opposition to the NEG.
But, of course, there are new policy ideas continuing to swirl around as this very sophisticated debate unfolds. Apparently, Mr Joyce has made a demand for price controls. I thought it would have been obvious to everybody that that was inconsistent with Liberal values, but it took the Treasurer to point that out to Mr Joyce. We now understand that the member for Dawson has issued an entire list of demands to the Prime Minister in a meeting. The demands include the creation of a new clean coal fund, a cut in the NEG's emissions reduction target from 26 per cent to 17 per cent and changes that would allow the competition watchdog to keep AGL's Liddell coal fired power plant operating in New South Wales beyond its planned 2022 closure date. Apparently this was all very, very cordial. He was called into the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister 'wanted to know ideas that we have that could improve the NEG or deliver price reductions, and so I put a list to him'.
The people on the other side today would have you believe that this is all just business as usual. Well, nobody else believes that. It is a very, very public demonstration of the total dysfunction on that side of politics in relation to energy policy that has seen five years of utter paralysis. During the five years, the investment community went on strike in relation to energy, unable to invest because of a complete lack of certainty about what the policy settings are likely to be and how the energy market will work, and it is consumers who are paying the price with higher and higher prices. It has been a disaster.
Senator McKenzie, very helpfully during the last hour, pointed out that it is team work that makes the dream work. A pithy observation? I would put it to Senator McKenzie and, indeed, to everyone over there that we are not in a dream; we are in a horrible nightmare and you need to sort it out.
It's always edifying to get to this point in the day when we commence the take-note debate and really do what the Australian people want us to do, and that is nitpick at one another. Anyway, here we go. Let's get into it. I appreciate the media commentary, the media briefing, that Senator McAllister just provided, talking us through what's been said on Sky and what's been said in The Australianall of the quotes from the newspapers. It is very, very helpful to have all of that provided to us. What does trouble me about the tone of the debate and the questions being asked by those opposite is that it's not actually about seeking a solution; it's all about what's going on over here and who is talking to whom. Who went to that meeting? Did you ring that person? This is not a constructive contribution to the national debate; this is politicking, which is something that had been alluded to by a number of the answers provided by Senator Cormann and anyone who answered questions on this particular issue.
The point was made about the Labor states, particularly the state of Victoria, which, of course, as we all know, has state elections coming up towards the end of this year—in the month of November, I believe. So, instead of doing what is right and what ought to be done—such as focusing on how to bring down power prices for Victorians, who, as I understand it, have, over a period of time, seen power prices increase by something like 300 per cent—instead of doing something that would aid them and bring down power prices, we see the Andrews government finding ways to try and make things as difficult as possible to achieve national agreement on the plan that's before the country: the plan before COAG, the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee. That's what was highlighted today. This is all about politics for the Labor Party. This is not about something we should all be talking about. There is only one side of the debate that's actually talking about the important point here today, and that is how to bring down power prices: the Liberal and the National parties. The coalition are the people who have taken this policy forward. There is one thing we're all concerned about, and that is power prices. Sure, people are making their points and their concerns known. Discussions are had. That's what happens when you want to make sure that the end product that we present to the Australian people as the policy that's going to apply to them is right. Having those discussions is an important thing to do. It's a proud hallmark of any political organisation that people are allowed to discuss, express views, put forward ideas and suggest changes. But, on the other side, that's seen as a terrible thing to do—'You can't do that. We must accept whatever is served up to us and march forth united. No debate; just do what the leader says.' That's not how it works. I don't think that's how it should work.
I look forward to contributing to the debate on this as we move forward, as I hope—as I've already mentioned—the Labor states in particular will do also, in the interests of the people they represent, the people who need to have their power prices come down. In my home state of Tasmania, under the former Labor-Green government, we saw power prices go up by 65 per cent—a shocking indictment on that government. Thankfully, we've turned the corner on that particular issue. We see power prices now heading south. People will hopefully be able to save a lot more money under the NEG when it comes into full force and people will be able to turn their heaters on at winter time. I'll never forget when the former Premier Lara Giddings, in her little newsletter to the people of Franklin, said, 'Ways to save on your power bill: turn your heater off and put on an extra jumper.' What a great message to send to the pensioners of Franklin: 'Hey, you know what: just turn your heater off. You might not be able to afford to use it. We won't do anything about power prices. We just want you to suck it up and put on an extra jumper.'
I return to the main point, and that is: this is about power prices. Not once today, not in any of the questions asked on the issue of the NEG did those opposite talk about prices. No-one mentioned the need to reduce power prices. It is not their chief concern. It is about playing politics. It is about trying to whip up some sort of division and paint a picture of how they want things to be based on what they read in the newspapers and what they hear on Sky News here in Parliament House. So my advice to those opposite, those who would like to seek to leave this country and government—God help us hopefully they never do—is to start thinking about the people we represent. Do something to bring down power prices rather than just fly up here from wherever you come from and sit in here to play politics every single week.
Let me commence my contribution by saying that Australians want lower electricity prices. That is absolutely clear. I said yesterday in this place that that is something that is absolutely necessary for us to come the grips with. What is also clear is that the policy uncertainty, at least over the past five years—if you look at media reports, some attribute the policy uncertainty over the past 10 years—is being driven by one man: former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He and his cohort of climate sceptics are seeking to sabotage the national interest. But the tragedy in this situation, of course, is that we have a Prime Minister who lacks the authority to deal with this group within his government.
As I rise to take note of answers, I want to start by noting that bipartisanship is the answer to the problem of rising electricity prices. The business community needs bipartisanship in order to invest for the long term. We have seen some small glimmers of bipartisanship this week in our joint response to the deplorable contribution by Senator Anning. I want to remind the voters of Queensland that, regardless of his new party allegiance, Senator Anning was put in this place because of Senator Hanson's One Nation party. So we can, from time to time, work together. If we have that bipartisanship on a regular basis we can deal with energy prices.
Households are struggling whilst the government refuses to negotiate with the Labor opposition on this matter. We are seeing households struggle, particularly in Victoria. I note the St Vincent de Paul Society has put out a report this week in relation to Victorian households. We see that Victorian households are on the worst electricity deals in the market, paying $1,000 or more each year for the same amount of power as those on the best offers. This is where we see this lack of bipartisanship affecting people who are the most vulnerable.
It is painfully clear this week that the Liberal-National government are totally, hopelessly and irreconcilably divided on this issue. You only need to look at some of the media that has been around for the last couple of days. Senator McAllister has dealt with that.
I want to return to this point that members of this government refuse to accept the science. I think there has been a significant announcement this week from the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering. They said that building more coal-fired power stations would be an environmental and economic mistake. They have made a statement amid media speculation the government would use the ACCC's recent report to justify underwriting baseload power investments based on coal. The ATSE president, Professor Bradlow, said the academy had long advocated for technology-neutral policies that could address the energy trilemma. He went on to say that new coal-fired power stations will not reduce the cost of electricity and will not aid efforts to reduce emissions. Let's listen to the experts. Let's listen to the scientists in this area and let's knuckle down and deal with the issue of coming up with some areas of agreement. On our side, we've been prepared to extend the hand of bipartisanship to negotiate something, but on the other side we have a government which is hopelessly crippled by the division within it.
It is time for this government to get out of the way so that we can deliver certainty for energy prices. We know that this policy uncertainty is driving up prices. We heard this from the Treasury officials at estimates. The LNP has done nothing to encourage business investment in renewables. That is what is needed. Their inaction has paralysed the industry. It was Labor that set up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to encourage investment in renewables. We have a strong record on protecting the environment and addressing climate change. We have ambition and drive. We need this government to get out of the way.
I too rise to take note of the minister's answer. I say at the outset that I could not be prouder to be a member of the coalition team. We have had extremely robust debate on this critically important issue. I was in the party room and I spoke in support of the NEG package. I'm very proud of what Minister Frydenberg, in particular, has done with the support of his cabinet colleagues. I think those opposite sometimes forget or don't even understand that robust debate inside a party room is actually a healthy thing to have on such an important policy. No matter how often those opposite say otherwise, both party rooms strongly endorsed this program for the National Energy Guarantee.
Let's have a look at how we've developed this plan and what we found when we came to government. Those opposite very often like to pretend that nothing happened and that we didn't inherit any particular situations in this or any other policy area. So let's have a look at Labor's track record, federal and state, and see the position that Labor left us in, which we have been successfully dealing with. It is absolutely a fact to say that the Labor Party is a party of higher energy prices. Remember last time Labor was in office, electricity prices—guess how much, Senator Fawcett. Madam Deputy President, when you were in government, how much did power prices rise over your six years? They rose by 100 per cent. Over your six years, Australian men and women, families and businesses were paying 100 per cent more for their power than when you came to government.
Over the past decade, those opposite have nearly crippled this nation with successive flip-flops on energy policy. Who can forget the CPRS, the carbon tax and the CET, the ETS and the EIS, the pink batts, the contract for coal closures, 'cash for clunkers' and the citizens assembly? Speaking about the carbon tax, when the coalition repealed the carbon tax, which those opposite promised they would never bring in but of course did, it led to the largest fall in electricity prices on record, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Even more importantly, the ACCC said that it saved $550 on the average household bill. That was due to the actions of this side of the chamber, and I am incredibly proud to have been part of that.
During those six years of Labor government, electricity prices doubled. The federal and state Labor policies have continued to put pressure on prices, through things like their job-destroying gas bans and moratoriums, unrealistic and unachievable renewable energy targets and open hostility to reliable base-load power. Those opposite don't yet seem to get that there is a direct link between these extremist green ideologies and power prices. In fact, they doubled the power prices on Australian families during their last term in office. And the tragedy is they've got the same policies now, if not worse. Not only do they sit there criticising this side of the chamber for making sound policy decisions to fix the problems that they created, but, if they got in again, they would do exactly the same thing to Australian businesses and households. This government's action is already having positive effects. Wholesale electricity prices are down around 25 per cent in 2018 compared to last year. Retail power bills have been reduced, as of 1 July, across New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. You can see that our policies are working. The National Energy Guarantee will continue the progress. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
What I was saying before we ran out of time during the last debate was that our marine environment is one of the most unique and spectacular marine environments on the globe. I heard those opposite talk about the fact that Australia has these large marine protected areas. That's good. We also have one of the largest EEZs in the world. So of course we should be putting in place proper protection for these areas. It is hugely disappointing that the government in some areas has changed the level of protection for the areas that are contained within the regional plans. That means that these really important areas, some of which have marine species that are found nowhere else on the planet, are at more risk.
I think what I got up to when we were finishing was talking about the impact of a warming planet on our marine environment. We're still getting an understanding of what that impact is. I also heard those opposite talking about support from some marine conservation organisations for their approach, but I don't think there'd be anybody, certainly from the Greens, who didn't think long and hard about what to do about these plans. As someone who's been fighting since the mid-1980s for bioregional marine planning, it is not without a heavy heart and much thought that I personally came to the conclusion that we really need to keep fighting for better protection and that we need to take a stand. And that's from someone who's fought for years and years to get adequate marine protection. I've had lots of emails from people supporting our stance: that is, to support these disallowances. The bulk of the marine conservation organisations are also saying these plans aren't good enough. I've already articulated why we in Western Australia are deeply concerned, given that we have such a vast marine environment and we have so many special areas: the Bremer Canyon; the Perth Canyon; that whole south-west marine environment; the areas off the Gascoyne coast including Ningaloo and the Rowley Shoals. There are so many important areas. Those areas that I've mentioned are the ones where the level of marine protection has been adversely impacted by these plans.
We will continue to campaign on this issue to make sure that we have a set of marine parks and a set of bioregional marine plans that are the best in the world, that go back to being the best in the world, so Australia can honestly claim that we have the best system for marine protection on the planet. I encourage and ask those who are still making up their mind about these disallowances to support these disallowances so that we can get superlative marine protection in this country.
I know that we only have limited time for this debate, so I will keep my comments a lot shorter than they otherwise would have been. Obviously I support all of these disallowance motions, but, as a senator for Queensland, I wanted to speak specifically about the one with regard to the Coral Sea. I don't want to get too parochial about it, but, certainly amongst all of these, it's hard not to see this as at least equal in significance to other areas that are also dramatically reduced in protection as a direct result of the consequences of this government and the Abbott government preceding it.
The Coral Sea directly adjoins the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which I would hope everybody in this chamber would agree is not only an environmental wonder of the world and recognised as such but also an incredibly important economic job generator for Queensland, particularly regional and Northern Queensland. I back up Senator Siewert's acknowledgement that it is one of the positive achievements of the Howard government. There's not a lot I'd point to, but one was a significant expansion of protected areas within the marine park, and I commend that achievement.
It needs to be said that, despite all the doom and gloom predictions of what it would cause, particularly to recreational fishers' opportunities, it has been clearly proven, as was suggested, to significantly improve fish stocks and actually enhance the attractiveness of a whole lot of recreational fishing opportunities along the Queensland coast. In the short time I've been back in the Senate role for the Greens in Queensland, I've had that said to me by a number of recreational fishers in regional Queensland, and tourism people are saying that the local areas are developing reputations for being more attractive to recreational fishers because of the environmental improvement that is a direct result of increasing marine protection.
The Coral Sea, of course, does not have coastal areas. It directly adjoins the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which we all know is severely under threat not only but most severely from climate change. The Coral Sea and its incredible natural assets are now much more at risk because of the vandalism caused by the decision of the Abbott government to rip up the protected areas that were put in place by the previous Labor government. It must be said that it's not just about fishing and the impact of commercial fishing; it is also about the potential for oil and gas exploration in this area. It wasn't until this disallowance was moved that I remembered that, way back in 2002, when I was a Democrats senator in this place—I was actually party leader at the time—we managed to uncover the fact that a government agency was attempting, secretly, to carry out surveying to enable it to assess more clearly whether there were oil opportunities in parts of the Coral Sea.
The reduced marine park protection that's in place that needs to be disallowed is not solely about reefs, although, of course, that is crucial. It is also about protecting those marine environments more broadly from the dangers of being opened up in the future for oil exploration and extraction. Let's not forget that one of the key reasons that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park first came into being—as a result of very commendable community action driven by people locally in Queensland and supported by others around the country—were the threats of the Queensland government at the time to basically open up the reef for drilling. That sort of legacy and those historical factors that drive campaigns do not go away with the passage of time, and the people who tried and pushed and might have failed in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park keep looking for opportunities in other areas. The failure to strengthen marine park protection in the way that was done previously—that's now been undone—is another example of that vandalism.
To call Australia home is to inhabit an ancient continent set beneath a reef of some of the world's most magnificent marine biodiversity. It is to be the custodian of some of the most pristine and beautiful natural places on planet Earth. It is to have the honour and sacred duty of stewarding the protection of these places so that they may exist for the majesty of their own right and for the enjoyment of future generations for centuries to come.
For 20 long years legislators, community groups, stakeholders and scientists have debated, argued, discussed and attempted to come to a plan and a compromise that would protect these precious places. In five short years this government has sought to do nothing else except rip them apart, to tear them asunder at the behest of large corporate supporters, simply to make life easier for itself. I cannot think of a more profound dereliction of duty than the active destruction of these precious places. Yet this is what this government is attempting to allow to take place. Not content with their profound failure to act on global warming, not content with their continued failure to protect the great forests of the south-west and of the Tarkine, not content with allowing the freshwater of this nation to be poisoned by gas, they would also see us lay our oceans bare so that corporate profit margins can be increased.
My state of Western Australia, and its glorious jewel that is the Ningaloo Reef, will lose 75 per cent of its protection. It is an absolute disgrace. The Great Barrier Reef, the Coral Sea—all of these precious, vital ecosystems will be placed at risk and subject to irrevocable harm simply because this government wishes to make its life easier and to reap the benefits of acting as a corporate stooge. I do not know what I will say to my children when they ask me why we allowed this damage to be done, but I will at least be able to tell them that I and the party I am a member of, the movement that I serve, spoke up against it and did what we could to repair it. I thank the chamber for its time.
When you listen to that speech, you would think we've destroyed our oceans completely but that is not the case. One Nation will be supporting the government in opposing this disallowance notion. This came into play on 1 July. If we do not support this immediately, straight away from tomorrow, we are going to see all holds off. That means that people can come in and fish, because there's going to be no plan whatsoever.
My understanding is this has been 12 years in the making. It has been 12 years of discussions, talking to businesses, talking to the fishing sector, talking to many organisations and talking to scientists about what is the best way to go with this. Twelve years it has taken, and now it has been implemented. So if it goes out the door today, if everyone votes to get rid of this with the disallowance motion the Greens are putting up, it is going to go back to nothing—no protection, nothing. This is for a 10-year plan, but it can be looked at in five years time. Actually, at any time, a minister can change it and put it back through the review process.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not let this stay as it is? There are protections in place now. If you are not happy with it then work on it in the next parliament. There are 120 days of consultation that have to go on. We know that we are facing an election. If you throw this out today, nothing is going to happen for at least a year or more. So we're going to allow these people to come in here and fish our waters and do more damage than we have with these protections we have put in place. We are talking about 2.2 million square kilometres of Australia's marine environment that will have no marine park protection. That is what is going to happen.
I am sick of the scaremongering that goes on in this place. Tell the people the truth. If you are not happy with the marine parks that are there now—there was nothing before it came into place on 1 July. What are you complaining about now? There was nothing in place. You actually have something in place now. Work with it. I support the fact that we now have protection out there. I support the fishermen and businesspeople who need it. We need the tourism here as well. The Greens want to lock up everything. They want to lock up our fishing, they want to look up our national parks, they want to lock up everything. They don't want to do anything in this country. They want to destroy businesses.
There is sustainability, and there is a guarantee that there are no foreign fishing vessels in these waters. There is a guarantee there are no super trawlers in these waters. This is the government's plan. Also, the fact is that the marine park covers 36 per cent of Australia's oceans and is the second largest in the world—and it is three times larger than the UN's benchmark of 10 per cent. How can you argue with that? I hear the Greens go on in this place all the time about the UN and our responsibilities. We have surpassed the UN's requirements. We have 36 per cent. How can you argue with that?
You raised the Pew foundation. I wanted to hear their advice and I rang them up. They said: 'Pauline, you have to support the government on this. It's not everything that we want, but it's better than nothing.' I have come from a small business background—a fish and chip shop. I relied on Australian fish and that is what I sold—not all the rubbish that we get in from overseas that we see so much of in our shops. We Australians have the right to eat that fish and not see it being exported to overseas. This will ensure our sustainability—that we have fish for Australians. It is not going to be overfished. The Fisheries Management Authority looks after that as well.
We are talking about the protection of our oceans, and I fully support the government on this. When I'm back in this place, whoever is in government here, if this is not good enough, if there are a lot of Australians out there who are not happy with this, I will work with them to increase the marine park zones or whatever needs to be done. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you throw this out today, you'll have nothing—no protection whatsoever.
Let's be absolutely clear what we are voting on here today. We are voting to allow a very comprehensive marine park network to remain in place or we are not. Those opposite would have you believe that this is a choice between the marine park management plans that are set in place and on the water at the moment and a set of plans proposed six years ago that never came into effect. That is not what we are voting on today. Today, we get to vote for our scientifically based, fully consulted, broadly supported plans that are currently in place and providing on-water protections, or no plans at all. If this disallowance is successful, 2.2 million square kilometres of Australia's marine environment will have no marine park protection tomorrow morning.
The choice is quite clear here for those in the chamber: provide certainty for everyone who enjoys our oceans or create more uncertainty; support the rights of five million recreational fishers, who are great stewards of our marine environment, or lock them out; support our sustainable fishers who catch the seafood that so many Australians want to eat for dinner tonight or run them out of business; support our tourism industry and the regional communities along our coastline that rely on our marine environment for their existence or shut them down; support Australia's international reputation as one of the best managed marine environments in the world or let it be discredited, purely for political pointscoring.
But don't be fooled by the misinformation being peddled by the zealots, who would have everyone locked out of our marine environment. It is largely false and certainly misleading at best. There have been claims that our waters will be invaded by supertrawlers. There are no supertrawlers. There can be no supertrawlers in our waters without the consent of this parliament. Remember: we banned them. Another claim is that foreign fishing boats are taking all our fish. There are no foreign fishing boats in our waters and absolutely no plan for any to be here. They claim that our fish stocks are declining, ignoring the fact that our fisheries management in Commonwealth waters is quota managed. These quotas are set within very conservative levels to ensure sustainability of all of our fish stocks, and our fish stock reports in fact show that our fish stocks are increasing.
So let's get the facts on the table. The plans that these disallowance motions are seeking to remove came into effect on 1 July 2018. And here are the facts. Our marine park network covers 36 per cent of Australia's oceans. That is the exclusive economic zone. It's the second largest in the world. It is over three times in excess of the Aceh target, the United Nations target of 10 per cent. It is based on independent science and followed extensive consultation with all legitimate stakeholders, and it strikes a balance by protecting both the marine environment and the social and economic interests of current and future generations of Australians. What you won't hear from those opposite is that it protects more environmental features than the plans that were proposed under Labor in 2012.
Yet, today, Labor and the Greens want to roll back these protections. Make no mistake: if these disallowance motions are successful today, it will represent the greatest roll-back of marine protections ever. Has there ever been a more bizarre situation? By moving these disallowance motions, it is the Labor Party and the Greens who want to remove protections from our marine environment. It is the Labor Party and the Greens who want to rip up the protections that are already in place. Today, the Labor Party and the Greens are asking this Senate to take away the rights of Australians to drop a line in the water and catch their dinner. They are asking you to decimate sustainable industries and destroy thousands of jobs in many regional communities. They are basically forcing Australians to eat foreign seafood instead of the safe, healthy, clean and sustainably fished local seafood. They want you to listen to foreign-funded NGOs and not the Australian people. They demonstrate their contempt and distrust of Australians by trying to keep them locked out of their own sovereign waters.
I thank the thousands of people who have been engaged in this process—the rec fishers; the people who catch the fish that goes into our fish and chip shops; the tourism operators; the guy in the bait store; and the many thousands of Australians who enjoy our oceans in so many ways. I particularly thank the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, with Brett Cleary and Glenn Hurry before him, and Allan Hansard, who worked tirelessly at the beginning; the Australian Fishing Tackle Industry, with Colin Tannahill; and the Game Fishing Association, with Doug Sanderson.
I thank all of our wonderful state recreational fishing bodies—Recfishwest, TARFish, VRFish, Sunfish Queensland, the Amateur Fishermen's Association of the Northern Territory and RecFish SA. I also want to thank our commercial fishers: the Seafood Industry Association, with Jane Lovell and Veronica Papacosta; the state seafood industry associations; the Northern Territory Seafood Council; the Queensland Seafood Industry Association; and the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council.
A very special thanks goes to Colin Buxton, Peter Cochrane and Bob Beeton, who undertook the independent review. You have had your reputations attacked by those who have no credibility themselves, but you remained solidly committed to the science. To Michelle Grady of the Pew foundation: Michelle, I know you sought to have more no-take zones, but your support to maintain these quite extensive protections is greatly appreciated. And to the crossbench: this week you have been bombarded by those who would have 'nothing be the enemy of the good'. I thank you all for your time that you have afforded me to brief you, and the opportunity to rebut the many outlandish claims that have been made.
