Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:06): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today.

This week is a very sad week for our nation. It is a nation that went to an election and was given a warrant by the highest elected office holder in the land at that time that there would be no carbon tax under the govern­ment she led. Now we are apparently going to go down that path. Unfortunately, we will have no government under the carbon tax she leads. It is sad that at this point in time, with all the precarious things that are happening on the global economic front, we would be foolish enough to go down this path, ignoring the fallout that is happening in Europe as we speak.

We are on the edge of a precipice. This government is just completely and utterly self-indulgent. It also shows the power in our nation that the Australian Greens have now. The Labor Party is obviously tied in the most intricate form in its policy structure to what was in the past a peripheral party. The Greens' desire for Australia is one in which there is no coalmining. The Greens do not believe in a coalmining industry for Australia, they do not believe in live cattle exports, they do not believe in the irrigation industry of the Murray-Darling Basin—they do not believe in so much of what is fundamentally important to keeping our nation strong.

They say all these mystical things. They talk about compensation. You only need compensation if you have been hurt. No one ever pays compensation to somebody who has not been afflicted. That in itself is an admission of the sorts of problems we are going to have. They talk about the compen­sation package for the steel industry. Quite obviously they recognise that the steel industry will get smashed. They talk about the compensation package for pensioners, and of course that is a recognition that the pensioners are going to get smashed. They talk about giving people back some of their own money, and they expect people to say thank you for it. It is just an absurd kafkaesque policy.

The whole point of a carbon tax is a pricing mechanism to make things dearer. That is how it works. If that does not happen, there is no point to it. If it does work, then it is totally dangerous and we should not be doing it. Power is not currently free. There is a very high price for power. Many people struggle with the price of power as it is and they do not need any more incentive not to use power. We are seeing in the United States the highest levels of poverty since 1964, and we see similar things in Europe. We should be doing everything we can in our nation to draw the wagons into a circle, to make our nation strong.

It is absurd that we are going down this path right now. When I last checked our debt was $211,392 billion. We borrowed in excess of $2 billion just last week. Jeffrey Sachs says that $3 billion would be the annual cost of curing malaria in Africa. We borrowed that in 1½ weeks. We have to pay this money back. If we do not pay this money back, our nation will be in so much strife and so much trouble. How do we pay the money back? We put ourselves in a strong position. We accentuate the areas where we are strong. We are strong in the export of minerals and in the production of agriculture. What on earth are we doing putting a tax on these things? One of the greatest fundamentals we ever delivered to this nation was a fair standard of living. This is a direct attack on our Australian standard of living.

The question at the essence of this tax that those opposite never answer is how much will this tax that they are about to impose on Australia cool the temperature of the globe? The answer is that it will do absolutely nothing to the temperature of the globe. It is merely a gesture. We are inflicting the privations of poverty on people who cannot afford it, all for a gesture. And this has come from the Labor Party. They used to represent the people who are doing it tough, but now they are not—they have been hijacked by a very particular group in Australia, the Australian Greens, and this will destroy our nation and it will destroy the Australian Labor Party.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (15:11): Senator Joyce started off by saying what a sad week it was, but what is really sad about this week is that those on the other side are still naysayers and sceptics. Everybody on this side knows that introducing a price on carbon is the right thing to do for the economy and that cutting carbon pollution will help to drive investment in clean energy technologies and the infrastructure asso­ciated with that in areas such as solar, gas and wind. It will help build the clean energy future that future generations deserve. I have great concern about what we are leaving future generations. When there is a chance for us to make something better and try to repair some of the damage that has been done, it is incumbent upon the government to take action to do that—not to just, like those on the other side, misrepresent, misconstrue and misreport anything that comes across the desk in regard to clean energy and carbon pricing.

Most of question time was taken up with this issue today and I am sure that will continue to occur for the rest of the week. A number of mistruths or misconceptions were put forward in question time. I did hear one big misconception put forward—although, due to the number of interjections by those on the other side, it gets a bit hard to hear sometimes.

Senator Boyce interjecting—

Senator BILYK: I rest my case. We sit here patiently and listen to all they have to say but their manners are astounding—they have to interject. They cannot help themselves. Obviously they like the sound of their own voices. Areas like China, Japan, the US and India are moving in a similar direction, yet those opposite are saying that other countries are doing nothing. I have heard them say that on many occasions, and it is simply not true. As I have said, it is important that we do this for future generations—for our children, our grandchil­dren and our great-grandchildren. Delaying this action will cause enormous problems. We are well aware that those on the other side like to oppose for opposing's sake. They consistently and persistently do it, as we heard all through question time and as we hear out there when they have their mates running ads to try to stop carbon pricing going through. They run the scare campaigns but I think people are seeing through them. I consider it an absolute abuse of power by those on the other side. I think they need to come clean about what is happening.

Mr Deputy President, this will probably be of great interest to you. I have some statistics about how carbon price household assistance will help Tasmania, which is the home state of both you and me. In case you were not aware, Mr Deputy President, more than 102,300 pensioners in Tasmania will receive in their pension payments an extra $338 extra per year if they are single and up to $510 per year if they are a couple. This is very important to pensioners within Tasmania and, in fact, throughout the nation. More than 45,600 families in Tasmania will receive household assistance through their family assistance payments.