And finally, to all Australians who enjoy our marine environment: your government believes that Australian waters belong to the Australian people, not the Labor Party and not the Greens or their foreign-funded cohorts, and we will continue to fight to stop those opposite discrediting our internationally recognised sustainable fisheries. And we will fight to stop them locking you out from your oceans, because our marine environment is a shared resource for the enjoyment of all Australians. I call on the Senate to reject these disallowance motions.
I believe that something is better than nothing. These new protections for five marine parks are a step in the right direction, even though they are not ideal. The potential consequences of going back to zero protections are considerable. There would unavoidably be zero protection for a significant period, possibly years, before new legislation is passed. It seems to me at this time that there is no guarantee or sufficiently strong reason to suggest that any future parliament would pass better quality plans. It is possible that a future parliament could pass worse plans, especially given the possible future composition of the Senate.
There are many opportunities to campaign and advocate for improved quality of the marine parks, even if the disallowances fail. Those opportunities seem to have strong potential to be successful over time through strong leadership. I've consulted widely, including with Andrew Forrest, a great advocate for the conservation of our marine environment. With an election not far away, it is time for the major parties to acknowledge that the current protections are not good enough and to pledge that they will improve the protections for the Coral Sea Marine Park. I am determined to use my time in the Senate to campaign for improvements in the quality of our marine parks.
The choice for the Senate is to have some protection or to have zero protection at this point in time. There are strong risks that these disallowances could lead to worse outcomes for our marine environment; therefore, it seems that there is more reason to vote against these disallowances and campaign for improvements to the current protections.
In closing the debate today, I am very proud to have moved these disallowance motions with Senator Whish-Wilson. Our nation is the guardian of the world's third-largest marine territory. We have the most diverse marine life on earth within our waters. And we, as elected representatives, should be exercising our responsibility to protect our vulnerable oceans and marine life. In decimating the original plans, which had been worked on for so long, that is something the government has failed to do as they have put their vastly weakened plans forward.
The Australian government's plans have introduced marine park plans that cut back marine sanctuaries, and we should be standing for strong sanctuary protection of our ocean's marine life now and in the future. You have ignored decades of science. You have also ignored the advice of the government's own independent review. You have also ignored the wishes of local communities and, indeed, the voices of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who were consulted during the Labor government's process for marine park planning.
When you released your draft plans last year, there was a massive call from scientists, nearly 1,500 of them, rejecting the plans that you'd put forward. Indeed, at that time, when you put your own plans forward, more than 80,000 Australians made a submission asking for more, not less, protection. And you know what? Those submissions calling for more protection included over 16,000 recreational fishers. Your flashing of protection for many of Australia's top marine icons includes one of Australia's oldest sanctuaries, as I highlighted before in the debate, including that of Lord Howe Island. For me, devastatingly, it includes Geographe Bay, in the south-west of WA, the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Kimberley. But, as we know—and it's been well put on record in this debate—worst hit is the Coral Sea, which is the cradle to the Great Barrier Reef. I understand the Greens will move to separate out the disallowance motion for the Coral Sea so we can put those questions separately, highlighting the significance of the attacks on the Coral Sea.
Let's be clear: It's not like we don't understand that we're between the devil and the deep blue sea on this question—bad plans or no plans. But let's be very clear: the plans that you've put forward do not do the job of protecting Australia's marine life or, indeed, benefitting local communities. Those plans must be improved and they should have been improved by the government, but, instead, we commit ourselves in the Labor Party to fixing this problem in government. What we need from government on both sides—and you've been completely negligent on this—is delivery of a science based network that reflects what our oceans, our communities and the Australian public want. I commit myself, along with the rest of the Labor Party, to restore high-level sanctuary zone protection within Australia's marine parks. We cannot afford to let these sanctuary cutbacks compromise our marine ecosystems and our marine life.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I just want to seek your guidance on whether we move a separate motion regarding the Coral Sea and then, following that, move a motion for the other. I can tell you which marine parks they are.
Senator, as I understand it, the procedure that was set was to have all of these questions dealt with as one, but am I to understand that you're asking the chamber to consider separating the questions?
On the point of order, my understanding is that we were going to vote on them all separately.
They were moved by leave together. We're in the hands of the chamber if you want to seek to have them dealt with separately.
I can give a short explanation as to why I am moving them separately.
So you're seeking leave to explain your position?
A two-minute explanation on why I want to move them separately.
On the point of order: it wasn't agreed by leave; it was agreed by resolution, so it's actually a resolution of this chamber that they be considered together.
Thank you. Senator.
For clarification: did you not say that we had to determine that the chamber would want to vote differently?
I haven't given that indication. Is leave granted to put the Coral Sea question separately to the others?
Leave granted.
The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5 with respect to the Coral Sea Marine Park be agreed to.
The question is that business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 be agreed to.
I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.
On behalf of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Air Services Amendment Bill 2018, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
I present the government's response to the report of the Economics References Committee on its inquiry into achieving economic security for women in retirement, and an addendum to the government's response to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into foreign investment and the national interest. I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The documents read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Senate Economics References Committee Report:
'A husband is not a retirement plan' Achieving economic security for women in retirement
August 2018
Introduction
The Senate Inquiry into economic security for women in retirement (the Inquiry) was conducted by the Senate Economics References Committee (the Committee). The aim of the Inquiry was to identify and address the causes of gender inequality in Australian retirement incomes. On 29 April 2016, the Committee delivered its final report A Husband is not a Retirement Plan: Achieving Economic Security for Women in Retirement (the Report).
The Report made 19 recommendations intended to help women increase their participation in the workforce and improve their superannuation savings. The Report found that women's low superannuation balances at retirement are the result of multiple factors, including, but not limited to: the gender pay gap; women having more breaks in their career for family and other reasons; and women representing a higher proportion of the part-time workforce than men. This translates into lower contributions to their superannuation.
The Australian Government is committed to women's economic empowerment by ensuring workplace diversity and flexibility, flexible and affordable child care, increasing the incentives for women to work, and getting women into the jobs of the future. The Government has engaged in a considered and thorough process on how we can make our tax system better, including taking a comprehensive look at superannuation. The Government's superannuation reforms, which passed the Parliament on 23 November 2016 and applied from 1 July 2017 (for most measures), assist women to build their superannuation savings:
In the 44th Parliament, the Government also undertook significant Age Pension reform that has made the pension more sustainable, affordable and supports more people on the full Age Pension. Importantly around 90 per cent of pensioners are either better off or have had no change to their pension. On implementation on 1 January 2017, around 165,200 part rate assets tested pensioners with more modest assets have received an average of $25 per fortnight extra, including about 47,600 previously part rate pensioners who have qualified for a full pension.
The asset test threshold for the full age pension has increased, directing the most assistance to those most in need, including women with more modest assets.
The Government welcomes the Opposition's decision in the 2016 election campaign to reverse its resistance to this reform that gives more pensioners with modest asset levels access to the full age pension. However, the Government is aware that policies adopted by the Opposition would have resulted in $16.5 billion in higher deficits over the course of the forward estimates, placing greater pressure on Australia's credit rating, raising the cost of borrowing, and making it more difficult for the Australian Government to direct resources to those in need, including women with modest assets at retirement.
The Government notes that the issue of the gender gap in retirement incomes and savings is complex and not caused by any one factor. One of the most useful ways governments can address inequality in retirement incomes is to support economic growth to generate an increase in employment and incomes. Several important achievements have been made that will also deliver significant outcomes for Australian women and contribute to improving the economic security of women in retirement:
Towards 2025: An Australian Government strategy to boost women ' s workforce participation (the Strategy), released on 6 July 2017, lays out the Government's roadmap to meet its G20 target of reducing the gap in participation rates between women and men (aged 15-64) by 25 per cent by 2025. In the Strategy, the Government has identified five areas which require further action over the next decade: ensuring affordable, accessible and flexible child care; improving workplace diversity and flexibility, supporting women to innovate, succeed as entrepreneurs and thrive in jobs of the future, strengthening women's economic security; and enhancing financial incentives to work.
The Government thanks the Committee and all those assisting the Inquiry for their contributions to policy discussions focused on improving the economic security of women in retirement.
Recommendation 1 (paragraph 3.15)
The Australian Government review the Fair Work Act 2009 to determine the effectiveness of Equal Remuneration Orders in addressinggender pay equity, and consequently in closing the gender pay gap. The review shouldconsider alternative mechanisms to allow for a less adversarial consideration of theundervaluing of women's work.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Part 2-7 of the Fair Work Act 2009 currently provides for the Fair Work Commission to make Equal Remuneration Orders to ensure equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal or comparable value.
Neither the 2012 Fair Work Act Review nor the 2015 Productivity Commission inquiry into the workplace relations framework made any recommendations in relation to the equal remuneration provisions of the current legislation.
The gender pay gap for average weekly ordinary time earnings has decreased from 18.5 per cent in November 2014 to 15.3 per cent in May 2017.
The Workplace Gender Equality Agency continues to promote gender pay equity in organisations through a range of mechanisms including annual gender reporting; resources such as conducting a gender pay gap audit and developing a gender pay equity strategy; and through awareness campaigns and partnerships programs including the Pay Equity Ambassador network.
The Fair Work Commission is currently considering an application by unions for equal remuneration orders to increase the wages received by early childhood teachers in long day care centres and preschools.
Recommendation 2 (paragraph 3.51)
The Australian Government continue to support the work of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and ensure that it is adequately resourced.
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.
The Government has committed ongoing funding of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency of $20.4 million from 2018-19 to 2021-22.
Recommendation 3 (paragraphs 4.16–4.17)
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider carefully the recommendation from the Australian Human Rights Commission's SupportingWorking Parents: Pregnancy and Return to Work National Review, to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to:
The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation.
The Government considers the current protections from unlawful discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 are appropriate and does not propose to introduce a ground of indirect discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities or create new duties on employers.
Extending the unlawful discrimination ground of 'family responsibilities' to include indirect discrimination would increase the regulatory burden on employers, particularly small businesses, and create uncertainty as to relevant obligations on employers.
The Government is supporting women with children to remain in the workforce by increasing investment in child care support to around $10 billion a year over the next four years. This includes an increase of around $2.5 billion to support reform of the child care system. The reforms will make the system more flexible, accessible, affordable and targeted, helping around one million Australian families to balance work and parental responsibilities. Analysis indicates the new system will encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their involvement in paid employment.
Recommendation 4 (paragraph 4.35)
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consult with stakeholders on practical options to implement the relevant findings from the Australian Human Rights Commission's Supporting Working Parents: Pregnancy and Return to WorkNational Review, which recommends strengthening the 'right to request' provisions under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 by:
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Neither the 2012 Fair Work Act Review nor the 2015 Productivity Commission Inquiry into the workplace relations framework recommended that requests for flexible working arrangements be appealable.
The 2012 review found that on the evidence available, most requests were being granted and that adding an appeal mechanism would impose additional regulatory burden without necessarily changing the outcome of a request. The Productivity Commission noted that regulations made to create an appeals mechanism would most likely be only weakly enforceable given the difficulty of establishing what is reasonable.
On 26 March 2018, the independent Fair Work Commission rejected a claim by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to vary all modern awards to give employees the unilateral right to temporarily reduce their hours of work to accommodate parenting and/or caring responsibilities. The Fair Work Commission instead proposed a provisional model award term, which would permit flexible work requests from parents and carers after six months' service and require employers to follow a process when proposing to refuse a flexible work request. The Fair Work Commission has commenced consultation on its provisional view.
The Government is committed to promoting the benefits of flexible working. The Fair Work Ombudsman, the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency all provide information and tools for employers and employees to promote flexible working arrangements.
Recommendation 5 (paragraph 4.43)
The committee recommends that the Australian Government refer the question of effective marginal tax rates for second-earners to the Productivity Commission for review, noting the significance of women's workforce participation.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Government refers the Committee to the Productivity Commission working paper released on 7 October 2015, Tax and Transfer Incidence in Australia, which, among other things, considered effective marginal tax rates (EMTRs) and participation rates faced by different groups.
Australia's tax and transfer systems are highly progressive. This leads to fairer outcomes—it means that as a person's income rises, they pay more tax and may receive less transfer payments.
The impact of EMTRs on workforce participation also depends on the circumstances of the individual and their household. There is evidence that EMTRs are not a key driver of workforce participation.
For example, a 2016-17 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey ranked maintaining welfare benefits below other factors affecting workforce participation, such as permanent retirement, long term sickness or disability, and studying or returning to studies.
The Government's child care reforms will assist Australians in managing work and family responsibilities and improve incentives to work. These reforms will provide the greatest hours of support in child care to the families who work the longest hours, and the greatest subsidy and financial support to the families who earn the least. The package will deliver the highest rate of subsidy to those who most need it.
The Australian Government's new child care package strikes the right balance between targeted child care support for hard working families who depend upon it, a generous safety net to protect the most vulnerable in our community and ongoing support for high quality early learning. This is further boosted by the Government's $868 million commitment, over two years to 2020, to continue to provide access to a quality preschool program for all children in the year before they begin school.
Key elements of the reforms include:
Australia's tax and transfer system remains one of the most progressive systems among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
This system, supported by Government policies, which boost economic growth, employment and wages, is designed to support those individuals and families who need assistance while at the same time rewarding enterprise and endeavour.
Recommendation 6 (paragraph 4.63)
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme continue to be improved over time to allow for 26 weeks paid parental leave through the combination of government and employer funding.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Under the Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme, eligible working parents can receive up to 18 weeks of PPL. This can be taken before, after or at the same time as any employer-provided paid or unpaid leave.
Recommendation 7 (paragraph 4.80)
The committee recommends the Australian Government investigate further the interaction between means testing of the Age Pension and mature age workforce participation
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Support for senior Australians is provided through our retirement income system, which combines an affordable basis for generating retirement incomes with targeted support for those who most need assistance. The retirement income system is funded through a mix of consolidated revenue, employer contributions and employee contributions. It is based on three parts, or pillars:
Means testing is a critical part of the system to ensure the system remains affordable and sustainable for the long term.
Although the Age Pension in Australia is subject to income and assets testing, incentives already exist within the means test for pensioners to engage in paid work, if they are able to.
A pensioner can receive an amount of income before their pension starts to be reduced. This amount may comprise income from investments, earnings, or a combination of income from various sources and is known as the income test free area. The pension income test free area since 1 July 2017 is $168 a fortnight for singles and $300 a fortnight for couples combined.
For each dollar of income over the income test free area, the single pension is reduced by 50 cents (the taper rate). For couples, their individual pensions are reduced by 25 cents a fortnight for each dollar of income that the couple has over the income test free area.
A part pension is payable up to an income of $1,983.20 a fortnight ($51,563.20 per annum) for a single pensioner or $3,036.40 a fortnight ($78,946.40 per annum) for a pensioner couple (20 March 2018 figures). These figures may be higher if Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) is paid with the pension.
The Work Bonus operates in addition to the income test free area for pensioners over age pension age. Under the Work Bonus, the first $250 of employment income a fortnight is not counted in the pension income test, allowing, for example, a single age pensioner, with no other income, to earn up to $418 a fortnight ($10,868 per annum, July 2017 amounts) from employment and still receive the maximum rate of Age Pension.
Pensioners are also able to build up any unused amount of the $250 fortnightly exemption to a total of $6,500. This amount can be used to exempt future earnings from the pension income test, so a pensioner could earn up to $6,500 a year extra without it affecting their pension. Any unused amount of the Work Bonus is held in a Work Bonus income bank. The income bank amount is not time-limited—if unused it carries forward, even across years.
The Government announced in the 2018 Budget that the Work Bonus would be increased to $300 a fortnight and extended to include earnings from self-employed pensioners from 1 July 2019. The maximum Work Bonus accrual amount will also increase from $6,500 to $7,800. These changes will provide more support for workforce participation by older Australians.
The operation of the pension income test free area, taper rate and Work Bonus means that pensioners are always better off while they are earning private income in addition to their pension payments.
Recommendation 8 (paragraph 5.38)
The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that any changes to the retirement income system are measured against the guiding principle of dignity in retirement and should:
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
For increasing numbers of senior Australians, retirement incomes are a combination of compulsory superannuation, private savings and the Age Pension.
The Age Pension remains a key component for many seniors who have not benefited from superannuation and who have low levels of savings.
The Government appreciates the important economic and social contribution that senior Australians make to our community and is keen to ensure that seniors who cannot fully support themselves in retirement are safeguarded by the Age Pension.
Pensions are paid at the highest rate of income support in the Australian social security system.
Base pensions are indexed twice a year, in March and September, to the higher of the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the increase in the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI).
The PBLCI was introduced to ensure pension indexation better reflects changes to pensioners' costs of living. The Index takes into account the goods and services pensioners buy, not what the rest of the community buys. The PBLCI basket of goods and services is weighted to recognise that pensioners spend more of their income on essentials, including food, health, clothing, telephone calls and postage.
After indexing to price increases, base pension rates are then compared to a wages benchmark. The maximum basic rate for pensioner couples (combined) is benchmarked to 41.76 per cent of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings. The single rate of pension is 66.33 per cent of the combined couple rate.
These arrangements ensure pension rates are more responsive to pensioners' actual living cost increases and keep pace with community living standards as measured by wages.
In addition to their main income support payment, pensioners receive a range of benefits and concessions that increase their economic security, including:
The Government will spend around $45 billion in 2017-18 on the Age Pension. The cost is expected to rise to around $52 billion in 2020-21.
The Government has also delivered changes to the assets test to make the pension system fairer and better targeted. At implementation on 1 January 2017, about 165,200 part rate assets tested pensioners with more modest assets received an average of $25 more pension per fortnight. This included about 47,600 previously part rate pensioners who qualified for a full pension.
This ensures that more of those who are most in need receive higher levels of support while helping to ensure the sustainability and affordability of the pension system for future generations. The Government's pension reform passed the Senate with the support of the Australian Greens in the last Parliament. The Opposition voted against these reforms to give more pensioners with modest assets access to the full age pension only to reverse its position in the lead-up to the 2016 election. (See further detail at Recommendation 17)
Recommendation 9 paragraphs (5.57–5.58)
The superannuation guarantee should be paid on the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme. Mechanisms for improving the retirement incomes of carers should be examined
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Government is committed to assisting individuals with interrupted work patterns, including women and those undertaking caring responsibilities.
From 1 July 2017, the Government extended the spouse tax offset to allow more individuals to be eligible for the 18 per cent tax offset (up to $540) if they make a contribution to the superannuation account of a low income spouse who earns up to $40,000. (see further detail at Recommendation 11)
The Government is also allowing people with superannuation balances of $500,000 or less to carry forward their unused concessional cap amounts for a period of five years. From 1 July 2018, this will provide individuals who have been unable to accumulate large superannuation balances, such as carers and parents with interrupted work patterns, with the opportunity to 'catch-up'. (see further detail at Recommendation 11)
Recommendation 10 paragraphs (6.14–6.15)
The committee recommends that the Australian Government set an objective for superannuation that supports the continuation of a strong three pillar retirement income system. The objective should include reference to women's retirement incomes.
The Australian Government agrees in part to this recommendation.
The Government has announced that it will, for the first time, enshrine in law that the objective of superannuation is to 'provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension'. The objective will help provide greater long-term confidence, policy stability and a means of measuring competing superannuation proposals to guide future changes. This was the objective recommended by the Financial System Inquiry, which the Government consulted widely on.
This objective was an important anchor for the development of the superannuation package that was announced in the 2016-17 Budget. A key element of the Government's superannuation package was improving the flexibility of the superannuation system, recognising that individuals have different work patterns across their lives, in particular women. The Government has also introduced the LISTO, which will increase the superannuation savings of around 1.9 million women with income less than $37,000. (see further detail at Recommendation 12)
The Government remains committed to legislating the objective.
Recommendation 11 (paragraph 6.25)
The committee recommends that superannuation tax concessions be re-targeted to ensure that they are more equitably distributed and assist people with lower superannuation balances to achieve a more comfortable retirement
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Since the Report was tabled, the Government has taken action to improve the fairness, sustainability and flexibility of the superannuation system. These reforms passed Parliament on the 23 November 2016 with major party support.
The Government has legislated a package of reforms that make superannuation tax concessions better targeted and more accessible to those with non-standard working arrangements.
From 1 July 2018, the Government will help people 'catch-up' their superannuation contributions by providing individuals with a total superannuation balance of less than $500,000 just before the beginning of a financial year with an opportunity to carry forward unused concessional cap space (for up to five years).
In 2019-20, this will help around 230,000 Australians who take time out of work, whose income varies considerably from one year to the next, or who find their circumstances have changed (e.g. returned to work following parental leave, or where mortgage payments or school fees have ceased) and are in a position to increase their contributions to superannuation.
Individuals aged 65 to 74 who meet the work test will be eligible to access these new arrangements.
Further, as part of the Government's commitment to supporting families, the Government has expanded the current spouse tax offset, making it available to more couples so they can support each other in saving for retirement.
Previously, a tax offset of up to $540 was available for individuals who make superannuation contributions to their spouses with incomes up to $13,800. The Government will allow more people to access the offset by extending eligibility to those whose recipient spouses earn up to $40,000.
It is estimated that an additional 5,000 Australian families are expected to make use of this opportunity, which will mostly benefit women who are more likely to be the lower income earner in families and have lower superannuation balances.
Since 1 July 2017, there has been a $1.6 million cap on the total amount of superannuation that can be transferred into a tax-free retirement account. The Government has lowered the annual income threshold, above which individuals will be required to pay 30 per cent tax on their concessional contributions, from $300,000 to $250,000.
The Government has also reduced the annual concessional contributions cap to $25,000 for all individuals and the annual non-concessional contributions cap to $100,000 for those with superannuation balances below $1.6 million. Individuals with a total superannuation balance above $1.6 million are no longer eligible to make non-concessional contributions.
The Government has also levelled the playing field by allowing deductions for personal superannuation contributions regardless of employment circumstances. This will provide women working in wage and salary earning roles, without access to salary sacrifice arrangements through their employer, the flexibility to make further concessional contributions to their superannuation.
The Government is also addressing concerns that low income earners pay more tax on their superannuation contributions than on their ordinary income by introducing the LISTO (see Recommendation 12).
Recommendation 12 (paragraph 6.40)
The committee recommends that concessional superannuation contributions of lower income earners are not taxed at a higher rate than their ordinary income, and that the Australian Government commit to retaining the Low Income Superannuation Contribution beyond 30 June 2017.
The Australian Government agrees in part to this recommendation.
From 1 July 2017, the Government replaced the Low Income Superannuation Contribution with the LISTO. The LISTO effectively refunds the tax paid on concessional contributions by individuals with a taxable income of up to $37,000—up to a cap of $500. This avoids the situation where low income earners pay more tax on contributions to superannuation than on their take home pay.
The amount of the LISTO that an individual is eligible for is paid into the individual's superannuation account. This means that low income earners, who are disproportionately women, will generally not pay more tax on their superannuation contributions than on their ordinary take-home pay. It is estimated that around 3.1 million low income earners benefit from the LISTO, including around 1.9 million women.
Recommendation 13 (paragraph 6.53)
The committee recommends that the Australian Government revise the current schedule for the increase in the superannuation guarantee (SG) rate to 12 per cent, and ensure the gradual increase in the SG rate is implemented earlier than the current timetable
The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation.