Yes, we are compensating people for the fact that there needs to be a carbon price, but those on the other side have the audacity to say that we should not have to compensate people unless they are damaged. I do not think taking $1,300 off every person is any better. In fact, the direct, no-action policy that those on the other side and Mr Abbott adhere to has big problems. On the Gillard government side, we are working hard to make sure that more than 5,300 self-funded retirees in Tasmania will receive an extra $338 a year in assistance for singles and up to $510 per year for couples combined.

Mr Deputy President, I know you will be interested in this because you are quite concerned with people in jobs: more than 18,900 jobseekers in Tasmania will also get up to $218 extra per year for singles and $390 per year— (Time expired)

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (15:16): The carbon tax is a bad tax based on a lie. The original deception of the Australian people was in the lead up to the last election, when the Prime Minister promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Even now, the Labor-Green alliance continues to deceive the Australian people. The reason it wants to rush this legislation through the parliament this week is because it knows that every day that goes by with more parliamentary scrutiny, more flaws and more deceptions will be exposed.

The Labor-Green alliance wants people to believe that the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme which is to follow will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but the carbon tax will do nothing of the sort. It will not even reduce emissions here in Australia. In the past, when we debated the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation proposed by the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, I was concerned that the proposal was to reduce emissions in Australia in a way that would just shift them overseas into areas where emissions would be higher than they would be in Australia. To a degree that is still true under this bad carbon tax because, while emissions under the carbon tax will be somewhat lower in Australia than they otherwise would be, under the government's carbon pricing package emissions in Australia will continue to grow.

Do not take my word for it. When I asked Senator Wong today during question time to explain and confirm that she was not prepared to do so, but this information comes directly out of the Treasury's own modelling; it is there in black and white. Emissions now are 578 million tonnes. According to the Treasury modelling, under the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme, emissions in 2020 will be 621 million tonnes. So emissions will go up. The government argues, 'Yes, but emissions will be lower than they otherwise would have been, so it is fair for us to claim that somehow emissions will go down.' Okay, if your argument is that something is falling even though it is going up, on the basis that it will be lower than it otherwise would have been, what about jobs? What about real wages? What about the economy? The Treasury modelling shows that, under the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme, Australia's GDP will be 2.8 per cent lower by 2050 than it otherwise would have been. Using the government's rhetoric and spin in relation to emissions, that means that the economy is actually going to shrink. Economic growth is going to fall. This is the government's language. The Treasury modelling indicates that under the carbon tax real wages will be more than five per cent lower by 2050 than it otherwise would be. So real wages are falling. If you use the government's argument that emiss­ions in Australia are falling even though they are going from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes, because they will be lower than it otherwise would have been, then that means that real wages will fall, because they will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

The point here is that the carbon tax—a tax that the people of Australia do not want and which the government is pursuing and ramming through the parliament in defiance of the Australian people—will push up the cost of everything, will reduce our interna­tional competitiveness, will cost jobs and will result in lower wages. It will do all of that while emissions will continue to grow.

One final observation in relation to some of the comments by Senator Carr on local content is that if the Prime Minister were serious about achieving more local content she would scrap her carbon tax, which will make locally manufactured goods more expensive. Under the carbon tax we are in a ludicrous situation where higher emitting manufacturers overseas will become more competitive than lower emitting businesses in Australia. As higher emitting businesses overseas take market share away from us emissions internationally will go up, not down. This whole carbon tax is a joke. It is a bad tax based on a lie. The Labor Party knows it, which is why it wants to ram it through the parliament.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:21): I start by acknowledging and thanking Senator Wong for the information, the education and the conviction that she gave in her answers in question time today on issues relating to our clean energy bills and in relation to climate change. However, what we know on this side of the chamber is that the opposition continues to oppose everything in relation to clean energy and climate change despite the science, despite the activity in our global economy and despite what is happening in other countries introducing their own emiss­ions trading schemes. Instead, the opposition would prefer to continue to run scare campaigns that will do nothing to move Australia's economy into a transformed, clean energy economy, will do nothing for prosperity and will do nothing to ensure that we are playing our part in the global arena, both environmentally and economically, in relation to climate change—something that, as I said, the science is clear on and something that needs our action.

We believe in moving Australia forward into a clean energy economy. We believe in that important transformation that needs to take place. That is why, like the rest of the globe, Australia will have a price on clean energy goods and services, to ensure that we have a competitive economy with the rest of the globe in relation to clean energy. That relates very much to manufacturing, as Senator Cormann touched on, in his most negative fashion, just previously. That is because manufacturing is an important component in our transformation to a clean energy economy. That is why the Clean Energy Future package includes extensive support for Australia's manufacturing industry—a $9.2 billion Jobs and Competi­tiveness Program which will shield heavy industry sectors like steelmaking, aluminium production and glass and paper manufactur­ing from the carbon price and support jobs in Australia. On top of that, it will provide an additional $300 million for steel transform­ation, with a Steel Transformation Plan to provide extra assistance for steelmakers in this transformation to a clean energy future.