The Government notes that the Opposition has not committed to a timetable for increasing the SG rate, with then Shadow Minister for Small Business and Financial Services, Senator Katy Gallagher, stating support for an increase when "fiscal circumstances allow"a2a.
Starting in 2021, the SG rate is legislated to gradually increase to 12 per cent by July 2025. Individuals who want to save more for their retirement can still do so. The Government has improved the ability of individuals to access the superannuation system by allowing more Australians to claim a tax deduction for personal superannuation contributions and allowing the carry forward of unused concessional cap amounts. (see further detail at Recommendation 11)
Recommendation 14 (paragraph 6.72)
The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to remove the exemption from paying the superannuation guarantee in respect of employees whose salary or wages are less than $450 in a calendar month.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The '$450 rule' is a long-standing feature of the superannuation guarantee system. It is designed to balance the administrative effort of paying small amounts of superannuation against adequate retirement savings. The earnings threshold was part of the original superannuation guarantee law and was intended to minimise the administration effort in highly casual areas of employment.
When introduced in 1992, the $450 exemption was one twelfth, or 8.3 per cent, of the annual tax free threshold of $5,400. It has not been indexed and now represents one 40th, or 2.5 per cent, of the annual tax free threshold of $18,200.
In the 2018-19 Budget, the Government announced that it will take action to protect the superannuation savings of Australians with low-balance accounts, inactive accounts or accounts held by young Australians by reducing fees, improving insurance arrangements and proactively reuniting lost and inactive accounts with Australians' active accounts.
The Government also has a raft of reforms before the Senate to improve outcomes for superannuation members. These reforms will introduce transparency and accountability mechanisms that will instil confidence in all members that their funds are working for them.
The Government remains committed to pursuing these reforms and ensuring the superannuation regime operates to benefit members prior to considering any expansion of the coverage of the Superannuation Guarantee regime.
Recommendation 15 (paragraph 6.95)
The committee recommends that all government policy analysis in relation to retirement incomes include specific analysis comparing the impact of each proposal on men and women.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Government compares the impact of policy on men and women for proposals where it is practicable to do so. The Office for Women (OfW) works across government to deliver policies and programmes to advance gender equality and improve the lives of Australian women, including strengthening women's economic security through women's workforce participation. OfW regularly engages with departments on proposed policy measures, including, but not limited to, Budget measures.
Recommendation 16 (paragraphs 7.49–7.50)
The committee recommends the Australian Government amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to ensure companies are able to make higher superannuation payments for their female employees when they wish to do so. As part of this process the Australian Human Rights Commission should explore options and advise theAustralian Government on appropriate legislative changes.
Following any amendments to the legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission should develop guidelines and advice for any organisation contemplating providing additional superannuation payments for women.
The Australian Government agrees in part to this recommendation.
The Government welcomes action from employers to address the gender retirement savings gap. Following consultation with the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Government does not consider legislative amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is the best approach to assist employers wishing to take such action.
Whether action constitutes a 'special measure' under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 depends on particular factors and the context of that action. Amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 may not be useful in clarifying special measures for employers.
The Government and the Australian Human Rights Commission have agreed that the Commission will prepare guidelines to provide greater certainty to employers about the lawfulness of any action they may wish to take to reduce the gender retirement savings gap. The guidelines will be similar to the guidelines for employers on Targeted recruitment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the Commission developed in 2015.
Recommendation 17 (paragraph 8.38)
The committee recommends that, in order to provide certainty and security for the majority of Australians who will receive the Age Pension in retirement, the Government:
a) abandon its proposal to increase the Age Pension retirement eligibility age to 70; and
b) commit to maintaining the current method of indexation and benchmarking for the Age Pension.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Age Pension Qualifying Age
In 2009, the then Treasurer, the Hon Wayne Swan MP, announced an increase to the qualifying age for the Age Pension from 65 in 2017 to 67 by 2023. As acknowledged at the time, "a gradual increase in the age pension qualifying age is responsible and necessary to help meet major social and economic challenges as Australia's population ages."a3a
Subject to legislation, from July 2025, the qualifying age to receive the Age Pension will increase by six months every two years, until it reaches 70 years in 2035 (which is the same rate of increase to the qualifying age legislated by the previous Labor Government). The increase builds on current changes to raise the qualifying age to 67 years and will not affect current pensioners or anyone born before 1 July 1958. The 70 year old qualifying age will only apply to people born after 1 January 1966.
When the Age Pension was introduced in 1909, the average male life expectancy at birth was 55 and the pension age was set 10 years above average male life expectancy. Average life expectancy has risen to around 81 for newborn boys and 85 for newborn girls meaning the pension is now available at least 15 years below average life expectancy.
The 2015 Intergenerational Report identified that the number of people of traditional working age (being 16 to 64 years old) for every person aged 65 and over had fallen from 7.3 people in 1974-75 to an estimated 4.5 people today. By 2054-2055, this is projected to nearly halve again to only 2.7 people.
This means there will be a smaller proportion of people paying taxes available to pay for a larger proportion of people requiring the Age Pension.
By continuing to address the challenges of Australia's ageing population in the long-term interests of the nation, the Government is delivering a stronger, fairer and more sustainable age pension system for future generations.
Age Pension Indexation and Benchmarking
The Age Pension is a critically important safety net for many Australians. It is the budget's biggest item of expenditure, at around $45 billion in 2017-18. Australians are healthier and living longer than ever before. At the same time, our demographics are changing, and our population is ageing. The Government has taken steps to repair the budget with sensible savings and a prudent approach to spending, which includes reforms to make the pension system fairer, better targeted and sustainable for the future. The aim is to restore fiscal sustainability and confidence in our public finances, and help improve economic conditions for business, families and individuals.
In the 2015-16 Budget, the Government announced that it would not proceed with some 2014-15 Budget measures and announced alternative policies that ensure the welfare system is targeted and sustainable.
The Government reversed the measures to index pensions and pension equivalent payments to movements in the CPI only, reset the deeming thresholds and maintain pension income test eligibility thresholds and deeming thresholds for three years. It replaced these measures with a new policy to rebalance the assets test parameters, which provides additional assistance under the assets test to non-homeowners and people with more modest assets, and provides less support to those who are better off.
These reforms mean that about 165,200 part rate assets tested pensioners with more modest assets received an average of $25 per fortnight extra, including about 47,600 previously part rate pensioners who qualified for a full pension from 1 January 2017. The 2015-16 Budget also included a measure to cap the level of income from defined benefit income streams that can be excluded from the income test at 10 per cent.
The Government's pension reform passed the Senate with the support of the Australian Greens in the last Parliament. The Opposition voted against these reforms to give more pensioners with modest asset levels access to the full Age Pension, The Opposition reversed its position in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
The Government's reforms ensure that more of those who are most in need receive higher levels of support while ensuring the sustainability and affordability of the pension system for future generations. These actions mean Age Pension indexation arrangements remain unchanged.
Recommendation 18 (paragraph 9.32)
The committee recommends the Australian Government urgently review the adequacy of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA).
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
CRA plays a critical role in reducing the cost of rental housing and the incidence of rental stress for people receiving income support and Family Tax Benefit (Part A) payments. In 2016-17, the Government improved rental affordability for more than 1.3 million Australian individuals, couples and families with children by spending around $4.4 billion in CRA.
To maintain its value, CRA is indexed in line with increases in the CPI in March and September each year.
The Government continually maintains and reviews welfare payments including CRA to ensure they are meeting their policy objectives.
Recommendation 19 (paragraph 9.33)
The Australian Government should look closely at its aged care policy so that it takes account of the particular difficulties confronting older Australians in the rental market.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
CRA assists age pensioners, as well as other welfare recipients on low to moderate incomes, to pay for housing costs in the private and community housing rental market.
In addition, as part of a comprehensive package to address housing affordability in the 2017-18 Budget, the Government announced it will improve outcomes by:
The Government recognises that access to secure and affordable housing has significant economic and social benefits. It can improve education and health outcomes, increase workforce participation and reduce welfare dependency.
To build more homes, the Government is working to increase the supply of affordable housing and pave the way for more institutional and private investment.
To do this, the Government will establish a new National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) by 1 July 2018. NHFIC will operate an affordable housing bond aggregator to provide long-term low-cost finance for affordable housing providers, giving investors the confidence to invest in the sector.
These measures build on the commitment to establish direct rent deduction for social housing tenants, which will improve rental income streams for community housing providers. To increase supply, the Government is introducing tax incentives to boost investment in affordable rental housing, increasing the capital gains tax discount on such projects, taking the discount from 50 per cent to 60 per cent for investors.
From 1 July 2017, Managed Investment Trusts are able to acquire, construct, or redevelop affordable housing to hold for rent. These reforms provide foreign and domestic investors, including superannuation funds, with a new way of accessing long-term, stable investments in the property sector and lead to more affordable housing.
These measures are part of the Government's commitment to providing housing solutions across the entire housing spectrum—from Australians struggling to put a roof over their head to those in affordable housing, private renters and first home buyers.
1 Based on average base salary for women in the Australian Public Service, Australian Public Service Commission's 2016 Remuneration Report
2 http://www.katygallagher.net/speech_to_the_future_of_superannuation_conference
3 http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2009/056.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=
&DocType=0
Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report: Foreign investment and the national interest
ADDENDUM
August 2018
Due to a formatting error with the previous tabled response, the provided response to recommendation 16 was incomplete.
This addendum provides the complete response to recommendation 16.
Recommendation 16
The committee recommends that, in line with recommendation 4, the government develop a stronger, more rigorous and more transparent system for examining cases of foreign investment in Australia, including Australian agriculture. Particular focus should be made on forensically examining:
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Government has already taken a number of steps to strengthen the screening arrangements that apply to foreign investment, including in the agricultural sector.
The Government reviews foreign investment proposals against the national interest on a case by case basis. The national interest, and what would be contrary to it, is not defined in the Act. Instead, the Act confers upon the Treasurer the power to decide in each case whether a particular investment would be contrary to the national interest.
To assist foreign investors in their applications, the Government has provided general guidance on the national interest factors that are typically considered when assessing foreign investment proposals. These include: national security, competition, other Australian Government policies (including tax), impact on the economy and the community and the investor's character.
The Government considers the same broad factors when considering whether an investment by a foreign government investor or a private investor is contrary to the national interest.
However, where a proposal involves a foreign government investor, the Government also considers the commerciality of the investment. This includes assessing whether the investment is commercial in nature or if the investor may be pursuing broader political or strategic objectives
The Government considers the current framework provides flexibility to consider proposals on a case-by-case basis. This flexibility is fundamental to the operation of the foreign investment framework because the national interest can change over time.
The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Steele-John
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Senator Siewert
Question agreed to.
These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. 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—
COASTAL TRADING (REVITALISING AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING) AMENDMENT BILL 2017
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring safe, secure and efficient coastal shipping as a part of Australia's national transport system.
As part of this commitment, the Government has introduced the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017.
Between 2010 and 2030, Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent, but coastal shipping is only forecast to increase by 15 per cent.
With Australia's extensive coastline and broad network of ports, there is scope for this figure to be much greater.
However, it is clear that the current regulatory system does not fully support that potential being realised.
Following the Minister's appointment, he has engaged with stakeholders in the coastal shipping sector – Australian operators, users of coastal shipping and Australian seafarers.
The stakeholders he has spoken to all agree that there are aspects of the current Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 (Coastal Trading Act) that are unreasonably limiting, inflexible or onerous.
These restrictions are limiting or preventing the use of shipping to move domestic freight. They are pushing costs up for business.
It is an important part of the Government's red tape reduction work to ensure legislation in place is being effectively implemented and not imposing excessive administrative burden.
This Bill makes amendments to the existing regulatory regime, rather than fundamentally restructuring it.
These amendments were set out in a discussion paper that Minister Chester released for industry consultation in March this year and received significant support from stakeholders.
The Australian Aluminium Council, in its submission in response to the discussion paper, said:
'These amendments would reduce the regulatory burden for shipping users and increase the efficiency of the coastal shipping regime'.
Manufacturing Australia, in its submission, said:
'The proposed amendments are pragmatic, achievable and likely to deliver a material benefit in lower costs for Australian manufacturers'.
Turning to the amendments in detail, under the Coastal Trading Act applicants must specify a minimum of five voyages they intend to undertake in order to secure a Temporary Licence.
The Minister is aware of one instance where a shipper was unable to obtain a Temporary Licence to move a piece of heavy machinery between two ports as it required only a single voyage and was therefore ineligible for a Temporary Licence.
The machinery was instead moved by road, which required a police escort due to the size of the machinery, and overhead utilities had to be moved.
This was far more complicated and more costly than a voyage by ship would have been, but it was the only option available.
This Bill removes the five-voyage requirement, increasing flexibility for industry.
The Coastal Trading Act contains strict tolerance provisions for voyages under Temporary Licence that do not reflect the daily realities of how the shipping industry and supply chains in Australia operate.
The tolerance restrictions mean that a shipper has to apply for a variation to their Temporary Licence if they are going to move their cargo more than 5 days before or after the approved loading date or if they need to load 20 per cent more or less than the approved amount of cargo.
Such strict limits fail to reflect the fast-paced nature of the shipping industry.
For example, the Minister is aware of an Australian company who received a last minute request from a customer for 2,000 tonnes of cargo to meet a customer shortage.
Despite already holding a Temporary Licence to carry 8,000 tonnes of cargo on a similar route, the ship it had chartered had to wait an extra day in port for a variation to come through, at a cost of $15,000 US dollars in port costs.
Every time delays and costs like these are incurred by business, it impacts on profits and puts Australian jobs at risk.
The amendments in this Bill relax the tolerance provisions to provide businesses with the flexibility and certainty they need to operate profitably.
This bill will also simplify the consultation provisions of the Act, while not removing the protections that all General License (Australian) vessels currently exist.
All General Licence holders must be consulted for a minimum period of either one or two days before any temporary licence is granted, or approval for any new voyage is granted.
That is mandatory even where there is no General Licence (Australian) vessel capable of carrying the cargo or passengers the applicant wants to move.
For example, there have been no crude oil or petroleum tankers operating under General Licence conditions since June 2016. However, the consultation requirements have resulted in the absurd situation where industry has spent 446 cumulative business days since 1 June 2016 waiting for consultation with a General Licence holder that does not exist!
This Bill will streamline the application by removing the requirement to consult when there is no General Licence vessel that is able to carry the cargo or passengers.
The changes Minister Chester has introduced will also extend the geographical reach of the Coastal Trading Act, to support the Australian energy sector.
The current coastal trading regime is hindering the use of Australian crude oil and condensate products in Australian refineries.
The Australian Institute of Petroleum told Minister Chester earlier this year that uncertainty over the status of oil tankers moving between floating production storage and offloading units and floating storage units and mainland Australian actively discourages the use of Australian crude oil and condensate in Australian refineries.
This Bill will enable voyages occurring between a floating production storage and offloading unit, or a floating storage unit, and the mainland to be covered by a coastal trading licence.
This Bill will also allow vessels undergoing dry-docking to be covered by the coastal trading licensing system.
Under current arrangements, vessels undertaking scheduled maintenance in dry docking facilities are subject to importation under the Customs Act 1901.
Covering vessels undergoing dry-docking in the coastal trading licensing system will provide certainty to operators and potentially increase the use of Australian facilities.
The amendments also change the voyage notification requirements by removing the need for industry to submit a notification when none of the voyage details have changed.
The Bill will require ships to provide their International Maritime Organization number rather than their name as an identifier.
Ships are able to change their name – having the IMO number of vessels operating in our waters will improve the Government's ability to verify that operators are complying with the requirements of this and other Australian legislation.
The Turnbull-Joyce Government has a vision for a simpler and more flexible costal shipping industry that is positioned to carries meet an increased share of Australia's freight task.
This Bill removes some of the red tape and unnecessary administrative burden that the current legislation has imposed on the coastal shipping sector.
MIGRATION (VALIDATION OF PORT APPOINTMENT) BILL 2018
As a government, we are committed to upholding the integrity of our borders and deterring dangerous and unauthorised maritime ventures to Australia.
The Migration (Validation of Port Appointment) Bill 2018 (the Bill) confirms the validity of the appointment of a proclaimed port in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands contained in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. GN 3, 23 January 2002 (the Appointment).
The measures in the Bill are in response to a small number of ongoing proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court, in which the validity of the Appointment is being challenged.
The impugned Appointment was gazetted in 2002 by the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP.
The Appointment was designed to ensure that unauthorised boat arrivals who entered certain waters of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands, an 'excised offshore place' for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), would thereby become 'offshore entry persons', now 'unauthorised maritime arrivals', under the Act. The Appointment was critical to determining the status of persons as unauthorised maritime arrivals under the Act who entered Australia via this proclaimed port between 23 January 2002 and 1 June 2013 (from which time unauthorised maritime arrival status extended to persons entering Australia by sea at any place on the mainland without a visa). In addition, unauthorised boat arrivals who became unauthorised maritime arrivals by reason of having entered the proclaimed port at Ashmore and Cartier Islands between 13 August 2012 and 1 June 2013 (and were not taken to a regional processing country) also became 'fast track applicants' under the Act.
A successful challenge to the Appointment could mean, subject to any appeal, that affected persons did not enter Australia at an excised offshore place and are therefore not unauthorised maritime arrivals under the Act. It could also mean that some affected persons are not fast track applicants under the Act.
The Bill addresses these risks by confirming the validity of the Appointment to:
The effect of the Bill will simply maintain the status quo for unauthorised maritime arrivals and, where relevant, fast track applicants, under the Act who entered Australia via this proclaimed port between 23 January 2002 and 1 June 2013.
The Bill reiterates the government's original intention that the Appointment is, and has always been, valid. However, due to ongoing proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court and Federal Court which are currently challenging the validity of the Appointment, the Bill will not apply to cases where judgment has been delivered by a court before these provisions commence, if:
Government policy around management of unauthorised maritime arrivals has been highly effective in responding to the enduring threat of maritime people smuggling. It is unacceptable for individuals to seek to rely on minor and inadvertent omissions in the wording of the Appointment in an attempt to undermine this policy.
It is imperative that we uphold the intent of the Appointment to protect the integrity of Australia's migration framework and maintain public confidence in our border protection arrangements.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) Pure Compound Sodium Fluoroacetate ('1080') poison is classified by the World Health Organization as a Class l(a) poison – their highest rating for toxicity,
(ii) in Australia, 1080 is listed as a schedule 7 poison, surpassed only by addictive, illicit and other prohibited substances, and is considered a chemical of security concern by the Australian Government
(iii) despite most other countries adopting alternative, more humane, pest-management strategies, Australia and New Zealand account for the vast majority of 1080 use worldwide,
(iv) 1080 poison is a cruel alternative to other known methods of pest control, including poisons with effective antidotes, and
(v) 1080 poison is aerially distributed across Australia, including often untracked use throughout national parks, leaving other species and domesticated animals susceptible to agonising deaths that can last as long as five days; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to regulate for the orderly phase-out of 1080 poison.
I want to start today with a story that will make me sound naive. Years and years ago—decades ago—I had a mate across the Ditch, in New Zealand, who was a helicopter pilot. He did most of his work in the South Island. When I asked him what he actually did, he said he dropped tonnes of carrots for the deer to eat. Being an animal lover and a campaigner against animal suffering and cruelty for more than 40 years, I thought, 'Gee, that's great.' Then he explained that this was not a humanitarian aerial food drop for Bambi; the carrots were laced with the deadly poison 1080. I'd never heard of it. I have since learned that one teaspoon of 1080 can kill 100 people.
All these years later 1080 is still being used in New Zealand and here in Australia, including in our national parks like Kosciuszko National Park, just around the corner. In fact I have been told the world's largest manufacturer of 1080, the Tull company in Alabama, sells at least 80 per cent of its 1080 to Australia and New Zealand. Some is also sold, I believe, to Japan and Israel.
I checked with New Zealand yesterday and the poisoned carrot drops from helicopters and planes are still going on over there, but the main target now is not deer but possums. The obvious problem is that aerial drops of this deadly poison are so indiscriminate. So many other species of non-feral critters die as well, as the targets, in agonising deaths that can take up to four or five excruciating days. I have seen evidence of farmers' dogs dying from 1080 poisoning. One farmer, who has been corresponding with my office, tells me he's lost 16 dogs to 1080—sixteen! Additionally, dosage of 1080 is almost impossible to control. Even if an animal consumes a sub-lethal dose, it'll still be left permanently disabled and in terrible pain.
A 2005 peer-reviewed study in New Zealand found that this practice is so indiscriminate, so untargeted, that even reducing the dosage of 1080 in these poisoned carrots could not save native wildlife. Crucial bird species over there, like the tomtit, would have their populations smashed by factors of up to 50 per cent. In recent months we have seen news reports of several Kiwi families who have suffered near-fatal illnesses because they have eaten 1080-infested wild pig.
I recently read an article by an American poisons expert, Joanna Grossman, PhD. She was attacking the USDA—the United States Department of Agriculture—over the use of deadly poisons. She said:
… there's something particularly shocking about our government stockpiling and deploying some of the deadliest poisons in the world in a scorched earth attempt to deal with wildlife.
The fact that Australia is following this practice, especially while there are other known methods of pest control available, including other poisons with known antidotes, defies logic.
Speaking of wildlife, there's an agency in the United States called Wildlife Services. It is a program within the US Department of Agriculture that is cynically known as the 'killing agency'. They are the federal government's exterminator. They kill between 3 million and 5 million animals each year using some of the most inhumane methods imaginable. We are talking about chemical poisons; cruel, body-gripping traps that mangle target and non-target animals; aerial gunning operations gone bad that have even led to pilot deaths; and even sometimes using vehicles to run over and hit animals in a crude attempt to knock off unwanted pests.
As Ms Grossman pointed out, all of these methods are dangerous and suspect, but, as she said, there is something particularly shocking about a government stockpiling and deploying some of the deadliest poisons in the world in a scorched-earth attempt to deal with wildlife.
This is less about wildlife management, which presumably would at least involve a first attempt to effectively manage any problematic wildlife through non-lethal means rather than 'kill first, ask questions later' philosophy that that rids the ecosystems of native carnivores and countless other animals that add to the rich biological diversity of outdoor spaces. Simply put: why would a government need to use something like 1080 to mitigate wildlife damage? Can an agency supposedly committed to the coexistence of people and wildlife really not do better with all the funds and expertise at its disposal?
In 2005 a CIA report on weapons of mass destruction revealed that 1080 was found in Saddam Hussein's chemical stockpile. In other words, the US federal government thinks that the tool of a mass murderer is apparently suitable to spread on public lands, and they are doing it using taxpayers' dollars. Joanna Grossman points out that President Richard Nixon signed an executive order in 1972 that prohibited the use of poisons like 1080 and sodium cyanide on public lands—and with good bloody reason. That executive action was unfortunately reversed, but the Nixon administration had the right idea. These deadly poisons have no place in and around the wild open spaces and trails that people use for hiking and recreation. No-one should ever have to fear losing their beloved dog because they stumbled upon some horrific killing device that was secretly placed there by government agencies. And that is happening here in national parks in Australia.
The unfortunate reality is that, if an odourless and colourless poison such as 1080 came into the wrong hands, it could be used to poison a public water supply. Before you scoff at that one, go back a few weeks to a story out of Alice Springs which had police warning Territorian pet owners to look out for symptoms of poisoning after a large amount of 1080 was stolen from a pastoralist's property near Alice Springs. Thieves broke into a locked shed and a locked box and stole the schedule 7 poison, which is also a listed as a chemical of security concern by our government. Alice Springs Superintendent Pauline Vickery said that police held concerns for people and animals potentially exposed to the chemical. She said: 'It is concerning that this chemical is out in the public domain. We urge people not to handle it as we believe it has toxic ramifications.' Police urged pet owners to secure their animals so they couldn't get access to deadly bait that may have been placed in a public space.
This is the very poison being seeded, I believe recklessly, in our national parks. One anti-1080 campaigner asked the authorities for details of any register, especially in Victoria and New South Wales, of where 1080 was being laid, especially in national parks where people go hiking in the bush with their kids. Even though dogs are banned, how do you stop a pet dog from straying there and taking a bait? My informant was told there is no such register. He was told that if he wanted to find out such information he would have to contact every single agency, every single branch, every single distributor in the country.
I know my detractors will say that this is a perfectly regulated practice tightly controlled by state licensing schemes and zoning requirements. Let's take a look at that one. Last year, as part of a thing called Project Eden, the Shire of Shark Bay in WA introduced its baiting program along the Peron Peninsula. Locals were told, don't worry, baits will be tightly restricted to 100 metres away from roads and 20 metres from private property boundaries. Twenty metres!
Good luck stopping a pet dog from making it 20 metres beyond your fence line. To me, the thought of a child making this simple mistake is almost too horrible to consider. To make matters worse, the local community was told that the coastal strip, which had previously been bombed by 1080, was still an exclusion zone. If baits can't be removed or even traced after their deployment, then how is this a targeted or safe practice?
I want to conclude by going back to where I started: a novice, a rube—me—believing all those years ago that carrots were being dropped by helicopter to feed Bambi. In real life, one of the most dangerous poisons in the world, a concentrated compound poison which would take only a teaspoon to kill 100 people, is still being used, I believe recklessly, in Australia and New Zealand. I fervently believe that 1080 should be, and must be, phased out in the very near future.
I rise to speak on this matter of the use of 1080, particularly in a Western Australia context. Without being flippant, this is the Australian parliament and what happens in New Zealand is something that we cannot control. What we can control is what happens within our borders. And as a senator from Western Australia, I have a particular interest in what happens within the border of Western Australia. 1080 is both an essential and vital part of our wild dog control program in Western Australia.
The reality is that 1080 is a poison. It kills animals, and it can kill humans, if it is ingested. That's what poisons are. It's a naturally occurring poison. That doesn't matter; a poison, whether it's synthetic or naturally occurring, is still a poison. This is interesting and very important in the Australian context, and, more importantly, in the Western Australia context, because this is a naturally occurring compound in some 40 plant species particularly in Australia, but also in Brazil and Africa. There are several native Australian plant genera that contain the toxin, including, most importantly, gastrolobium. I probably didn't know the technical name earlier today, and I think many more of us in the farming community would know it as poison P. It is fairly common, particularly in the south-west of WA, but parts of this genus are found right across Australia. As a result, particularly in the south-west of Western Australia but more broadly throughout Australia, there is a high level of tolerance to this toxic compound in native Australian animals. I'll go through that in more detail later.
As I said when I began, this is a poison, and we do have to view all things with a wider perspective. I think I'm probably one of the few people in this place—and I suspect, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, you are another—who has seen both the outcome of 1080 bait ingestion and the outcome of a wild-dog attack on sheep populations. I'm happy to accept that the outcome of 1080 bait ingestion on a wild dog is dramatic, but even more dramatic is the impact of even one wild dog on a sheep herd or on millions of native Australian animals every year.
1080 bait has been used in Western Australia, particularly through what was called the Western Shield program. It has been a broad-scale program that has been targeting foxes in particular and also wild dogs since about 1994. What has it led to? There's an ongoing problem with wild dogs—I do acknowledge that—but it has had some very positive impacts, in certain areas, on enabling the ongoing presence of sheep. It has also had a positive impact on populations of a number of native animal species. The findings—and I believe this comes from the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia—are that there has been a significant improvement in the population of several native species. In fact, for the first time, it led to three species of mammals being taken off the Endangered Species List. That is a direct result of the baiting program using 1080 for the control of feral animals in Australia. Feral animals have a devastating effect on agricultural production. There are whole areas in Western Australia—in particular, the eastern rangelands around Kalgoorlie and parts of the southern Pilbara—where traditional sheep areas now cannot produce sheep. They have moved into goats and/or cattle. Some have gone out of production altogether because of the presence of wild dogs.
Senator Hinch said there are a number of alternative approaches; and there may will be in the future—in particular, genetic approaches that can take away the need for trapping, shooting and the use of poisons—but they are not effective and certainly they are not able to be rolled out at the moment. When you consider the vast open spaces of Western Australia, particularly the areas where agriculture meets the non-agricultural parts of Western Australia, the idea of using a poison with an antidote is both meaningless and completely redundant, even if such a poison were available and cost-effective.
So we need to use a suite of measures. Nobody believes that 1080 alone is going to be successful in controlling the wild dog populations and protecting both agriculture and native species, but it is an important component in what we are trying to do. A review of 1080 conducted in 2008 found that there was poisoning of non-targeted animals. However, it was significantly limited and did not adversely affect the overall population of non-targeted animals. On the other side of that, there are obviously a large number of animals protected when predatory animals are killed.
Whilst the poisoning of non-targeted species is, of course, something that nobody wants, 1080 is a highly restricted product. It is restricted under legislation which requires significant control of its supply and its use. It has to be used by trained persons who are authorised by state and territory governments. Western Australia also has a significantly enhanced set of control regimes: 1080 is not available to the general public, authorisation is required before anyone can obtain 1080 baits, a risk assessment is undertaken before authorisation is given, training requirements are stipulated and must be met and reporting of any incidents is mandatory. So it is a highly regulated poison. It is regulated under the federal acts and under the state Poisons Act. In terms of its lethality—I think this is worth mentioning—the lethal dose is the generally used measure of the lethality of poisons, and it is measured in milligrams per kilogram. In Western Australia, for a dog, it is 0.11; for a fox, it is 0.14; for a bobtail skink, a native species, it is over 800; for a particular species of goanna, it is 235; for the brushtail possum, it is 118; for the western grey kangaroo, it is 47; for the quoll, it is seven; and for emus, it is 96. Again, for dogs and foxes it is under one—0.11 and 0.14 for dogs and foxes respectively. So, obviously, you have very significant differences in lethality for the targeted species, particularly introduced species, and native species.
Just for some context: wild dog control is obviously very important in Western Australia, particularly for the protection of the sheep meat and wool industry but also increasingly for rangeland goats, and I have been hearing over the last year—and I'm sure Senator Smith would have heard the same thing in his travels in the north of Western Australia—that cattle are increasingly coming under threat due to the size and scale of the problem in some areas. So, in our livestock industries, you're talking about a very significant asset that we are protecting across Western Australia, and this is a very important part of that control.
Just briefly, before I finish up, I would also like to mention that farming and farming industries would prefer not to have to use any chemicals or any poisons; it's as simple as that. Nobody uses these things on a farm with any joy. Farmers are very keen to minimise the use of chemicals and poisons at every opportunity. But they are a part of the reality of farming and farming systems, and, at the moment, in the suite of tools we have available to us, the use of 1080 is a vital part of our armoury, particularly against wild dogs.
Labor is unable to support Senator Hinch's motion. It is the job of the regulator in Australia, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, to assess the safety of compounds used in agvet products and approve their use. The regulator is responsible for the protection of the health and safety of all Australians and of our environment, animal and crops.
Once again, Labor puts on the record in the Senate that, unfortunately, public confidence in the APVMA is already in decline because of the Turnbull government's decision to forcibly relocate it from Canberra to Armidale. The best way to keep our community safe is to maintain the regulator's independence and to rebuild its capacity to do its work in the most effective and timely manner. The Turnbull government must make it a priority to restore Australia's confidence in the APVMA by reversing the damaging relocation of the APVMA. The APVMA CEO, Dr Parker, has already been forced to acknowledge that the APVMA cannot recruit the necessary regulatory scientists to work in Armidale. On 2 July this year, a statement from the APVMA announced:
"Our existing plans for teleworking, an enhanced reliance on external scientific assessors and recruitment into Armidale have not reduced our relocation risks to an acceptable level and more must be done," Dr Parker said.
"Retaining the knowledge and expertise of our scientists is essential to the effective operations of the APVMA and accommodating these specialist staff in a Canberra office further supports the APVMA to deliver its statutory obligations.
"I have advised the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud MP, that in addition to core regulatory operations to Armidale, we will retain a unit of 30 to 40 specialist scientists and decision makers in Canberra."
Labor has always said the forced relocation of the APVMA would risk the capability of the independent authority. It is important for the Senate to reflect on the word 'independent'. It is crucial that the Australian community can have complete and full trust in the regulation of agricultural chemicals. At the heart of that is a truly independent and scientifically competent regulator that is free from undue commercial and political influence.
The government has been reckless in the way it has forced the regulator to relocate to the former Deputy Prime Minister's electorate of New England, a decision that required a government policy order, a GPO—signed off by the finance minister, Senator Cormann, on 23 November 2016—to force it to relocate. The current CEO of the APVMA is now in direct conflict with the GPO, as it states that the APVMA must be located in a regional community and within 10 kilometres by road of the main campus of a regional university that is recognised for research and teaching in the field of agricultural science. The GPO defined 'regional community' to mean a community that is not within 150 kilometres by road of Canberra or the capital of a state. We also know it is in direct conflict because Dr Parker informed senators that no staff would be allowed to stay in Canberra. On 24 October 2017 former Senator Gallagher asked the following question at Senate estimates in relation to the APVMA relocation and concerns about retaining its highly qualified staff: 'As part of that you wouldn't be looking to maintain an office presence in Canberra of any sort?' Dr Parker said: 'No. That would be against the government order.' So what has changed? Is the GPO no longer valid or did Dr Parker mislead the Senate committee?
The Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources need to start taking the failing relocation seriously, otherwise Australian agriculture, our environment and the safety of all Australians and their pets will be compromised, but not because we think the staff will make poor decisions. The APVMA will continue to maintain rigorous and robust scientific assessments for managing the risks associated with chemicals used in ag vet products. However, the timeliness of decisions could be severely impacted, and this will have negative consequences.
With regard to the specific chemical brought to the attention of the Senate today, sodium fluoroacetate, or 1080, is a poison used to control vertebrate pests in Australia such as foxes, wild dogs, feral pigs and feral cats. It is a critical component of the integrated pest control program for foxes, wild dogs, feral pigs and feral cats. This is not only essential for farmers to protect their livestock but also to support effective pest control programs in Australia's national parks and reserves.
The chemical is already heavily restricted and controlled. This includes by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. The APVMA approval and registration provides that, when used in accordance with labelled directions, the product should not present any unacceptable risk to users, non-target animals or the environment more broadly. The APVMA's control scheme for this is already rigorous and comprehensive. The APVMA has classified it as a restricted chemical product to ensure that only authorised persons under the relevant state or territory law can use or supply 1080 products. State and territories also employ various regulatory and non-regulatory measures to ensure the product is used responsibly and in full consideration of risks to non-target animals. For example, in Victoria, a 1080 user must:
1. have completed recognised training (or be directly supervised by a trained and licensed person)
2. have a licence to use the product
3. obtain the product from an accredited supplier
4. use the product according to the Directions for the use of 1080 and PAPP pest animal bait products in Victoria
5. comply with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth), the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 (Vic), the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and associated regulations.
Other states and territories have similar controls.
Like any pesticide, 1080 should be used as part of an integrated pest management program combining other control measures. Integrated pest control might include trapping, better fencing and other options. Chemical alternatives are limited, although PAPP became available in 2016. 1080 remains in use in several other countries. New Zealand uses 1080 to control possums, rats, rabbits and deer. The US uses 1080 to control coyotes. Mexico, Japan, Korea and Israel use it for rodent control. The product's possession, sale and use is heavily restricted in Australia. This is appropriate. It remains an important tool for agriculture and natural resource management. It is inappropriate for the Senate to call on the government to regulate chemicals in Australia. As already stated, this is a job for independent regulator.
I rise to speak on this motion about the use of 1080. I thank Senator Hinch for bringing this motion on for debate this afternoon. I want to begin by reflecting on what happens when an animal is poisoned by sodium fluoroacetate, or 1080 poison. It's truly awful. This is the description on the RSPCA Australia website:
The initial obvious symptoms of 1080 poisoning are retching, vomiting, anxiety, disorientation, shaking, frenzied behaviour, manic running, vocalisation and drooling. Once the poison enters the central nervous system affected animals will experience convulsions, uncontrolled paddling and muscle spasms, followed by total collapse and death. During periods of prolonged convulsions animals may be conscious between fits and experience pain or anxiety. There is also potential for animals to injure themselves over this period. Symptoms usually appear within 3 hours of bait ingestion with death occurring 2-10 hours later.
The Greens have made a number of previous efforts to ban or phase out 1080, including a temporarily successful move in Tasmania to ban its use under the Greens coalition government. But that ban has since been reversed by the current Liberal government. However, in saying that, I also want to acknowledge that 1080 does indeed currently play a critical role in invasive species and pest control. It's used widely and in most cases very carefully by park rangers and other natural resource managers to tackle foxes and other invasive mammals.
We Greens understand the importance of protecting native and local systems and so acknowledge that, without some form of intervention to reduce pest animal populations, pests and invasive species on habitats and food chains actually can lead to distressing and considerable animal suffering in addition to endangerment and extinction. And, indeed, there is no doubt that the use of 1080 has saved untold numbers of small marsupials from being killed and eaten by foxes, wild dogs and cats, particularly in Western Australia where many native fauna have pre-existing genetic resistance to the active ingredient in 1080, which makes it more straightforward to use 1080, because you're not going to be killing the native wildlife that you are trying to protect. This has resulted in species that were likely to have become extinct because of predation by foxes and cats being brought back from the brink. But that doesn't mean that we've got to stick with the status quo.
Needless animal suffering is never justified and alternatives to 1080 are beginning to be available. The reason the Greens are supporting this motion today is the fact that it is calling for the orderly phase-out of 1080. And that orderly phase-out is an animal welfare priority of the highest order. In some environments, that orderly phase-out would mean an immediate ban or a reinstatement of the ban because other alternatives are available, other more humane and just-as-effective alternatives are available. In others, a staged phase-out would mean, yes, we keep using 1080 while new, more humane alternatives are approved and regulated.
There is no doubt that 1080 is currently used in circumstances where it's not justified and where it should not be used. Senator Hinch talked about the use of 1080 for deer populations. In the eastern states, 1080 is not widely used for killing deer populations. There are other methods of control that should be being used but are not being used for deer populations. In Tasmanian eucalypt plantations, 1080 is being used to kill off small wallabies, which is totally unjustified. The use of 1080 for the killing of wild dogs is also, in many circumstances, not justified, because there are other poisons available that have fewer animal welfare concerns.
Where there are other alternatives, 1080 should be immediately phased out. But where those alternatives don't yet exist, the government must massively scale up research and innovation to develop those alternatives. Greens policy, which I'll summarise, says that on the interaction of animal welfare and protection of animal species, we must use the most humane, effective means available in the control of introduced species, including humane population management methods. We need much more research and development of those more humane methods for the management and control of introduced species. It's important to note that in general those alternatives are generally going to be more effective and more humane if they don't require the wide-spread killing of mature animals, and that there is so much potential for biological control and fertility control. If you have methods that use those, that is a much more effective and much, more humane method of dealing with pest animals than the use of poisons which require you to go out and kill large numbers of mature animals.
To achieve this balancing act of protecting animal welfare and dealing with pest animals is only going to be possible with a government that puts a high priority on both animal welfare and environment protection. Bring on that government. The Greens look forward to being part of such a government, because it will surprise no-one that the current government cares about neither. You can see its lack of care about animal welfare, its lack of care about environment protection. You can see it in its failure to ban the horrendous practice of live exports. You can see it in its addiction to facilitating broad-scale land clearing. You can see it in its rolling over of its failed logging laws that destroy both our forests and the animals that live in them. You can see it in the fossil fuel expansion and its never-ending cuts to the environment department.
But even if the government were to find its inner environmentalist, its inner animal welfarist, there is the relocation of the APVMA and the catastrophic damage to its functioning. Because the APVMA is having its capacity completely slashed due to the relocation, the regulatory changes that would be required to bring in these new methods of pest animal control and to facilitate new and more effective solutions would be stuck in limbo for months, if not years. It's simply not good enough.
To sum up, the Greens fully acknowledge there is work to be done on the transition away from 1080. Alternatives are needed for the role it now plays in protecting native wildlife. But it is absolutely necessary that that work begins as soon as possible. That is why the Greens will be giving support to this motion today.
Once again we have the Greens telling our farmers how we should look after our land and feral animals. I find it amazing, Senator Rice talking about the Greens and the environment. I tell you what the Greens do to the environment. With all their power and sway over the Labor Party, they lock up land for national parks, lock it up and leave it. There is virtually no hazard reduction burning, no grazing allowed—you can't have hard-hooved animals in national parks. Of course, the deer and goats and wild pigs walk around national parks in ugg boots to protect the environment, I'm sure. Sorry for my sarcasm. It rains, the grass grows higher, the fuel levels get higher and higher, the lightning strikes and we burn the national parks and kill the animals. That's conservation, Greens style.
Here they are once again, telling us how to run our farms. Is it any wonder that the farmers loathe the Greens. The Greens hate farmers. They only hate miners worse than farmers. When we moved to Inverell in 1979, we bought 7,100 acres. It was moving with rabbits, and I mean moving. We ran around 6 to 6½ thousand sheep and probably 30,000 rabbits. I wonder how the Greens would have suggested we reduce the rabbit population? You couldn't use a rabbit trap—that could be cruel. Go out and shoot them one by one? They'd breed faster than you could produce the bullets. We put 1080 on the whole property—7,000 acres. We cleaned the rabbits out. We went around and picked up the dead ones, because most of them, when they get 1080 poison, go down a rabbit warren or into a hollow log and you can't find them. We never lost a sheep dog. That was our main concern—that we didn't lose our dogs. If foxes died, I couldn't care. If wild pigs died, I couldn't care. If crows died, I couldn't care either, but of course the crows are very clever birds: they just vomited it out and survived. It was a bit different in the old days with hallucigen. That one was a bit smart for the crows, and we didn't have the crows then picking the eyes out of our sheep when they got down. But the Greens wouldn't understand this issue of looking after animals. The real environmentalists are the farmers, looking after the animals and their land as best they can. Sadly, it's pretty hard for many of them to be green when so many are so far in the red, but hopefully that will turn around with rain, low interest rates, a low dollar and the better commodity prices that we've worked so hard on.
Widespread rabbit plagues are another thing we brought to this country that should never have been brought here. How do the Greens and even Senator Hinch suggest we get rid of them? What about the wild pigs? How do we get rid of the wild pigs? My wife and I have a problem at home with wild pigs. We went out one night, and we could hear four or five wild pigs circling little lambs. The little lambs were about a week old. The wild pigs had cut them off from their mothers. Luckily, when we drove over the contour bank at about 10 o'clock on a cold night they cleared off. We saved the lambs; they ran off to their mothers, to the ewes, to be protected.
This is the point I make: we have these feral animals causing so much loss of production to our country as far as wool, mutton, lamb and beef goes, and yet the big issue is the cause of the environment. Senator Hinch, I will gladly take you to our property and show you where the pigs are nosing up the soil; they're opening it up and exposing it to soil erosion. Rabbits: there are pictures of dryland farms from years ago, from before the 1950s and when 1080 was not allowed here—we didn't have it. The country was so bare. The wind was blowing the topsoil away. And when it did rain, of course the soil was washed away because of the erosion caused by rabbits, and their digging of their warrens and holes et cetera. They do huge environmental damage, and so 1080 is essential to get rid of rabbits.
Wild dogs are in national parks and on farms. Sadly, they're spreading far and wide across our nation too. When I talk to graziers at Tenterfield, many are going out of sheep because of wild dogs. We hear about the wild dogs out in Queensland. They went out of sheep up there because the dogs simply killed the sheep, mauled them to death. Senator Rice talks about painful deaths. She should go and have a look at the sheep when they have been mauled, when they've had the wool pulled from out of their sides and out of their shoulders, by wild dogs. Then the flystrike hits the sheep. Is that a good death, is it?
You talk about deaths. I know what the Greens are like. I was on a Senate committee hearing at Byron Bay. It was quite amazing. We were talking about sharks. We had two witnesses that day who told the committee the life of an animal is equal to the life of a human. How outrageously ridiculous. They were saying if you're driving down the road in a B-double—65 tonnes all up—down a steep hill and a kangaroo comes out on one side of the road and a three-year-old boy runs out on the other side of the road, you should contemplate hitting the boy and saving the kangaroo. Absolutely outrageous! That is out of tune, that animals are as equally important as human life. I have seen it with the Greens; this is how they behave.
The call is to ban 1080; to phase it out; to let the rabbits breed back to the huge populations we saw in the early 1900s; to let them destroy the environment, eat out the native grasses, create barren land, cause soil erosion; and to let them reduce our production of beef and sheep et cetera, our food production, and to starve the states, starve the country and starve those people we feed overseas. Is that the plan? The biggest problem with 1080—I've been tempted to use it in recent months, but I fear for our sheepdogs. I haven't used it. Sure animals do die, sadly, but not often. We've seen an inquiry by the APVMA saying non-targeted animals have died because of 1080, because it stays in the meat for a long time—until it literally rots away. It even stays in the bones. That is one fear I always have for our dogs: that they'd eat it. I can assure you our sheepdogs at home are very much loved.
But what do we do about the feral pigs? Foxes? Yes, we've got PAPP for foxes and wild dogs. That might be working well, but 1080 is a good, cheap way to destroy those feral animals that are causing so much damage to our farmland and our farm production. And you can't get it easy, I tell you, Senator Hinch; you can't get it easy. I've bought 1080 on many occasions, going to what was then the PP Board—the Pasture Protection Board—and dealing with the 1080 rabbit inspector. We'd buy the carrots crushed up, no poison on them. We'd go and feed the rabbits and they'd clean all the carrots up. Two days later we'd feed them again; we'd put out the poison carrots and then we'd go and pick up the dead rabbits.
It's amazing how not having rabbits can restore the country. Rabbits can graze the country down to about a millimetre high. They call them 'underground mutton'. They'd even eat underground, if they could. They destroy our native grass, our native pastures and our agriculture production. People are saying, 'Do away with it.' No, don't do away with it. Be careful with it. It is a very dangerous poison. I'm well aware of it. It's very dangerous. But we have strict regulations. To access 1080, don't think you can just walk into the hardware shop and buy it. It is certainly not like that. It is strict to get to it. They have to know who you are. When you prepare your property for 1080, you have to ring all your neighbours and tell them you're putting it out. You've got to put signs up on your fences on your property saying, '1080 poison being applied on this property.' You must work with your neighbours to look after the animals and see that the animals you are targeting are the ones you are killing.
It's a slow and painful death, Senator Rice says. Go and see the sheep that are ripped apart by wild dogs and tell me whether that's a quick, pain-free death, Senator Rice. It is appalling. That wouldn't worry you, Senator Rice. The painful death of having 1080—
Senator Rice interjecting—
That's what you said—it's a slow and painful death. Yes, it may be, but what about the animals being destroyed? What about the lambs when the pigs are ripping them apart? That's a quick, peaceful death, is it? Give me a break. You have no idea. I support the retention of 1080. I support the huge restrictions on access to it. Of course we must do things as landholders, as far as notifying the neighbours is concerned. It's up to us to see that our sheepdogs are protected. Keep them in the yard, don't let them out, pick up the dead animals—the dead foxes, not that sheepdogs are keen to eat dead foxes, I can assure you, but they might. You only need one sample and your dog is in serious trouble. Senator Hinch, you say to phase it out. What will replace it? You might have PAPP for wild dogs and foxes. What are we going to use to control the rabbits and the pigs? That's the big question.
As I said—I'm repeating myself—the enormous environmental damage these animals are doing to our land is just amazing. The loosening of the soil and accessing the soil, causing erosion when it does rain. Sadly, that's not a worry at the moment because of the big drought we're in, but the rains will come, as sure as I stand here. We know the rains will come; we just can't tell exactly when. I wish I knew. We'd be in a good position to manage our farms very well if we knew when it was going to rain, but one thing we do know is that the drought will end, the rains will come and the drought will return. I don't know when. This is about managing our environment, looking after our land, doing the right thing and keeping the feral animals where they should be—dead.
Debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Collins, I move:
That the Senate:
(a) express its disappointment in the Turnbull Government for its chaotic and disunified approach to energy policy; and
(b) notes that the Prime Minister's compromise policy on the National Energy Guarantee will not see a single renewable energy project built for a decade, an energy plan that will see the rates of installation of rooftop solar cut by a half, and an energy plan that will channel billions and billions of taxpayers' money to building new coal-fired power stations.
I am of the view that the government have such a chaotic and disunified approach that they really don't have much time left. This is a government in absolute chaos. What we are saying in this proposition is that, during the period of the National Energy Guarantee, not one single renewable energy project would be built; the installation of rooftop solar would be cut by half; billions of dollars of taxpayer funding to new coal-fired power stations would be required; and the government should not do this because it's a government in its death throes, it's a government with a weak Prime Minister and it's a government whose members are carving each other up before our very eyes. Ten coalition members are reserving the right to cross the floor on the National Energy Guarantee, and the government have the hide to demand that the Labor Party sign off. This government has got the hide to demand that state governments sign off when substantial numbers of their own members don't believe in the National Energy Guarantee, when substantial numbers of their own members are opposed to the National Energy Guarantee.
I watched Senator Abetz just an hour ago on Sky, and the best Senator Abetz would say about this policy was that he was prepared to continue a watching brief on the Prime Minister's signature policy—a watching brief. This is a former senior cabinet minister who says that he's not prepared to sign off on this. He's only prepared to give it a watching brief. He says it's too early for him to make a decision to support or oppose the NEG. If it's too early for a former cabinet minister, one of the most senior people in the coalition, to either support or reject it, why is this weak Prime Minister trying to push the Labor Party and the states into support for it?
And then he says, 'Well, we've had some movement.' Of course Senator Abetz and these 10—and I think 10 is probably not the exact number; I think there might be more—will get some movement from this weak Prime Minister. And then the rhetoric came in. They wanted to put pensioners before Paris. Where was Senator Abetz—where was this government—in 2014, when the budget that they brought down would cut pensions by $80 over the decade? Pensioners weren't being put before anything then. The government were simply in their austerity phase and trying to push costs down for government, and one of the biggest casualties was going to be pensioners in this country. They would have $80 a week less to spend. I don't buy this fake concern that this coalition has for pensioners in this country, because that's all it is. It's a fake concern.
Then he argued that he wanted cheaper electricity. The way you get cheaper electricity is through renewables. That's what the electricity companies are saying. That's what the electricity companies are doing. That's what's happening overseas. And yet the numbskulls in this government want to try to push to build new coal-fired power plants when everywhere else the major push on energy is to renewables. And here we have Senator Abetz—
Government senators interjecting—
Senator Cameron, resume your seat. I remind senators on my right that all senators in this place, including Senator Cameron, have the right to be heard in silence even if you disagree with what he's saying.
I'm not surprised that there's so much angst and concern amongst those sitting opposite me, because this government is in total chaos. They're at each other's throats. Every day it's another hit on the Prime Minister. Every day it's another member coming out and saying they're prepared to cross the floor. So don't lecture the Labor Party about what we should be doing; you can't get your own act together. You're a rabble of a government—always have been and always will be—and, the sooner you get to an election, the absolute better.
Senator Abetz said they want coal for manufacturing. I don't have to remind people in here that the biggest loss in manufacturing jobs in this country was when that mob over there decided they would chase the car manufacturing companies out of the country. That's what they did. So, again, don't come here with your crocodile tears about manufacturing when you have set about trying to destroy one of the most highly skilled industries in the manufacturing sector. You have destroyed it—the car industry.
Senator Abetz said they want a special focus on price. If they actually knew what was going on, the focus would be on renewables, because that is where the prices are coming down. Senator Abetz said it's a moveable feast. Here we are, the Prime Minister's signature policy—apart from handing $80 billion to the big end of town—is this moveable feast, the NEG. He said they want more dispatchable power and he said this was a decision of great moment. We agree: this is a decision of great moment. This is a decision that will save energy prices for the future. If we go down the path that the rebels want to go, the people that are determined to pull Prime Minister Turnbull down, if we go down their path then we will end up with more expensive power. Senator Abetz said there have been long discussions with Minister Frydenberg over the weekend. Senator Abetz was asked by David Spears, 'Do you have faith in Mr Turnbull?' Well, there was no response in the affirmative; no response from the former cabinet Minister. He just said that it would be a cabinet decision and he wasn't interested in what one person's view might be. He wasn't interested in what the Prime Minister's view was. What a joke! A former cabinet Minister, former Prime Minister and former government ministers lining up to pull Malcolm Turnbull down. Prime Minister Turnbull is being targeted day in, day out. He said that he had serious reservations about the NEG, that he lived in hope that the NEG could be delivered, and that the majority—because this government only had a majority of one, then the Prime Minister had to satisfy everybody. I think it is quite clear that this Prime Minister has to satisfy the climate sceptics, the climate deniers, the troglodytes in the coalition.
We've hard this story before with this government, haven't we? Remember back in 2009, when the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, said, 'I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.' This is why this Prime Minister is in so much trouble. Ever since then he has waltzed away from that position. He leads a party that is not committed at all to dealing with climate change. He leads a party where the sceptics and the deniers determine the policy. The situation that arises from that is that we will have more expensive power in the future. We have gone from one approach to dealing with climate change to another. We've got a Prime Minister who is so malleable that he'll put up one position and then another. All he's interested in is staying in power, and yet the malcontents—that was the heading back in the Four Corners report in 2009: 'Malcolm and the Malcontents'—the malcontents are back. They are going to do the same to this Prime Minister as they did to him when he was the Leader of the Opposition. They are going to pull him down. I don't think that would be a bad thing—because he has been a weak Prime Minister, a vacillating Prime Minister, a jellyback of a Prime Minister. He has not delivered what he said he would do. He has got no values, no principles, that he wouldn't sacrifice to maintain his job.
Back in 2009—what we are getting now is like a re-run—a range of Liberals and Nationals told Four Corners that they don't believe climate change is primarily man-made. The earth is not actually warming, we still have rain falling. We can go outside and not cook. If the question is 'Do people believe or not believe that human beings are the main cause of climate warming?' then I would say a majority don't accept that position. That is what senior Liberals and senior National Party members were saying back in 2009—and even though we have seen all the evidence of climate change they are still maintaining this denialist position. It is an absolute tragedy that this country cannot get its act together to deal with what is the biggest threat that we are facing, and that is the capacity for our kids and our grandkids to live in an atmosphere, a climate, that is conducive to growth and decent conditions in this country.
And now to the latest we have: in The Australiantoday, Simon Benson, no friend of the Labor Party—this is the Murdoch press—said that 'federal government ministers are coming under pressure from colleagues to resign over the National Energy Guarantee in a counter-campaign by rebel backbenchers that risks further eroding Malcolm Turnbull's authority as his attempts to win the support of wavering coalition MPs appear to be failing'. The heading is 'Rebels urge ministers to quit over National Energy Guarantee'. We have heard that story before. When that starts coming about, you know what's on: Malcolm Turnbull's time as Prime Minister is terminal. That is the reality.
And more than one senior government source told The Australian that Keith Pitt, the assistant minister to Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, was considering resigning from the frontbench over his opposition to the NEG. It's on! That's what's happening. Prime Minister Turnbull's authority is being challenged. And The Australian goes on to say that 'senior government sources, last night, effectively conceded that the coalition would require Bill Shorten's support to get the NEG passed in both houses'. You lot need the Labor Party to get this through. That is the reality of where you are at. The Australian says that 'the legislation is due to be introduced before a Tuesday decision by the Labor caucus on whether the opposition will support it'. If you rabble of a government, you pathetic mob, can't get your act together, why should I go to the Labor caucus and support this? You don't support it, and your ministers are talking about resigning over this policy. What a joke you lot are! The story says The Australian was told that 'frontbenchers known to be opposed to the NEG, but bound by the ministerial code to vote with the government, were under pressure to step down and cross the floor and support rebel MPs including Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister, Andrew Hastie, Kevin Andrews, Eric Abetz and Barry O'Sullivan'—and on and on it goes. This is a government in terminal condition.
There is another article today—'George Christensen hits Malcolm Turnbull with list of demands over NEG'. It's by Joe Kelly, another News Limited journalist. He says:
George Christensen has publicly committed to crossing the floor of parliament to vote against Malcolm Turnbull's national energy guarantee in its current form, ahead of the government putting legislation into the lower house early next week.
He then goes on to say that Mr Christensen has 'issued a list of demands to the Prime Minister' and that they include 'the creation of a new clean coal fund'. I'm a former power station worker. I was a maintenance fitter at Liddell Power Station for seven years, and I can tell you now there is no such thing as clean coal, absolutely no such thing. Mr Christensen also wants 'a cut in the NEG's emissions reduction target from 26 to 17 per cent'. To the young kids sitting up in the viewing areas now: you won't have the same climate conditions we have had over our lifetime, because this government and this Prime Minister don't have the courage to take the troglodytes on. That's the reality.
The article goes on to say that he wants 'the competition watchdog to keep AGL's Liddell coal-fired power plant operating in New South Wales beyond its planned 2022 closure date'. I worked at Liddell Power Station. I started in about 1975. Liddell had its problems then because the coal in that area has a high ash content. It rips the boiler tubes apart on an ongoing basis. It's a costly, outdated power plant. And yet this mob would try and keep that piece of junk going for more years to satisfy those who are opposed to dealing with climate change and the issues that are important.
The article then goes on to say:
Keith Pitt is understood to be considering standing down from the frontbench …
It says that there's a demand to adopt 'all 56 recommendations of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's recent report'. It quotes Mr Christensen as saying:
If I am being asked to vote for an emissions reduction target based on the Paris agreement, I would vote against it.
And it says that Mr Turnbull has been holding crisis meetings all the time with South Australian Liberal MP Tony Pasin and with Lucy Wicks, the member for Robertson.
This is a government that doesn't get it. This is a government that is in civil war internally. This is a government that has no ideas, no plans and no hope for the future of the Australian people. This is a government that should pack its bags now, go to an election and let the people decide, as they did in the by-elections, to throw this mob out and get a decent government in.
I too rise to speak on Senator Collins's motion. It's always quite enjoyable sitting down and listening to Senator Cameron's speeches, which are full of overblown and overegged rhetoric and bear very little relationship to the truth. It is my pleasure to speak on this motion today, particularly as a senator from Western Australia, a state abundant in so many resources which could stand to power our nation cheaply and reliably for many generations to come.
Senator Cameron seems to have forgotten that this government is dealing with the mess that those opposite left us. Listening to him speak on Senator Collins's motion, you would think that, in developing this policy to deal with unreliable, expensive power for Australian families and businesses, we just dreamt it all up, rather than it being a policy to deal with a problem they left us with. As to Senator Cameron's rhetoric about troglodytes and this government being in crisis and all of the other rhetorical flourishes that he's very well known for, he says he was quoting anonymous sources. Well, I am not an anonymous source. I was in the party room for the debate. I was proud to stand up and support the National Energy Guarantee as proposed by this government. I can assure Senator Cameron and all of those opposite that the debate was robust but it was also a very clear result. It was supported in both party rooms for very sound reasons. Those reasons are all about Australian families and Australian industries that employ millions of Australians.
What always amuses me somewhat, and sometimes saddens me, is that those opposite quite often—as we just heard from Senator Cameron—mistake robust and very healthy debate on significant national issues for disunity. If only those opposite were able to have such robust debate on serious national issues such as energy pricing, availability and reliability, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't have left us with 100 per cent price increases in power after six years in government. Sadly, they very rarely have the opportunity to have the debates that we do in our party room.
What I would like to place on record is the record, so that we know where we've got to today and how we've got to the National Energy Guarantee, which I understand will be before the parliament in the next sitting week. As I said, during the six years of government under Labor, supported by the Greens, power prices doubled for Australian families. It didn't just happen; it happened because of the poor policy decisions that were implemented by those opposite. I was incredulous listening to Senator Cameron saying that the only way to reduce energy prices and increase reliability was through renewable energy. He was part of the government that introduced these irresponsible policies that doubled prices. It is quite extraordinary that he now thinks, all of a sudden—after they screwed up our energy policy and prices for so many years, which we are now dealing with—that that is the way to decrease prices. It's not only what Labor left us with after six years in government; the state Labor government policies have also continued to increase pressure on prices through job-destroying gas bans, moratoriums, unrealistic renewable energy targets and open hostility to reliable baseload power.
I was also reflecting when Senator Cameron was speaking—and it will be very interesting to hear from those opposite when they stand up to speak about this—that the greatest tactic that those opposite have is that, when they're on the defensive, they go on the attack and come up with this emotional and sometimes quite interesting rhetoric that actually bears no resemblance to the truth. Why do they do that? Because we have not heard one thing from those opposite about what their alternative policy would be—about how they would continue to increase reliability while, at the same time, reducing prices. That is the thing for anybody listening or watching today: have a look, watch what they're doing and hear what they're saying. I can guarantee you now, like Senator Cameron, there will not be one solution or one credible policy alternative to the NEG. That's the challenge I have for those opposite: tell us what else you would do to reduce prices for families and also increase reliability.
Unlike those opposite, the Turnbull government is taking action to fix this mess. What is the alternative, as I said? Let's have a further look at this alternative that we've heard nothing of from those opposite in the chamber today or any other day. I certainly don't think we'll hear it from them when the National Energy Guarantee comes on for debate in this place. Let's have a look at what their alternative, which they never talk about in this place, actually is. Bill Shorten wants a 50 per cent renewable target at a national level—
Order! Senator Reynolds, remember to address members in the other place by their correct titles.
Mr Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, wants a 50 per cent renewable target at a national level, which will inevitably again mean more subsidies and, therefore, greater prices yet again and increasing unreliability yet again. But that's not the only damaging thing that Labor want to do in their policies. They also want to go further ahead than any other country in the OECD, I understand, and cut carbon emissions by 45 per cent. This reckless policy would harm our economy and cost thousands of jobs. Over the past decade, Labor has adopted well over a dozen climate and energy policies. So, even if they did come out and say, 'This is our energy policy; this is how we would improve the NEG,' how could we even trust what they say today? Let's have a look at all of their energy policies from over the last 10 years. Which one might they flip-flop back and forward to? Who remembers the CPRS, the carbon tax, the CET, the ETS, the EIS, pink batts, contracts for coal closure, cash for clunkers and the citizens' assembly?—just to name a few of their flip-flopping policies.
Remember when the coalition repealed the carbon tax? It led to the largest fall of electricity prices on record. That's not just me saying it; it is according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. When we abolished the carbon tax it led to the largest fall of electricity prices on record. That is not Senator Cameron's rhetorical flourish; that is fact. Labor is all for locking up our resources, subsidising expensive and unreliable sources of power and penalising Australian industries who create jobs for our workers. They're risking Australian jobs. Alternative to that, we are getting on with the job of delivering a sustainable future for this country. We cannot do that without reliable and competitive international electricity prices.
When you have a look at it, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, or in any Western Australian's mind, that Australia should have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. We have abundant reserves of high-quality coal, gas and uranium, which those with ideologically extremist points of view amongst those opposite have continued to fight. We are the fourth-largest coal producer in the world and we are growing because the world usage of coal-fired power plants is increasing, despite the rhetoric of those opposite. I believe, like so many on my side, that we should be developing our uranium deposits as a reliable and clean source of energy. Those opposite know that one of the most reliable and clean forms of energy that we have in abundance is nuclear power. It's worth noting and reminding those in the chamber today that Tim Flannery himself argued we should be leading the world on uranium and nuclear power, given that we have half the world's supply of uranium right under our feet.
In Western Australia, we are also doing wonderful things with solar, wind and wave power. They are important to keep developing, and nobody on this side is saying they are not important power sources that we should be developing, but they simply do not yet provide the baseload power resource that will be reliable enough and cheap enough, and probably won't for many years. This government is focused on keeping the lights on and reducing household electricity bills and, in the process, bringing down the rising cost of living pressures on Australian families. Those opposite talk endlessly about working families, but what do they do when in power? They doubled families' energy prices.
What will the National Energy Guarantee mean for Australian industry? It means they will have access to a reliable source of power at an affordable and competitive rate. Those on this side of the chamber know just how important that is for current industries and for new industries looking to start here in Australia. You have to have reliable, affordable and competitive power supplies. We on this side of the chamber are cutting electricity prices in Australia by ending subsidies for energy which are all passed on to the customers, which are, as we know, Australian businesses and Australian families. We're also creating a level playing field that ensures all types of energy are part of Australia's energy mix. We're also providing certainty for investors, more supply and, in turn, lower prices. We're also reducing volatility by ensuring reliable and affordable power when and as it's needed.
The NEG will also ensure Australians will be at least $300 a year better off than they would have been under Labor's proposals. In the 2020s, modelling demonstrates, this saving will rise to $550 a year for households. For businesses, wholesale electricity prices will fall, on average, by 20 per cent to 2030. What does that mean for Australian businesses? It means mum-and-dad businesses, small businesses, cafes will save hundreds of dollars a year. Medium businesses such as supermarkets could save over $400,000 a year in their energy costs. And large, energy-intensive manufacturers could save millions of dollars a year. This will allow Australian households to keep more money in their pockets. It will allow Australian businesses to grow and invest and, more importantly, employ more Australians.
These are not just claims we are making. This government's action is already having demonstrable and positive effects. Wholesale electricity prices are down around 25 per cent compared to last year. I'll say that again for those opposite: in the last 12 months, we have reduced energy prices by 25 per cent for families and for businesses that employ Australians. Compared to last year, retail power bills have been reduced in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. Power prices are also going down in Queensland by up to 8.5 per cent for small businesses and five per cent for households. South Australia had the most catastrophic failure of energy policy under the previous Labor government. Power prices there are going down by two per cent for small businesses and nearly two per cent for households.
The National Energy Guarantee is made up of two critically important obligations. The first is a reliability obligation, which will be set to deliver dispatchable energy from ready-to-use sources such as coal, gas, pumped hydro and batteries in each state as required. The second guarantee is an emissions obligation, which will be set to contribute to Australia's international commitments. The level of the guarantee will be determined by the Commonwealth and enforced by the Australian Energy Regulator. But when it comes to reliability, no longer will intermittent power such as wind and solar enter the grid without providing backup, whether it's pumped hydro or batteries.
Modelling shows that renewables that do have a falling cost curve would make up between 32 to 36 per cent, up from around 17 per cent today. Despite the myths those opposite are peddling, under this plan, renewables will grow significantly but in a way that is responsible and reliable while still delivering lower costs for consumers. At the same time, there will be more than 3,600 megawatts in dispatchable generation capability over the next decade, which will firm up the intermittent renewables because, as we know, the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow and we need to make sure that we have enough dispatchable generation capacity to deal with that.
Under this plan, for the first time a premium will be put on the power that adds to the reliability of the national energy grid. Critically, the guarantee also ends the subsidy mentality—there is no carbon tax, no carbon price, no emissions trading scheme and no subsidies, which, in the past, were converted. It's consumers and businesses that pay the cost for these subsidies.
What do industry groups say about this process and about the National Energy Guarantee? Industry groups, including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Manufacturers Australia, represent some of the largest energy consumers in Australia and the largest employers in Australia. Many of these organisations' members contribute significantly to our exports and to our economy. All of those industries and those businesses need to have internationally competitive energy prices and reliability. Australia's largest employers, including BHP, BlueScope, Santos and JBS Australia meat processors, have also welcomed this policy. In fact, the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott, in representing more than one million Australian jobs, said it 'is the most practical, workable thing we've seen in business for quite some time'. The CEO of BlueScope, our biggest manufacturer, said the NEG 'turns the game around—where now, the effective functioning of homes, businesses, schools and hospitals is the priority' of government.
As a senator for Western Australia, I particularly welcome the Prime Minister's focus on gas. The Turnbull government will always make sure there is enough gas for Australians first before it is shipped offshore. That is now already having significant benefits for the Australian market in the east.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the AEMO had projected shortfalls of up to 108 petajoules in 2018 and 2019. Just to give you an idea, one petajoule is enough for a large industrial user or Penrith, Bunbury or Geraldton for a whole year. It was this coalition government, this Prime Minister and our energy minister who secured a deal with gas producers so that they will cover projected shortfalls in domestic gas supply over the next two years. We didn't need to pull the trigger of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which would have allowed us to impose export restrictions, should there have been a need. This deal is delivering results, with 73 petajoules of gas already committed to our domestic Australian market. This is a positive outcome and will bring relief to Australian houses and businesses who have been struggling, in the eastern states, with a lack of supply and high prices.
However, the long-term solution still rests with states and territories to remove their damaging bans and moratoriums on gas exploration, development and production. For example, if Victoria lifted the moratorium, they would have 40 years worth of domestic gas supply in known reserves already. I also acknowledge the Northern Territory's recent decision to lift its moratorium, which has the potential to unlock up to 200 years worth of domestic supply. We've also taken significant action for gas in many other areas, which, unfortunately, time does not allow me to go through this evening.
In conclusion, these measures that the government has announced in this policy package are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what the Turnbull government is doing through the National Energy Guarantee. Those opposite and their state Labor counterparts are pursuing a dangerous mix of policies that will hit both energy security and affordability once again. In this debate and when the bill comes to this chamber, what you will not hear from those opposite is their policy. There is a 45 per cent emission reduction target by 2030, a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, an emissions intensity scheme and the forced closure of coal-fired power plants, and they still have not got a single word to say on a credible energy security plan. Together, these policies, without question, will once again wreak havoc on Australian households and businesses. These days, it is very unclear what Labor's energy policy is. The Leader of the Opposition and his frontbench have refused to explain how they will receive the targets, but we know, from experience, what the impact will be on Australians. (Time expired)
If this motion is an indication from Labor that they oppose the government's renewables-destroying National Energy Guarantee, the Greens welcome it. As this motion points out, the NEG would lock in no action on climate change for 10 years. It now includes a giant slush fund for coal. But I say to Labor that words aren't enough. For all Senator Cameron's words, I note that, in his contribution he didn't actually say that Labor would vote against the NEG. Labor, you must vote against the NEG when it comes before the House of Representatives. The future of the policy, which this motion rightly criticises, is in the hands of the Labor Party. The Greens are opposing it. The coal huggers led by Tony Abbott, who the policy has been written for—
Order! Senator Rice, remember you need to call members of the other place by their correct title.
Thank you. The coal huggers led by Mr Tony Abbott, who the policy has been written for, oppose it because they want revenge on Malcolm Turnbull. So Labor must decide what it wants to do. It has to decide whether it supports the policy, which it says has been written for Tony Abbott and which Labor states have correctly said locks in failure.
Senator Williams, on a point of order?
Mr Acting Deputy President, you just told Senator Rice to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles, and she just said 'Tony Abbot'. I don't know if she's hard of learning or what. Can you bring it to her attention again, please?
Senator Rice, I think you understand?
I do understand. Or they need to stand up for the climate, stand up for renewables jobs and stand up for the lower prices that renewables bring. I say to Labor: by opposing the NEG legislation in the House of Representatives you have the opportunity to send the NEG back to the drawing board. If you wave it through, you will betray all Australians, who expect you to stand up on climate change and to stand up for renewables.
Senator Rice, while you pause, remember to direct your remarks through the chair.
Thank you. I want to look at the details of the National Energy Guarantee. The Smart Energy Council has identified five fundamental flaws with the NEG. Firstly, it does not encourage investment in renewables or any form of new generation. Secondly, it doesn't cut coal pollution. Thirdly, it doesn't reduce power bills. Fourthly, it can't be easily changed. And, finally, the government is still dropping in new policies that will make it worse, like the coal slush fund, and it still can't get enough of its party room to even support it through the parliament.
Let's unpack some of these points. The former head of the government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Oliver Yates, cut through the crap of the NEG and put it succinctly when he said, 'The only thing Turnbull's energy plan does is to help coal companies to know that they don't have to reduce their pollution over the next 10 years.' This policy entrenches the power of the big three power companies. They are the ones gouging prices and consumers. How will giving them more market power lead to lower prices? The big three all donate to the Liberal Party. This is just them returning the favour and screwing over households and the renewables industry at the same time.
The people won't be fooled twice. They were promised $550 when the carbon price was repealed, and it never came. This $550 won't come either, because there is no evidence that the NEG will reduce power prices. I noted that Senator Reynolds, in her contribution, said that the $550 had now been reduced to $300. The $550 is based on absolutely nothing. We now know it's based on nothing because we now know that the government modelling for the NEG is just a single Excel spreadsheet. So we know that it has no evidence to back up the $550 claim.
But this spreadsheet does show that the NEG will mean a complete stall in investment in large-scale renewables over the next decade, once the Renewable Energy Target comes to an end. The spreadsheet, which outlines all the assumptions behind the NEG, says that only 14 megawatts of new utility-scale investment will be made. That's the equivalent of four new wind turbines over a decade—four, just four. It's an absolute travesty. Meanwhile, coal remains locked in. As the Smart Energy Council says, coal pollution is baked in as the planet bakes.
There is absolutely no evidence from the government on the public record to show how the NEG will cut power bills. It just asserts that it will. On the contrary, we know that the growth in renewable energy because of the Renewable Energy Target is what has been driving down the wholesale cost of electricity. But the NEG is going to shrink investment in renewables. Even the Reserve Bank of Australia, if you want somebody that you could actually listen to on prices, said in its most recent statement on monetary policy that more renewables will mean lower prices. But the Turnbull government insists that power bills will somehow magically fall under the National Energy Guarantee, despite significant new compliance costs and less market information.
The NEG stands in the way of progress, and it does this while the world is on fire. There are unprecedented fires in California, fires in Greece, fires in Britain. I was there last month. The North York Moors are on fire. There are fires in the Glacier National Park; a park once covered in glaciers is now on fire. And there are even fires in the Arctic Circle! Back home, we have large bushfires in New South Wales in August, in winter. The whole of New South Wales is in drought, and much of Queensland and Victoria are too.
Last week in the Australian Financial Review there was an excellent article by journalist Ben Potter which discussed what we all know to be true—that climate change is starting to supercharge extreme weather, including the current drought. He interviewed Peter Mailler, a third-generation grain and cattle farmer, who has sent pregnant cows for slaughter because he can't feed them all and who had a message to the Turnbull government. He said:
First, don't pretend to champion drought-struck farmers if you're not prepared to tackle climate change because the increasing frequency of hot dry weather is compounding the effects of drought. Second, don't talk about giving coal-fired power a free kick in the National Energy Guarantee when a full accounting of its environmental costs will tell you not that we can't afford to close coal plants but we can't afford to run one tomorrow. Thirdly, don't lean on high-risk struggling industries like agriculture for deeper carbon emissions cuts when a stable regulated electricity industry can obviously bear a larger share of the burden.
We are in a climate emergency, so now is not the time for half measures. We need to dump this policy, kick out this mob and put in place a proper energy policy that addresses the climate emergency we face. There are those that say something is better than nothing, that putting in place this fatally flawed policy locks in failure for a decade but that we can fix it later. But that would be denying political reality and is taking a hell of a political gamble.
Unfortunately, at this stage, we are facing the prospect of a conservative, possibly even a One Nation controlled Senate after the next election. If this policy is waved through by the Labor Party, the opportunity to fix it after the next election may well be zero. But, unfortunately, there is a danger that the rot is setting in on Labor and the NEG. It is very disturbing, the suggestion that Labor will support the NEG in the House and then try to say that somehow the real fight is in the Senate. That would be rank opportunism of the highest order. Everyone knows that, if Mr Shorten and Mr Butler vote with the Greens in the House, they can kill the renewable-destroying, dirty coal-loving deal stone dead. We can force the government to go back to the drawing board.
So I say to Labor: now is the time to stand tall. And, if you won't stand tall because it's the right thing to do, think of the electoral mathematics. Remember what happened in 2010 when Julia Gillard dumped action on climate change and went for her cash for clunkers? There was a massive swing to the Greens. You are now facing the same prospect, because we will make sure that every voter knows that you sold out the climate and you sold out renewables.
Seats in inner Melbourne will likely fall to the Greens if you back in the NEG deal that was authored by Mr Abbott and is now being promoted by Mr Turnbull. Seats in inner Melbourne will fall. You will lose McNamara, Wills, Batman if you fail to act on climate change. Now is the time for the Labor Party to stand up. So I call on the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, and Labor to follow through on the sentiments expressed in this motion, follow through and vote against the NEG in the House.
I too rise to speak on motion 966 moved by my colleague Senator Collins. The government are in utter disarray about their energy policy. They came up with a clever name for it, the National Energy Guarantee, thinking they would be able to con the people by using the acronym NEG so it sounds a bit like 'energy'. But that appears to be the only thought they have put into this whole policy. All Australian households and Australian businesses know all too well that a profound energy crisis has emerged under this Prime Minister. The deep energy crisis has led to a collapse in confidence in our energy system and has seen power bills go up—not just once, but up and up and up—for households and for businesses.
Senator Bilyk, that concludes the time allotted for the debate. The debate is adjourned.
by leave—I table a non-conforming petition.
The document is a response from the General Secretary of the Queensland Teachers' Union, Mr Graham Moloney, to a resolution—a quite bizarre resolution, I must say—that was agreed to by a majority of the Senate back in March 2018. It was basically just a beat-up motion in response to a beat-up article in The Courier Mail about distribution of stickers of the Eureka flag, which somehow was turned into a suggestion of politicised teachers everywhere trying to poison the minds of young children with horrendous political propaganda.
When I spoke last on this issue I did say, as somebody who's practised—not extensively, but for a year or so, a few years back—as a contract high school teacher in some government schools in South-East Queensland, that to suggest that you can talk about and teach and engage in a meaningful way with topics in areas like history, economics or a lot of what used to be called, and are still occasionally called, the SOSE subjects without considering matters that might fall under the idea of being political is frankly absurd and shows how little people understand about teaching, as the original motion did. The response from the QTU secretary made clear that the resolution of the Senate is basically full of factual errors. I should also say on the record that I'm still a member of the Queensland Teachers' Union at the moment, along with over 45,000 other teachers in government educational institutions across Queensland.
What the Senate really should be spending time on, if it's looking at the actions and the views of teachers and how to strengthen the education that our young people get, is supporting the campaigns of teachers' unions across the country, and the campaigns of parents, staff and many others involved with government schools, for fair funding now.
The simple fact is that it is this government that has cut the amount of funding that would have been provided to government schools. In Queensland alone, there is around half a billion dollars less provided to Queensland government schools than would otherwise have been provided—as a direct budgetary decision of this government. And let's not kid ourselves that we cannot afford it. This Senate just recently passed massive tax cuts for wealthy individuals and passed tax cuts for business, and this government is still trying to push tax cuts for large corporations—easily going over $100 billion once you add all those together—and says that we can't afford half a billion for state schools in Queensland. That is simply an indication of the political priorities being totally distorted by this government. They want to spend their time putting forward ridiculous motions, completely misrepresenting the actions of teachers in schools, rather than doing their job of ensuring that schools are properly funded.
It is quite clear that this government is continuing to stuff up royally the issue of funding for schools, continuing to have underfunding and continuing to have unfair, unequal and unjust distribution of funding. Too much is still going to some of the wealthier schools—and it's not surprising. As I said earlier, this government's ideological agenda very much favours assisting those on the wealthiest end of the spectrum. Not surprisingly, that's also where they get their donations from. Until we fix this rigged system and get an approach that seeks to deliver educational outcomes for all of us equally, so that all children have an equal opportunity in ways that appropriately meets their individual needs, we are going to sell ourselves short as a society as a whole, we're going to sell ourselves short in terms of future economic opportunity and productivity, and we are particularly going to fail our core responsibility to the next generation. Many of the young people today have to deal with significant disadvantages from the start of their life, and the least we can do is ensure that their school education is properly funded.
Question agreed to.
I wish to take note of the Australian Building and Construction Commission quarterly reports for the period 1 October to 31 December 2017. These reports are worthless. They are about as worthwhile as the ABCC itself, which is another part of that set of organisations pooled together by Senator Michaelia Cash when she was masquerading as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. These organisations, such as the ABCC, are nothing but anti-union organisations designed to attack working people in this country. We see it again and again where they don't deal with the issues that they are supposed to deal with under the legislation and where they don't address the issues that this Senate actually directed them to deal with when the ABCC legislation was passed.
It is nothing but a fraud. We've seen a demonstration of how much of a fraud this is. When Senator Leyonhjelm agreed to pass this shonky ABCC legislation attacking working people on the basis of a commitment from that weak Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, what did Malcolm Turnbull do? He did exactly what I thought he would do, and that is do the dirty on Senator Leyonhjelm. Senator Leyonhjelm should never have agreed to pass this legislation, because the Prime Minister has reneged on the deal that he committed to give.
More importantly, we've got the ABCC, we've got the Registered Organisations Commission, we've got the Fair Work Ombudsman and now we've got the ACCC all lining up to attack the trade union movement. Without the trade union movement in this country, there is no chance of wage stagnation being dealt with. Without decent industrial legislation in this country, wages will continue to stagnate. It is not just chance that wages are stagnating. Under this government, the attacks on working people, the attacks on the trade union movement, have left workers with wage stagnation.
Every time a union official tries to look after a worker through bargaining, through getting decent rates of pay and conditions, we've either got the ROC, the Registered Organisations Commission—the shonkiest of them all, who were set up to simply attack working people—or we've got the ABCC, whose former leader breached the legislation that he was supposed to set up and oversee. These are supported by disgraced Minister Michaelia Cash. She's an absolutely disgraced minister who can't show her face outside Parliament House, who has just lost her mojo completely because the Federal Police are on her tail.
And this minister, supported by this rabble of a government, has simply used federal government money—hundreds of thousands of dollars that should be spent on decent things for the decent people of this country—to cover up Minister Cash's transgressions, Minister Cash's misleading of the Senate. Minister Cash is a disgraced minister and she should go. She can't be honest with this Senate. We saw it again today where she refused to answer simple questions. This is a minister in hiding, a minister under protection, a minister using public funds to protect her own backside. This government is a disgrace. It's a rabble. It will continue to attack working people, and working people will see their wages continue to stagnate under this government.
There were a number of amendments made when this legislation was put forward. Those amendments were designed to make this ABCC more transparent, but they have not changed. They are not doing the job that they're supposed to do. They are not effectively dealing with the issues affecting working people. They are simply a tool of Minister Cash and this government to attack working people. It's an absolute disgrace. The quicker Minister Cash resigns, the quicker this government goes to an election, the better it will be for this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I wish to take note of the Australian Building and Construction Commission quarterly report for the period 1 January to 31 March 2018. This is basically a continuation—I think there are three reports from the ABCC, an absolutely disgraceful organisation. It's a union-busting organisation funded by the Abbott and Turnbull governments to actually hammer ordinary working Australians' wages and conditions in this country. Now, they are supposed to report on matters like occupational health and safety, labour market testing, security of payments, sham contracting and disputed payments. That was the deal that the crossbench quite naively made to give them cover to support an anti-union organisation. It hasn't even complied with the minimal requirements that those amendments were set up to do.
We had a building industry ministerial meeting recently that looked at issues such as workers in the industry, companies in the industry and small businesses in the industry not being paid on time because of the rampant illegality and nonpayment of contracts in that industry. What does the ABCC do? Nothing. All the ABCC is interested in is attacking the trade union movement, trying to stop working people from getting access to advice from their union officials, and hammering union officials who want to get a right of entry and access to their members. This is a disgraceful organisation. And, even with Nigel Hadgkiss having to resign in disgrace, it hasn't been any better.
These reports need to be changed. There needs to be some real detail in these reports. They are not providing anything meaningful, but you can analyse the work of this union-busting publicly funded organisation. There are no details of the nature of the contraventions that might be exposed in building code audits. We don't know what is being found or even if the ABCC is actually looking in a proper manner. There is no transparency in the reporting. Senator Hinch and former Senator Xenophon sold out construction workers, because this is not working properly. It's not working effectively.
We continually get reports at estimates about young Australian workers, apprentices, on building and construction sites being ripped off unmercifully, having their wages stolen by employers, yet this organisation, supported by Senator Leyonhjelm, does nothing about it. There's not a mention of the rip-offs of young apprentices. No wonder kids won't take up an apprenticeship. They don't get looked after by the organisations that are tasked by this parliament to look after their rights and conditions. It's an absolute disgrace.
Senator Michaelia Cash was the architect of this. She placed her people, former Liberal staffers, in these organisations to control and manipulate the outcomes in these organisations. We now have a minister who has completely lost her mojo. We've got a minister who is afraid to put her face out into the public arena because she is under investigation, her office is under investigation, by the Australian Federal Police.
If Prime Minister Turnbull does not have the backbone to deal with this sort of ministerial misconduct then how can he remain the Prime Minister of this country? Well, we know at least 10 of his opposition want to get rid of him. We know that at least 10 of his opposition are going to cross the floor on the National Energy Guarantee. We know at that least 10—and that's all we know publicly—are prepared to pull him down, as he was pulled down when he was the Leader of the Opposition in past terms. We need a change of government. We need a decent Prime Minister in this country. We need decent rights for workers. We need decent rights for the union movement. We need to get rid of this government. That's the only way wage stagnation will be fixed. (Time expired)
Senator Cameron, are you seeking leave?
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I have spoken to a number of these reports, which are presented by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, with government responses, assessing all of the cases of people who have been in immigration detention for more than two years and then every six months thereafter. This has been a requirement since 2005, initially put in under the Howard government at a time when the then minister, Minister Vanstone, acknowledged that there were significant cultural problems in the department, using those exact words in this place and outside of it. This is one of the measures, along with others, that were taken to try to get some improvement in the detention regime and to try to get some improvement in the situation of people languishing for long periods of time in detention.
There are a few things that need to be made clear about these reports. Firstly, they do not cover those who are held in detention on Manus Island or Nauru. It is important to remind the Senate that the first people sent to Manus Island and Nauru, when they were reopened under the Gillard government, was in late 2012, so it's getting close to six years for some of those people. That regime of so-called offshore processing and detention was expanded by Kevin Rudd in his short reprised term as Prime Minister in July 2013, before being locked in stone more fully under the current Liberal coalition government. Those people are not covered. In fact, not only are they not reported on by the ombudsman; they're not able to be examined by any Commonwealth or Australian government official, whether it be independently, by the ombudsman, by the Human Rights Commission or by anything else. So even the minimal degree of transparency we have in the Australian detention centres does not exist in the offshore detention regime, and that is all the more reason why I think it is important that we have the Senate look more closely at that. There is no transparency there and the Senate should look at that. I note my colleague Senator McKim's motion, which is on the Notice Paper for next week, regarding a committee inquiry into that.
Having said that, perhaps a sign of the lack of interest in improving the situation in our onshore detention centres from both the current government and, sadly, the previous Labor government is the fact that, when there was a comprehensive report—in fact a series of three reports was done by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in 2008 and 2009—there was never any government response, either when Labor was in government, when those inquiries were first established, or under the current government. It's now almost 10 years since the first report was tabled—nine years for the others—and there was no government response for a range of recommendations. That, to me, says volumes about the lack of genuine interest in actually improving the situation.
The ombudsman noted in a report of August last year—and I assume they've got another one coming quite soon this year—where they do an annual overview of all of the section 4860 reports, that the last financial year saw 1,325 assessments done by the ombudsman, which is an increase of 35 per cent from the previous year. That is, 1,325 people had been in immigration detention in Australia for over two years—many of them for much, much longer. That year was also the first time a subgroup of detained people was examined by the ombudsman. They had been detained and had been returned to Australia from the so-called regional processing centres for medical treatment and had been in detention arrangements for over two years, and ongoing. That is a growing cohort as well. It simply shows how badly the system is broken. Let's not forget that the current government is willing to spend a billion dollars to keep the torture happening on Manus Island and Nauru. There have been 12 deaths and reports of others in severe health crises right now. They're prepared to spend a billion dollars on that rather than invest it in building community in Australia.
Question agreed to.
I have already moved to take note of document No. 25 on today's Notice Paper: National Energy Guarantee—Modelling—Order agreed to on 13 August 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham). I am continuing my remarks from when I did move to take note of this. This was a document that was tabled earlier this week in response to an order of the Senate—the motion moved by the Greens to get the government to table its full modelling that it is using to justify its claims of so-called price drops under the National Energy Guarantee. I am sure this so-called modelling—or the non-existent modelling—was referred to in the general business debate we had earlier this afternoon, which I didn't get a chance to speak to. But it does need to be re-emphasised, simply in regard to just one aspect which demonstrates, on its own, just how flimsy and hollow is the government's whole series of claims around what the National Energy Guarantee will supposedly achieve.
We all know that what the NEG will achieve is the gutting of the renewable energy industry and all of the jobs associated with that, many of which are in regional parts of Queensland and other regional areas around Australia. We already know that it's going to make us completely fall short of our obligations, entered into by this government, in regard to climate or greenhouse emissions under the Paris Agreement.
But the claim that is meant to justify all this is about the price drops that will allegedly occur. What is clear from the evidence provided by those who actually do understand the economics and the science behind this is that the price drops that will occur into the future will be driven by the expansion of clean energy—renewable energy. Yet this government, of course, wants to do all it can—in fact, it wants to spend money—to expand coal-powered generation, which is the most expensive and will become even more expensive in the future.
There had initially been something released which was simply a single spreadsheet with no assumptions provided about the figures on that spreadsheet and how they were derived. So the forlorn hope of the Senate, in passing the order for the government to produce this document, was that there would be something behind the numbers on this single Excel spreadsheet that would actually back up the claims and provide some genuine modelling. This document should in future really go down as a case study of how badly the political process had degenerated in Australia when a single page like this could somehow be used—it's too small to even be a fig leaf, frankly—to justify the wildest claims about what is an important issue for Australians: ways to reduce energy prices.
I will point out that the Greens have clearly detailed policies about the best way to genuinely reduce energy prices. And these have been independently costed by experts. In the Queensland election, the Queensland Greens released our energy policies which, independent experts had demonstrated, would actually have driven prices down lower than the proposals of either Labor or the LNP, and would do so in a way that was sustainable into the future, by reversing the privatisation mania of both coalition and Labor governments of the past and also ensuring that it was clean energy and job-generating energy.
This government, because of its own internal political incoherence and its own internal political divisions, can't produce anything that will deliver anything. It won't deliver the price cuts they say it will, it won't deliver reductions in emissions, and it won't deliver in regard to renewable energy or job generation. This single document, tabled earlier this week pursuant to Senate order, simply shows that this government's claims on the National Energy Guarantee have zero substance. Once again, they are failing to deliver for the general public. They're failing to deliver any sort of energy policy that will provide a future for all of us.
Question agreed to.
I take note of the sixth interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Red Tape, Effect of red tape on child care. The Select Committee on Red Tape was established in October 2016 to inquire into and report on the effect of restrictions and prohibitions—that is, red tape—on the economy and the community. It has presented interim reports on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol; tobacco retailing; environmental assessment and approvals; pharmacy rules; and health care. I introduced the report on child care yesterday.
Child care is supposed to be about enabling parents, usually mothers, to return to the workforce. It's also about giving children a good start with respect to education. Getting mothers back to work is good because they don't lose their skills and slip down the employability ladder. They earn money, which boosts their standard of living. It's also good for the economy, because they consume, pay taxes and do not require welfare. The problem is that child care is regulated so heavily and is so distorted by red tape that it has become extraordinarily expensive. For many people, the cost of child care is not much less than what they can earn by returning to work. Some mothers are eager to return to the workforce. But, for those who would rather stay at home with their children, the necessity to earn an income is the only reason they use child care. If the cost of doing so is too great, they won't return.
We hear a lot about the benefits of early childhood education, and many of the witnesses focused on that. The national regulatory scheme seeks to ensure the quality of that education is high. There is evidence that quality child care is of genuine benefit in the case of children in dysfunctional households, as the Productivity Commission has noted. But we seem to have lost sight of the fact that quality costs money. Offering it to everyone and increasing the credentials of the educators costs money. Raising standard beyond those needed to ensure the safety, comfort and happiness of the children costs money. And when it costs too much money, it's not used; mothers stay at home with their children. Of course, mothers are not early educators and don't have qualifications in early childhood education. They only offer the love and care of a mother.
Red tape that makes it harder and harder to afford child care not only damages the economy but also limits the standard of living of many families, particularly those on modest incomes. Low- and middle-income families most need to return to work. Low- and middle-income families most need child care to be affordable. Low- and middle-income families are most hurt by red tape. The government's response to childcare unaffordability has been to subsidise it. The cost of that subsidy is now $8 billion, rising to $9 billion over the forward estimates. A decade ago, it was zero. That's red tape for you. The source of the red tape is a COAG partnership with the states and territories. This incorporates the National Quality Framework; the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority; a national quality standard; a national quality rating system; and a national regulatory system. What could possibly go wrong!
Most submitters and witnesses to the inquiry support the NQF's regulation of the early childcare and education sector but many complained about the effect of regulation. The committee noted that 'the department has not recently reported any significant regulatory savings in early childhood education and care' and recommended that these savings should be reported in the department's next annual report for the deregulation agenda. But the Australian Childcare Alliance New South Wales warned that 'regulatory requirements usually come at a cost and can become burdensome, excessive and/or, arguably, counterproductive'. Others were less sanguine also. The Australian Childcare Alliance said: 'The government must acknowledge the increase of paperwork and stress that has been introduced to the sector over the past 10 years.' The Centre for Independent Studies said: 'The childcare sector in Australia has been characterised by growing government intervention in recent decades, culminating in the introduction of the National Quality Framework. Inevitably, this has precipitated new forms of red tape for the sector. Many of the NQF regulations entail significant administrative and compliance costs, while many of the cited benefits are contestable and not based on compelling evidence.' Family Day Care Australia argued that its sector 'has been adversely affected, resulting in excessive administrative burden, service closures and a decrease in high-level quality ratings'.
It was a matter of concern to the committee that family day care is suffering. Given its much lower cost structure, it ought to be thriving. Clearly, something is wrong. A key area of concern for both family day care and long day care providers was the regulation of staff qualifications and ratios. The committee acknowledges that there is rationale for imposing staff ratios and qualifications but is not convinced that current policy settings are correct. There just isn't sufficient evidence in this area. The committee recommends establishing a sound evidence base to promote the relationship between staffing, qualifications and children's outcomes, and between staff ratios and outcomes, to avoid the perception of that regulation being unnecessary red tape. The committee also recommends that the principles of the National Quality Framework be amended to reflect the fact that child care is, in effect, competing with home based parents who are not qualified early childhood educators.
On the subject of subsidising childcare, the committee noted that there were concerns in relation to transitioning to the new funding formula. It recommends that the department report in greater detail on this. More generally, the committee recommends that the government review the objectives of fee assistance to ensure it is actually targeting maternal workforce participation, with an emphasis on children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their interest and participation in the hearings and the committee's deliberations generally. These include Senators Burston, Griff, Watts, Paterson and Brockman. I commend the report to the Senate and look forward to the government's response. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I rise to speak to the report of the Economics References Committee's inquiry into the governance and operation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which was formally tabled in this place this week; although it was actually released in July. Due to the unusual order of business this week, I didn't get a chance to properly speak to it, so I would like to do it the justice of making comments on it here this evening.
The inquiry was established via a motion by my Greens predecessor Senator Larissa Waters and the Labor Party. By the fact she is my predecessor and I am now here, there has been some variety of Greens senators involved at various stages of this inquiry at different times, but the continuity of our attention to the core issues remained the same. I would like to commend the report to the Senate.
I know there is a disagreeing and disagreeable minority report from the coalition senators, but I feel the Labor senators on the inquiry, including the chair, did a good job, and there are invaluable recommendations. I won't go through them all, but I certainly indicate my support for them. Some of them focused on the themes of greater involvement of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including a representative on the NAIF itself; more transparency including around potential conflicts of interest; more presence of the organisation actually in northern Australia—including potentially having a staff person in Darwin—and also directing more investment directly to tourism.
There were some changes made by this government to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility whilst the inquiry was proceeding, and that was welcome. It did enable, at least in theory—we'll see how it works in practice—some more capacity for somewhat smaller scale operation proposals to be put forward. It's no secret and no surprise that one of the focal points of the inquiry was around the potential use of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to assist in starting up of the Adani Carmichael coalmine. Again, it is no secret that the Greens very strongly oppose the use of taxpayer resources, federal or state, not just for that coalmine but for any thermal coalmine in Queensland or across any part of the Galilee Basin.
I do draw the Senate's attention to a separate sole recommendation of mine that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act be amended to require the NAIF to consider the Australian government's policy commitment to the Paris Agreement—we know from the National Energy Guarantee that the government's commitment to that is actually not genuine but, nonetheless, it's a commitment that they have officially made, so it's appropriate for it to be reflected in legislation—and that the NAIF consider the impact of any potential proposal on the government, whether it would be more likely the government's policy commitment to the Paris Agreement would be breached; consider the climate impacts of a project; and specifically prohibit this fund from being used to finance infrastructure that would facilitate the extraction, refinement, transportation or burning of thermal coal.
It's no surprise the Labor senators didn't support any such recommendation like that, because, of course, the Queensland Labor government refuses to withdraw support not only for the Adani Carmichael coalmine but for any. It also still supports, at least in words, ongoing proposals for other significant coalmines in the Galilee Basin, and indeed, is still calling for tenders for exploration for other new coal deposits in Queensland. That is wider than just the scope of this report, but it is an indication of the core problem with the state Labor government that does still need to be addressed if Labor in general want to claim they are serious about meeting the Paris Agreement targets.
Nonetheless, as I said, the Greens also welcome the other recommendations in the report, particularly in trying to ensure there is more capacity for the infrastructure facility to assist tourism projects in and across northern Australia. The evidence provided to the committee from some of the Northern Territory environment organisations as part of its Darwin hearing—which I attended via phone—gave some really good examples of the sorts of projects which would generate jobs, be sustainable environmentally and in terms of the community structures of the Territory, and have ongoing economic benefits. Those are the sorts of things that would be an appropriate use of public resources to assist in that type of economic development in northern Australia.
I want to put it on the record that, whilst the Greens clearly have a disagreement with other parties in this place about the use of public resources to develop new coalmines in Queensland, northern Australia or anywhere else in the country, that should not be misrepresented to suggest we do not support infrastructure development in the north. We certainly do. Indeed, we have released policies in the past with regard to that. When I speak to a later report I'll talk more about some of the proposals that are being put forward by councils in northern Australia and Northern Queensland as the sorts of things that can be supported, whether it's through direct government funding of infrastructure facilities or it's through the type of arrangement that the NAIF operates. I do want to make it absolutely clear that there is an important role, which I think can be expanded, for both state and federal governments to do better to resource northern Australia. My own interest is, of course, in Northern Queensland. It needs to be the right type of infrastructure, and part of the way that we increase our chances of doing that is by having more transparency and better rules around how these sorts of infrastructures are funded in the future.
The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was one of the high points of the northern Australia white paper, which was released by the coalition government, by then Prime Minister Abbott, in 2015. It set out a blueprint for the development of the north of our country on the basis that a strong north means a strong Australia. Already, about 50 per cent of Australia's export earnings come from northern Australia, even though northern Australia only has about five per cent of Australia's population. Northern Australia has always punched well above its weight when it comes to supporting Australia.
The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was really one of the features of the white paper. I was pleased that the committee decided to have a look at it, investigate it and report on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Unfortunately, as with everything relating to the development of northern Australia, this became an ideological and political football, the plaything of the Australian Labor Party. It had $5 billion set aside for very favourable—dare I say cheap—loans for development projects in northern Australia. Regrettably, one of the errors the government made—as much as I might say in spite of my opposition or caution about this—was that, when the federal government and this independent body that was set up made a recommendation for a loan to an entity that was going to develop northern Australia, they thought, for constitutional reasons, it had to be done through a state government. In my state, that means the Queensland state government. The Queensland state government is a Labor Party government, and it's there because of Greens preferences. It stays in power—and there's nothing the Labor Party and the unions like more than being in power—because of the Greens, who exercise undue influence on it.
Every single proposal put to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility in the early days was either not dealt with or, in the case of Adani, which Senator Bartlett has just mentioned, deliberately avoided—vetoed—by the Queensland government. The Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility, although no decision had been made, had indicated that it was looking at the Adani proposal favourably, and then the Queensland government said it would veto any loan to Adani, notwithstanding that there wasn't a cent of Queensland government money in it and notwithstanding that the Queensland Labor government had already approved the Adani project. But they didn't want this project to go ahead and to be seen as being supported by a federal coalition government, with these favourable, long-term, lower-interest-rate loans. The Premier used the ridiculous excuse that, because her husband had worked for an international accounting firm which happened to have done some work for Adani, she couldn't allow it to go ahead. But it wasn't Queensland government money. It had nothing to do with the Queensland government, and the Queensland government had already approved every environmental and other condition for the Adani mine and the railway line to Abbot Point.
Since then, the Labor Party has made it one of its projects to try to undermine and destroy the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility purely for crass political reasons: so that the Commonwealth coalition government, the Turnbull government, could not claim any credit for major development projects in the north— which would have happened prior to this had this $5 billion fund, which we had specifically set up to develop the north, been available.
Since then, there have been some announcements made of major and significant loans, but these still require the approval of the Queensland government. One that I was involved in most recently was a loan to James Cook University to set up an engineering science hub, which would make money and allow them to repay the loan over a period of time. But even that requires the consent of the Queensland government, and, when last I heard, that still hadn't been forthcoming. We've made the announcement. NAIF has made the announcement. James Cook University has made the announcement. If I'm wrong on this, I'll apologise to the Queensland government, but up to a couple of weeks ago we were still awaiting the tick-off of the Queensland Labor government, and that was needed because James Cook University is a university and it's subject to Queensland state government legislation.
This NAIF fund that the committee inquired into is a great initiative. It has over $4½ billion still sitting there for anyone who has a reasonable business proposition for the north, and there are many around. I know most of the board members of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. A couple of them are people from the north who I've known over a long period of time. They are highly qualified, highly experienced people passionate about the development of the north but with a business, accounting and financial background that will ensure that this taxpayers' money is properly spent and that due diligence is done. It is a regret to me that, all the way through, the Queensland Labor government, supported by the Greens political party, have done everything they could possibly do to undermine the good work that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is capable of doing and was set up by the federal Liberal and National parties, the federal government, to do.
I know it is difficult to appeal to Queensland Labor and Greens senators in this chamber to put their ideology aside, put their hatred of the coalition aside and actually do something positive for the state that they are supposed to represent; I think that is a bridge too far for most of the Queensland Labor and Greens senators. And, of course, the Queensland state Labor government will continue to frustrate the goals of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the goals of the federal Liberal and National government, who are very keen to develop the north. Why do we want to develop the north? We want to develop the north because we want to provide jobs for northerners and we want to encourage people to move from the crowded cities of Sydney and Melbourne up to the north, which they can only do if there is work for them. There needs to be real development in the north for those jobs to become available.
Liberal governments over the years have been keen on developing the north—going back 50 years to the Ord River scheme. It is actually happening. It has happened much more slowly in the last five decades than I would have hoped, but it is coming into its own in the Ord River. There are a lot of things. NAIF has given money to a aquafarming venture in the Darwin area. There's been money given to a Western Australian company for work over on the west coast of Western Australia and for James Cook University, which is starting to happen. The NAIF board have been diligent and thorough in their investigations of every application that's come before them. The Labor Party have criticised them for being slow and unable to make decisions. But it is taxpayers' money, and, appropriately, they are doing the correct due diligence. I think the board are wonderful, I think the proposal is wonderful and I think the whole concept is great. I just wish the Greens and the Labor Party would step aside from their ideology and political hatred of the government and join with us in developing the north. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's report—continuing the theme of northern Australia and Northern Queensland—entitled Northern horizons—unleashing our tourism potential: report on the inquiry into opportunities and methods for stimulating the tourism industry in northern Australia. I have spoken to this report previously, but I have a few more comments that I would like to make on it. This report, unlike the one that we've just been speaking about, was unanimous—so fewer of the rancorous components that coloured the previous speech and indeed my own previous speech. The report highlights a lot of positive recommendations which I want to reaffirm the value of.
I was a participant in this inquiry. Again, it was already underway before I came into this chamber, so I wasn't able to participate fully in it, which is something I have a bit of disappointment about because the economic opportunities for Northern Queensland is a topic that I am very interested in. Of course, tourism is a major employer. We do hear a lot about the supposed number of jobs—many of them vastly overinflated numbers—that mines such as the Adani Carmichael mine might deliver. But, as opposed to those rubbery numbers, the number of jobs that the tourism industry provides—particularly permanent, ongoing and sustainable jobs—across large parts of northern Australia and Northern Queensland is indisputable. What this inquiry looked at was ways to strengthen that further, and it's good to see some very strong recommendations there. I'd have to say that if I had been fully involved in the inquiry all the way through and able to go to some of the other hearings, there are probably a couple I would have sought to amend somewhat. But given that I was late to the process, I didn't feel it was really appropriate for me to try to push too hard for changes to recommendations when I hadn't had sufficient involvement.
Even the short period I was involved in it—the hearing I was able to attend in Yeppoon and some of the meetings of my own I've had in Northern Queensland over the nine months since I came into this role—as well as my own previous experience outside of this role, gave me very good insights into many of the ways—reasonably small ways; not just by investing extra government money but also other ways—we could encourage and support what is mostly a small business sector to further expand, to become more reliable, to be able to work together, to be able to promote itself more effectively and to be able to cooperate more effectively. There is significant opportunity for more jobs and more things that will attract people to northern Australia.
It gives me a reason to also mention a visit I had today with mayors from Northern Queensland and from around the Townsville region: Hinchinbrook Shire, Burdekin Shire, Palm Island, Townsville, and Charters Towers. Those five local government areas and mayors are working together to promote the opportunities in that part of Northern Queensland. Not all of them are tourism related. I'd have to put on the record, in terms of our organisation's federal election priorities, that there will be a couple of infrastructure projects there that the Greens would not necessarily be that keen to support. But there are many others here, many of which are about expanding not just the tourism opportunities but the flow-on ways of integrating the tourism industry with assets that are already in the region.
If we're talking about Townsville in particular, we're talking about the world-class expertise that is already there with regard to marine science. It is of course the headquarters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. One of the proposals the mayors of this region were pushing was for some support for an upgrade or overhaul of Reef HQ, which already delivers significant benefit, not just in employment and visitation to the region but also in scientific knowledge and enhancing community understanding of issues around the marine park. Those are things that could clearly be built upon and link into the existing broader scientific expertise that's there not just in the marine park authority but at the James Cook University and the Institute of Marine Science, as well as the expertise from the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Northern Queensland.
There are also proposals for reasonably small amounts for the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council. Most, but not all, of the proposals put forward are tourism related. Just under $40 million would deliver over 80 full-time equivalent jobs in a community where the unemployment rate is vastly higher than the average across Queensland—it's 39.5 per cent on Palm Island. The median age is much lower on Palm Island, at just 25, compared to 37 across the state. Small investments can deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits that can be built around. It's a real multiplier effect. I think that's where many of the ideas in this report can really deliver significant benefits.
The proposals that the mayors talked about, such as a museum of underwater art using a world-renowned underwater artist in a few different locations, including at Townsville, Magnetic Island and Palm Island, would deliver tourism opportunities. It's been shown to work in other parts of the world. There have been proposals for a multipurpose trail network across Palm Island itself. It's an incredibly beautiful location, for those people who haven't been fortunate enough to go there. There is a simple network of graded scenic tracks for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. One and a half million dollars was spent to deliver some ongoing jobs and for a lot of people to have a great experience in that part of the world. There are those examples. I encourage people to look at those examples put forward by Townsville Enterprise for that part of the world. I know from the people who gave evidence to the hearing in Yeppoon from Capricorn Enterprise that they've been working very hard on promoting tourism. I'd have to say that the evidence that came forward about the approach that Rockhampton Regional Council is taking as opposed to Livingstone Shire and the adjoining Yeppoon area was disappointing and, I think, unhelpful for tourism development in that region, which is, of course, the start of the tropics.
There are so many opportunities there and, again, it really comes down to political will. It is essential. We talk about the multiplier effects, the community building effects, the employment generating effects and the enhancement in community understanding about parts of the world, much of which is built upon the marvellous natural environment of northern Australia. Also, there is the cultural history of those areas: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ongoing cultures. There needs to be a better understanding of that part of the world. Many of us who live further south really don't have a good appreciation of it. So there is greater enhancement with not just jobs but in understanding our own country and a particularly fascinating and magnificent part of the continent that we all share. I commend the report for consideration.
I repeat a comment I've made a few times this week. I urge the government to respond promptly in its consideration of this report. Governments of all colours have not got a particularly good record in responding quickly to committee reports. The community puts in a lot of energy and a lot of resources and a lot of time. I'd like to thank those who assisted the hearing I attended to ensure that we bring down a well-informed report. It sends a very bad signal to them when governments do not respond promptly to the recommendations of committee reports, particularly when they're unanimous ones like this. I commend the report to not just the Senate but also the relevant sections of people in the government and the wider community. It is a recognition of the major, broader, multifaceted benefits tourism in northern Australia and Northern Queensland already provides and the real potential for doing so further.
Like Senator Bartlett, I congratulate the committee, all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee and the secretariat who assisted us on the committee in the production of this report on tourism in northern Australia. It's fortuitous that the Minister for Northern Australia is with us in the chamber as well, no doubt attracted by the debate on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which the minister is very much aware of, involved in, supportive of and promoting. This report on tourism is, as Senator Bartlett rightly said, a unanimous report by members of an all-party committee: the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. The committee travelled far and wide throughout northern Australia. We heard submissions and looked at some of the fabulous tourism assets that we have in the north. I have to say that, for most of us on the committee, we were going home, as one would say. We're well familiar with the greatest tourism asset we have in the north and, in fact, in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef, which continues to attract visitors from all over the world in spite of what I call treacherous conduct by some environmental groups who are trying to tell the world that the Great Barrier Reef is dead when we all know it isn't. It's still there and it's a magnificent spectacle and a magnificent asset that is so well managed by the federal government with, I have to say, some help from the Queensland government.
The Barrier Reef draws people from all over the world and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs for Australians and for a lot of international part-time workers too, I have to say, who man some of the wonderful tourist destinations we have there. The Top End, again, is a fabulous place for tourists, as is Yeppoon, which Senator Bartlett spoke about as well, in Central Queensland. They are real tourism assets, gems, which are just so special and make northern Australia such an attractive place for visitors from southern Australia and from the world. I congratulate the chair, my friend and colleague the Hon. Warren Entsch, who is the member for the most northern seat, Leichhardt, on his chairmanship and his enthusiasm on this particular report.
I don't want to hold the Senate too long, because it has been a long day, but I just want to briefly mention in passing that the committee also travelled to a not-often-visited part of Australia, the Indian Ocean Territories of Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands. We spent a few days on Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands. They are not the easiest places to get to but are a wonderful tourism asset for Australia which, as I say, regrettably too few Australians know about or can get to. One of the problems with tourism advancement in those Indian Ocean Territories, which have so much to offer, is the difficulty in getting there at an affordable price. Most tourists who get there at the moment are international tourists who come via Jakarta, which is only a hop, step and a jump across the ditch, so to speak. But the islands do have huge attractions for the world and indeed for most Australians who haven't yet had the privilege of being able to get there.
For me personally, it was a homecoming to territories which I was very involved with when I was the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Not a lot had changed in the 15 years since I was the minister, but I'm delighted that the current Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government, John McVeigh, has taken a renewed interest in Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands. A lot of the things that need to be done on those islands that should have been done in the last 10 or so years will now start moving, and I thank Dr McVeigh for his interest.
Across the board, this is a good report. It does highlight some of the fabulous tourism assets we have in northern Australia. I do agree with Senator Bartlett that this was a very valuable inquiry, a very useful inquiry, an inquiry which, I am sure, the government will respond to favourably and which will allow the great attraction that is northern Australia to be more accessible to visitors from Australia and from the world alike. I recommend the report. I recommend its recommendations to the government and, like Senator Bartlett, I look forward to the government response in due course. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to speak to the government response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's inquiry into the provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition. Having complained a few times this week about how slow government responses often are, I should note when they're prompt, just to demonstrate my capacity for balance and fairness. I want to briefly say that this report and the response covers one of the areas where the NDIS clearly still has significant challenges, and that is people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition.
In the short time since I have come back into this chamber, just nine months ago, and I have been meeting with people around the community, as opposed to people emailing me in general, there is no doubt that the issues most regularly raised with me have been those relating to the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. A significant subset of those issues relate to mental health services for psychosocial disabilities. I would really like to pay tribute to the individual people themselves who are having to work through and live with the challenges of some of these psychosocial disabilities, their families and their friends, as well as the other people who assist them or who are carers for them. I've met a number of these people and learned a lot from them in the last nine months.
There will always be transition issues. I think there are some genuinely significant transition issues and genuine questions that need to continue to be asked about the model that's at the foundation of the whole NDIS scheme. Nonetheless, there is the aspect of a major boost in the amount of overall resources being provided, with at least the goal of trying to assist people with significant and ongoing disabilities. There are now a number of people receiving some assistance who weren't previously getting support. In Queensland, there are now over 16,000 active NDIS participants and 3½ thousand registered providers, which is a 24 per cent increase since March. That's a very rapid increase, which of itself presents some issues.
When you're looking at the content of this report, which is the area of psychosocial disabilities, and the response, there is a lot of difference, a lot of variance, between individuals when you're looking at disabilities of this sort. You need to have providers who actually have the skills and the capacity to deliver appropriate support, and that is an ongoing challenge, which I also want to draw attention to.
Question agreed to.
I'll be brief in my comments on this report, document No. 3. I have already spoken to this, so I won't go on at length again. This is the Auditor-General's report into the implementation performance of the cashless debt card trial. It has already been well noted by many people, including me, that this is a very scathing report, which calls into question the genuineness of these trials and whether it's all about the politics of it.
The single thing I want to emphasise tonight is that I don't know when this legislation will come on and I may well not be in this place by the time it does. So I really want to take the opportunity to make a plea, because the Greens' and Labor's position on this legislation regarding the attempt to extend what is clearly a failed and inadequate trial further into Queensland, into the electorate of Hinkler and the communities around Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, is that the Greens strongly oppose it. I very strongly oppose it, having gone to both of those communities and met with and spoken to many people there. I know the mayor of Hervey Bay is opposed to it and I know the mayor of Bundaberg, a former LNP member of the Queensland parliament, is opposed to it being expanded into that community. If there is money available to spend—because this trial will cost money, not save money—it won't generate a single job in those communities. It won't get a single person who is currently on social security into employment. It will just put more red tape around their lives. If there's money available, spend it directly in those communities and generate some employment, economic activity and services for some of those people that do need support, that the government says it's seeking to try to deal with by virtue of this trial.
Likewise, the view of the coalition and the One Nation party, which votes with them pretty much all the time, is that they're going to press ahead with this, despite that opposition I've mentioned. So it does come down to others on the crossbench here who have not yet committed to a view. I really would take the opportunity to urge those senators, the Centre Alliance senators, Senator Storer, Senator Hinch, possibly Senator Leyonhjelm, whose views about reducing government regulation are hopefully contrary to expanding this unnecessary control over people's lives. On behalf of the people of those communities, who I have visited and spoken to—unlike the government-controlled Senate committee into this proposal, who have never bothered to travel to the community that will be affected—I would really urge those crossbench senators to vote against that legislation. This Auditor-General's report here gives plenty of reasons why. Look at plenty of submissions that were provided by people from the community, including the mayor of Hervey Bay. I'd really encourage them to do that. Hopefully, if they do, they'll recognise that this is not something that should be expanded into communities in Queensland, and they'll vote against that legislation.
Question agreed to.
Last month I had the great honour of representing Australia as a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group to the Pakistan national election on 25 July. It was my first but certainly will not be my last visit to this fascinating, friendly and wonderfully diverse nation. I found Pakistan a culturally, religiously, ethnically and geographically diverse nation, a nation that defies a single or easy definition. It would be hard to find a nation more at the centre of global geostrategic thinking. Pakistan is a nuclear power sitting at the fulcrum of South Asia and the Middle East. It borders with India, China and Afghanistan and it sits on the Arabian Sea. It has a rapidly growing population, now consisting of over 200 million people, with a high proportion under 20 years old. It comprises five major ethnic groups, and it now has more refugees than any other country. Religiously, it is overwhelmingly a Sunni Muslim nation with close ties to Saudi Arabia, and it has a range of minority religious groups. Pakistanis face economic and social challenges that Australians could not even dream of. Despite that, on 25 July they came together as a nation to vote in hope of a change for themselves and their children. Pakistan matters to the world. Pakistan matters to the Commonwealth family, and it also matters to us here in Australia.
Election observation itself supports democratic partners in delivering free and fair elections within their own electoral laws. It is always strictly impartial and independent and with the support of the country that we observe in. This 15-member Commonwealth observer group was ably led by General Abdulsalami Abubakar, Nigeria's former head of state. The observer mission spent 12 days in Pakistan, observing events both leading up to the election and on the polling and counting day. Also, we observed the declaration of the results. I'd like to commend Baroness Scotland on the professionalism of her team and the high esteem in which they were held by all of the Pakistani groups that we were fortunate enough to engage with. As a consequence, there were no closed doors to our observer group. Our group met delegations from political parties, civil society, the media and also the military to understand the pre-election environment and, afterwards, to receive feedback on the conduct of the election. It is my sincerest hope that the election proves to be a democratic game changer for over 200 million Pakistani citizens.
This was truly a historic election for Pakistan. It was only the second consecutive democratic transition of power in the nation's history. As chair of the Australian parliament's Electoral Matters Committee, I am deeply aware that, in all democracies, including our own, to accept the outcome of an election, citizens must have confidence in the integrity of the electoral system itself and they must have confidence that the results declared accurately reflect the ballots cast. This election was closely observed by domestic and international observers. In addition to the Commonwealth observer group, there was also one other overseas observation group, from the European Union. Also, there were many diplomats based in Pakistan who observed the election. The local Pakistani Free and Fair Election Network also deployed 20,000 citizen observers at 80 per cent of the polling booths. There is no question at all in my mind that the result represented the overwhelming majority of Pakistani voters and also, I believe, their citizens.
I must commend the Electoral Commission of Pakistan, the ECP, who did an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances. The electoral reform strengthened the country's election framework, and the expanded power of the ECP clearly assisted in the successful delivery of this election. Despite the very short time the ECP had to implement these significant reforms, they did an outstanding job in seeing their mandate was delivered and transparent elections were upheld and done on schedule. But what really blew me away was the logistics of the election itself. They were simply staggering. There were 106 million eligible voters, and they cast ballots in 270 of the 342 National Assembly seats and 570 provincial seats. There were 122 registered political parties, 12,570 candidates, 85,390 polling stations and 800,000 polling officials, and 450,000 police and 350,000 military personnel were deployed at polling places across the nation. Despite some violence and a suicide attack, polling did occur peacefully at the vast majority of polling booths. There was a 53 per cent turnout, which is significantly higher than the last election, when it was 48 per cent. Most encouragingly for me, there was a record turnout of women right across the nation. Assessment reports by all observer groups were consistent in saying that the election was conducted transparently. Whilst there was no doubt that the Electoral Commission faced a range of unique challenges—challenges that certainly are not familiar to us here today here in Australia—as I said, the vote represented the will of the vast majority of Pakistanis and has been joyously welcomed by their communities right across the globe.
The results also represent a wholesale rejection of dynastic politics in Pakistan. The monopoly enjoyed by the previous two mainstream parties has been broken, and I think this is a very quiet but very clear democratic revolution. Imran Khan now faces challenges that would appear unimaginable and certainly insurmountable to most Western politicians. But the world is watching on with incredible goodwill, and we all hope that Prime Minister Khan can now deliver for the Pakistani people. Pakistan has evolved, and Pakistanis, I observed, are no longer prepared to tolerate poor governance, injustice and totally iniquitous life. A generational shift is clearly occurring. I heard, over and over again, that the younger generation no longer feels trapped by the past, closed minds and the conventions of the establishment—and they certainly made great use of social media in this election to communicate and also to persuade others.
I believe that Australia, the United States and, indeed, all members of the Commonwealth have a great opportunity to assist Pakistan in moderating the influence of the military in civil society and in encouraging the judiciary to direct its efforts now towards new anticorruption measures. And I think we can also help in other ways. Pakistan is also now uniquely placed to take advantage of the One Belt, One Road initiative in a way that can ensure their economy grows and their society benefits from this initiative. We have a great opportunity to work with Pakistan to develop their own sovereign economic opportunities in their own best interests.
I would like to pay particular tribute to the Australian High Commissioner in Pakistan, Margaret Adamson, for her engagement and for her support in providing me so many additional opportunities to meet members from right across Pakistan civil society. We had interesting, robust and really challenging and stimulating discussions. I thank her for that. Both I and the wonderful Dame Winnie Laban, from New Zealand, were extraordinarily well supported not only by the High Commissioner but by all of her staff. The High Commission staff in Islamabad have a very clear passion and wonderful respect for the nation that they serve Australia in. It was very clear that the High Commissioner and her staff are held in high regard by the government of Pakistan, by the parliament and also by a wide range of civil society representatives. They all serve our nation with great distinction, and we owe them a great deal of thanks for that.
I and all members of the Commonwealth Observer Group congratulate all Pakistanis for the way they conducted this election. I hope that their desire for a better life for themselves and for their families is able to be realised by the new government. I thank the Commonwealth for the opportunity.
Being a truck driver is one of Australia's most dangerous jobs, and it can be a difficult one too. Among other issues, they face long hours on the road, often with late nights and early starts, pressure to make deliveries on impossibly tight deadlines and all sorts of weather to deal with. For decades, Transport Workers Union members have been fighting for fair rates for truck drivers and safer roads for all Australians. I commend the union, and all its officials and delegates, for their commitment to this important cause.
Australia must properly invest in its road infrastructure, and this investment must meet the needs of all road users. As I have said, truckies spend long hours on the road transporting freight around the country and around the great state of Tasmania, which I represent. But the government is failing to build the important infrastructure that truckies need. To the federal and Tasmanian Liberal governments, our truck drivers are all but invisible. Last year, the Turnbull government took the razor to infrastructure investment. According to the peak industry body Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the 2017 budget slashed real budget capital funding to its lowest level in more than a decade. But, rather than be honest about it, the Turnbull government expanded its clever accounting and slick narrative, glossing over its infrastructure cuts with an illusion of activity. This is not only despicable; it is dangerous.
Recently I was in Launceston in Tasmania and I met with delegates from the Tas-Vic branch of the TWU. The Tasmanian TWU members raised concerns with me about the lack of safe places for trucks to pull over on Tasmania's major highways. A B-double is up to 26 metres long and it is approved to drive on a network of roads in Tasmania from Woolnorth in the far north-west to Derby in the north-east to St Marys in the east and down through Hobart to Geeveston. Anyone who has driven in Tasmania knows that some of these roads are quite windy and very narrow. A larger truck, obviously, can take a bit of extra time to slow down and to build up its speed again. It's a long distance from Burnie to Hobart; it's about four hours by car. Our truck drivers need to pull over at times, certainly for the call of nature or to check their loads or for many other reasons. Depending on the time of day and the size of the truck that the driver is in control of, there may be no areas where drivers can pull their rigs over safely. Drivers have had to make do pulling over on to gravel by the side of the highway. Stopping in this way is very dangerous, and it's definitely not suited to the task. Of course, there are no facilities for the truck drivers to use either. The drivers were telling me, once they leave their depot, there is often nowhere to stop, and that's just not good enough. We need to meet the needs of all of the users when building infrastructure, such as highways.
During the day there are some businesses that the trucks can pull over and make a purchase at before using the facilities, but during early starts and late nights—and we know there are heaps of those for truck drivers—those businesses are obviously closed. Some people I've spoken to in Tasmania have already mentioned the public toilets at St Peters Pass to me, but it's not possible for some of the biggest trucks to pull in there. Even if they could, it's in such a position that it's extremely dangerous for trucks of that size to pull back onto the highway and gather speed quickly enough, with cars travelling at 110 kilometres an hour coming up behind them. A prominent service station on the highway at Kempton is the only business open 24/7, but a B-double can't get in there very easily.
The Tasmanian Hodgman Liberal government are undertaking roadworks on the Midland Highway. It would have been a perfect time for them to plan some safe and appropriate pull-over areas for truck drivers to stop when they planned those extensions and upgrades. What is needed are pull-over areas similar to those in places on the mainland, where a couple of B-doubles can pull up, where there are toilet facilities and where the trucks can return safely to the highway. Perhaps funding may have been available if the Abbott-Turnbull government hadn't cut $100 million from Labor's funding for the Midland Highway upgrade. Sadly, the Hodgman government have failed to adequately plan infrastructure to meet the needs of these workers. They probably didn't even think of the truck drivers—there's certainly no evidence that they did.
Tasmanian truck drivers are being treated as second-class citizens, especially compared to their colleagues on the mainland, who have proper infrastructure to meet their needs. It's time for the federal Liberal government to properly fund road infrastructure, including making sure there are safe and appropriate facilities for all drivers. I would also like to mention that the Labor Party now has a shadow assistant minister for road safety, my colleague Senator Glenn Sterle. The federal Liberal government don't have any equivalent, and I don't think they ever have. That does show you their somewhat lack of commitment, I think, to road safety and truck drivers.
The second issue I want to speak on tonight is about Early Learning Matters Week, which is celebrated from 5 to 12 August. This week encourages early learning services to showcase the benefits that early learning has to children, their families and society as a whole. To mark Early Learning Matters Week, I visited the Lady Gowrie early education and care service in Kingston in Tasmania. As a former early childhood educator, I always really enjoy these visits. Can I just say a big thank you to the services manager, Karin Eickhoff, for inviting me and hosting my visit.
It is ironic that it was also the week that we learnt that the Turnbull government had snuck into the budget a $440 million cut to the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education. After extending the program one year at a time and refusing to commit to ongoing funding and a long-term future for the program, the government have finally signalled their intention to only fund it for one more year. The national partnership agreement provides funding for 15 hours a week of preschool. It's a very successful program that's been kicking goals across Australia. Since the former Labor government signed the first agreement in 2008, preschool enrolment has increased from 77 per cent to 93 per cent. We know from research that participation in early learning leads to a whole range of educational, social, emotional and health outcomes. In the UK a study of 3,000 children and their families found that high-quality preschool education had a number of benefits, including: an increase in children's intellectual achievement, concentration, social skills, independence, cooperation, self-regulation and peer relationships upon entry to school; improvement in pre-reading skills, non-verbal reasoning and early number skills; and a decrease in antisocial behaviours and the risk of developing learning difficulties later in life.
As I said, I am a former early childhood educator and I've seen the benefits of early learning with my own eyes many times over, so these research findings are no surprise to me. But, unfortunately, Australia is lagging behind many other countries around the world, which are now offering two years of early learning. Australia's public spending on early childhood education, as a percentage of GDP, is currently the fifth lowest in the OECD. By cutting a program that offers one year of preschool, Australia risks falling even further behind. If this cut isn't bad enough, it comes on top of a $20 million cut to the National Quality Agenda program, which delivers the National Quality Framework, and a new childcare subsidy which leaves one in four Australian families worse off.
In my home state of Tasmania, the CEO of Lady Gowrie, Ros Cornish—who I've known for decades—noted in an article in The Mercury that the government's decision to abandon the National Quality Agenda was:
… a great shock—done without any consultation with regulatory bodies or the early education and care sector.
It goes to show that, whether it's through child care or preschool, this government doesn't care about investing in early learning and it's quite happy to leave all the heavy lifting to the states and the territories.
Labor, on the other hand, has a record of supporting early education. We committed $970 million to create the program which gave universal access to preschool for four-year-olds—the program that this government has signalled will end after only one more year. We introduced the National Quality Framework to lift standards and quality in early childhood education, a program which was cut by this government in the May budget. We increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket costs and increased the cap to $7,500, relieving the financial burden of child care for thousands of families. I'm proud of Labor's record on early childhood education, and it's frustrating to see our good work being undone by this heartless and out-of-touch government. I'm sure most parents would agree that giving children the best start in life is a much bigger priority than giving $17 billion to Australia's big banks.
The legislation to introduce the National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, will be introduced next week but it will not have the support of One Nation. The NEG is a political agreement which integrates energy and climate policy, and the result will be increased prices for consumers. The proposed NEG places an obligation on energy retailers to contract with electricity generators who own wind farms and solar projects, because these sources of energy do not emit greenhouse gases. The NEG gives certainty to the producers of unreliable sources of energy and creates uncertainty for the producers of base-load electricity from coal and gas.
The NEG is the government's response to the 2015 Paris agreement, which seeks to stop the earth's temperature from increasing more than two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels. The NEG will provide investment certainty for wind farm and solar energy companies but it will end investment in cheap, clean, coal-fired power energy and gas-fired energy. Households, farming communities and businesses will suffer with high prices if the NEG becomes law.
Voters at the next election have been given little choice, because the coalition has a target of 26 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and Labor's is nearly double that amount. If these political parties believe man is the cause of climate change, then why do they have policies which see 60 per cent of our population growth each year come from immigration? These greenhouse emission targets apply not only to electricity generation but also to the farming and transport sectors. How are Australian farmers going to meet their United Nations emissions targets when two-thirds of the emissions come from the flatulence of their livestock and the other major contributors are agricultural soils, manure management and fertiliser application? Labor has not ruled out culling livestock to meet emissions targets.
If the government and the Labor Party were serious about making Australia a more attractive place to invest then they would support One Nation's policy to build new coal-fired power stations which are owned by government. Australia cannot compete in the global marketplace when our electricity prices are double those of our competitors. Giving tax cuts to big business without globally competitive electricity prices is just a waste of taxpayer money.
The reason our electricity prices are too high is that both the coalition and Labor have interfered in the electricity marketplace in the mistaken belief that they can control the natural variability in our climate. The geological record shows that prior to burning coal to create electricity in Australia, we had worse droughts and higher and lower sea levels and temperatures. Climate variability has been with us for a long time and it has shaped our unique landscape. We see that clearly in our largest river system, the Murray-Darling. This inland river system has been the subject of much research, where arguments started before Federation because of extreme changes in the rainfall over the catchment.
Australia is the largest exporter of thermal coal in the world, and this coal is burned by our competitors in Asia to create electricity. If the major parties genuinely believed that burning coal causes climate change then why are they not banning the export of thermal coal? Japan buys about 40 per cent of our thermal coal and in the past two years has built eight new coal power plants, with plans to add an additional 36 in the next decade. Japan supports the Paris agreement but at the same time is using coal to create electricity, so why are we not doing the same?
I see no reason to destroy our economy any further when the reasons for climate variability are unclear or trumped up to make some people very wealthy and give others jobs. On the basis that government policy has scared off private investment, it is sensible that the government must fund and own new coal-fired power stations in Australia. It is a tragedy that the state of Victoria can no longer generate enough electricity at peak times because it has closed its coal-fired power stations and refuses to build any more. What will happen when their lights go out just like South Australia's did?
The mismanagement of the electricity market by inexperienced politicians is a sad moment in Australia's history because we have seen a huge transfer of taxpayer money to energy companies. Integrated energy companies have sought to profit from gaps in the electricity market legislation and rules and from government subsidies. AGL Energy has just posted profit for 2017-18 of over $1 billion. Do we need to provide this company with taxpayer subsidies? The government has wasted $10 billion on subsidies for renewable energy projects like wind farms. Currently companies are rushing to meet the 2020 deadline for these subsidies, which continue on to 2030. These massive subsidies have increased electricity prices and distorted the electricity marketplace. The government cannot guarantee prices will go down under their NEG agreement. What have they got to lose if they don't? Who do you complain to?
Electricity is a major cost in agriculture. The high cost of electricity together with drought conditions in eastern Australia threatens the lives of Australians on whom we depend to provide food on our tables. The major parties want high levels of immigration, but they have forgotten to provide new water supply and cheap electricity. The failure to build new dams and new coal-fired power stations in the face of high levels of immigration can only end in tears because costs for essential services must go up and take an increasing share of our income. It is a scandal that hundreds of households a week are being disconnected because they cannot pay their electricity bill. It is very telling when a radio station in Adelaide has a competition in which you can win money equal to your electricity bill.
Australians would be shocked to know of the huge bureaucracy they now fund in the name of the National Electricity Market, which interconnects Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Further, they would be shocked to know about the level of profiteering by electricity generators, retailers and transmission line owners who have feathered their nests using the National Electricity Law and the National Electricity Rules. The national energy market, which is a partnership between government and business, is a monumental failure, and, to make things worse, the companies receiving some of the biggest subsidies are foreign-owned multinationals who pay no tax in Australia. For example, Energy Australia, a foreign-owned multinational resident in Hong Kong, has 2.6 million household and residential customers but pays no tax in Australia. Windfarms owned by non-resident companies have received large government subsidies. Some of these companies have also donated generously to platforms like GetUp! which lobby for more renewable energy.
State governments have also been quick to profit from the formation of the national energy market. The Queensland state government's owns the transmission lines and much of the generation capacity and uses its monopoly to gouge Queenslanders so it can make ends meet. It is a form of hidden taxation when approximately 50 per cent of your electricity bill goes to the transmission line provider which is a state government. Prior to the formation of the National Electricity Market in December 1998, each state managed its own electricity generation. Electricity prices were low and globally competitive.
A country which owns so much coal and natural gas should have globally competitive electricity prices, and the only reason we do not is that consecutive governments have mismanaged those resources. It is difficult for ordinary Australians to be informed about the issues concerning electricity supply and price. Quite reasonably, they think they can trust their elected representatives to sort through the detail. But I am here to tell you the public-private partnership that is our National Electricity Market is a swamp. The swamp is filled with crocodiles and the swamp needs to be drained.
It is not too late to undo the harm of chasing useless emission targets, because we can build new coal-fired power stations and open the debate on nuclear energy. But voters are going to need to vote for minor parties because the major parties have the same electricity policy, which is to increasingly rely on unreliable forms of energy while leading us down the path of destroying our standard of living, industries, manufacturing and the farming sector. (Time expired)
Parliamentary democracy is underrated as a safeguard of personal liberty. From the outside, the perception is that parliament is mired in gridlock and inertia. That is a source of frequent criticism from the media and the general public. Yet the checks and balances of the legislative process are what give democratic outcomes their rigour and legitimacy. Within parliament, as we know, lawmaking is subject to a considerable scrutiny regime—and that is quite proper—intended by the framers of our Constitution.
This parliament is held accountable by a robust committee process, internal reviews and spirited debate on the chamber floor. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee, established back in 1932, monitors delegated legislation, and there is formal committee scrutiny of every bill. Of course, outside of this building, politicians are held to account by the cut and thrust of the political process and, of course, by the free media. The ultimate accountability before the general public is at the ballot box. None of this makes governing easy, but the fact that lawmakers are ultimately accountable to the people is what gives our system of government its moral authority. We respect the process even if we don't always agree with the outcomes. And that's true of both the federal and the state parliaments.
Yet none of these mechanisms protect us from the unelected. Indeed, many of today's most insidious threats sidestep the political process entirely. Recent efforts to purge the concept of gender from the Victorian Public Service and from the Defence Force are a case in point. Earlier this month, it was reported that the Australian Defence Force had introduced a language guide, warning new recruits that a failure to use gender-neutral language when referring to relationships or gender identities could be met with a charge of bullying. These revelations followed an announcement by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services a week earlier declaring the first Wednesday of every month as They Day, urging their staff to eschew gendered language in the workplace.
Unlike democratic lawmaking, the process which led these departments to veto the words 'he' and 'she' has been shrouded in bureaucratic secrecy. Who'd have thought that pronouns could be regarded as a form of aggression in modern Australia? Who were the architects of They Day and the Defence Force's new language guide? Was it an ambitious public servant who thought virtue-signalling their commitment to postmodern gender theory might mark them up in the eyes of their superiors, or was it perhaps a zealous HR manager keen to remove the threat of injury by bullying that might arise from a snowflake employee being offended by being addressed in a manner that differed from their preference?
I believe we live in a country in which we can sort out the issue of how to address each other simply by good manners. You call a person what they'd like to be called in the reasonable hope that you might get a similar courtesy in return. It's another thing entirely to make it the rule, backed up by the force of policy that flows into employment law. Will the minutes of departmental meetings and internal memos associated with these changes and policy ever see the light of day? I suspect not. Most importantly, why were the general public and their elected representatives not consulted on the decision to control acceptable work language on the pain of facing disciplinary action at work? I imagine there would be many people in our community who, like me, think this is going too far. You can't, or at least you shouldn't, impose human decency, respect or good manners. It must be a personal choice for it to have any value.
We should not forget that there are many in our community who feel strongly about the imposition of new language structures, because they see it as an attempt to delete from public discourse the traditional concepts of gender and family structures. It is also good manners to respect their deeply held view. But the real issue in all of this is that there is no oversight or accountability for this kind of social reform being implemented by stealth through bureaucratic policy. Although bureaucratic diktats like They Day lack the binding force of laws that are passed by this parliament, it's likely to be neither here nor there for employees who fall within their purview. After all, what prospects of promotion await the traditionally minded soldier or nurse who conscientiously continues to use he and she? Similarly, what option does the conservative army colonel seeking career advancement have but to parrot the full array of talking points? It used to be enough to simply do your job, mind your own business and be polite to your colleagues.
Advocates of gender-neutral pronouns claim the engendering of language is in the interests of tolerance and inclusivity. In truth, they have it back to front. It emanates from what former Prime Minister John Howard wisely labelled 'minority fundamentalism', whereby long-held customs, practices and beliefs are assumed to represent or imply an attack on those who support it. It's this kind of suspension of common sense that allows the use of 'he' and 'she' to be taken as a swipe at the minority of people who fall outside of these categories. This growing push to androgenise our vocabulary is about more than just language; it's about using the guise of civility to pathologise thought which doesn't conform to the minority fundamentalist world view. It was this alarming instinct to curb free thought which led Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson to risk censure before the Ontario Human Rights Commission by defying his province's diktat compelling the use of gender-neutral speech at all times. And herein lies their success in rewriting social norms without a mandate.
Minority fundamentalists recognise that the mainstream of Australia has a broadly conservative disposition that's wary of diving deeply into sweeping social change. And, rather than going door to door to persuade the public of their worldview—an avenue that I would respect, I must say—radicals have taken the lead of their European forebears and focused on capturing our culture by force. What Marxists in the 1960s dubbed 'the long march through the institutions' has been an overwhelming success. Now minority fundamentalists are keenly aware that they can realise their vision of the world far more swiftly by infiltrating unelected positions of cultural and political power. That's much easier than going through the inconvenience of public persuasion to obtain a democratic mandate. The universities, public education, the arts and even the corporate sector of late are testament to their success. Aided by an apathetic majority often cowed by political correctness, these fundamentalists are no longer knocking at the gate; they're well and truly inside it. They've never been in a stronger position to stage an assault on time-tested traditions and values.
The irony is that all of this tolerance has delivered the very opposite. If you're not sure that that's so, try using a few unauthorised pronouns in your Public Service or corporate workplace and see what HR has to say about it.
Senate adjourned at 20:01