This is an incredibly important week. We have not had our chance yet in this place to debate the clean energy bills, but this week in the House of Representatives they will be doing just that. They will be voting this week on the government's Clean Energy Future legislation, which will let us get on with the job of tackling climate change, playing our role as a nation by putting a price on carbon so that we can ensure that we can play a competitive role, along with other nations, including the European Union, with an emissions trading scheme. The legislation that we will get to debate in here puts the price tag on only around 500 of our biggest polluters, and every cent of the revenue raised will be used to assist households, to support jobs and competitiveness and to invest in clean energy and climate change programs.

These are good things that are coming out of putting a price on carbon, something that the opposition continue to simply ignore. They do not want to know about the good things that come about from these clean energy bills. They do not want to admit and accept that what we have here in this significant reform for this nation will in fact be good for people, good for the environment, good for the climate and good for our Australian economy as we play the role that we need to in a globally competitive environment.

Some of those good things include assisting households with tax cuts and raising the tax-free threshold to $18½ thousand—something that will benefit thousands upon thousands of low-income Australians. That is a really good thing that is coming out of these clean energy bills. On top of that, we are increasing family payments and raising pensions and allowances—another good thing that the Gillard Labor government are doing for people in these bills. Not only is this package good for people and for the economy but it is also— (Time expired)

Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (15:26): I am indebted to the Queensland Resources Council for pointing out that tomorrow is Pudding Day. It is the 93rd anniversary of the publication of The Magic Pudding, Norman Lindsay's book—which I think everyone here will know—about a pudding that could be eaten over and over again and magically resume its wholeness. The magic pudding, of course, has come to be emblematic of situations where various vested interests have sought to take a piece out of a growth sector of the economy and believed that the sector would suffer no harm and simply renew and reform itself. How very appropriate, the Queensland Resources Council points out, that the vote on the Gillard government's carbon tax legislation is going to be on Pudding Day.

The so-called Clean Energy Future set of bills is a classic case of magic pudding public policy. The government seem to think that we can go it alone. Despite the protestations of the government there are very small sections in Europe, China and some states of America where carbon tax policies or emissions trading schemes have been introduced, and there is nothing with the sort of cost that is going to be imposed on Australia. There will be no magic pudding when we are talking about the world's biggest carbon tax, a tax that is based on a lie perpetrated by the Prime Minister during the election campaign in 2010.

The great magic pudding will in fact turn out to be a little piece of blancmange on the toes of the Gillard government. The analysis of federal Treasury modelling shows that the carbon pricing scheme will reduce national income by $1 trillion by 2050 and there will be a fall of 0.1 per cent every year from the introduction of the tax until 2050. When this is compounded, we are talking about a 2.8 per cent reduction in GDP. Minister Wong liked to claim that the opposition was running a scare campaign about jobs on the carbon tax. I am sorry, but the opposition has some very, very good company. This is not a scare campaign; this is the truth that the government fail to recognise. Probably they would include Mr Dick Warburton from Manufacturing Australia as one of the scare campaigners. The Rudd government did not think that when it appointed him to run an advisory group on emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. It did not think that when he was a director of the Reserve Bank. Both positions put him in a position to have a very good view of what will happen when this tax is introduced. He is not a scare campaigner; he is a genuine, committed Australian who wants to act in the national interest.

Let us look also at the National Generators Forum, which makes the remarkable comment—remarkable to this government, anyway—that it will pass on increased costs to consumers. What a bizarre idea. That should not happen, according to the government. The National Generators Forum says that the carbon tax will cost $40 billion extra in the generation of power to the end of 2019-20. The government can compensate all it likes, but there will not be enough.

There is a better way: it is to accept the coalition's direct action plan and support for renewable energy growth. It is to pass the amendments, which will be put to the House of Representatives this evening, to delay any proclamation of this bill until after an election. That would allow this government to find out and be brave about introducing this disastrous tax. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:31): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Rhiannon today relating to vocational education and training.

In response to my question on TAFE, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans, provided some interesting and worrying insights into the government's motivations. The minister failed to explain that federal government policy in VET and TAFE is increasingly based on reducing government investment in the sector, encouraging the growth of private providers, giving more control to business and increasing the contribution to the cost of their education by individual students. The VET sector is the worst funded education sector in Australia and has sustained reductions in government investment for almost 15 years. This is a matter of great interest to the people of New South Wales, where there are more than 550,000 students enrolled at TAFE institutes and campuses—there are 10 institutes and 130 campuses across our state. I congratulate the teachers in the TAFE system for the excellent work they do, despite years of government underfunding.

Governments have introduced income contingent loans into the VET sector to mask the effects of their policies, which have resulted in considerable increases in fees and charges to students. Governments are not proposing to introduce an income contingent loan scheme to help TAFE and VET students who are currently struggling with the cost of their education; they are introducing income contingent loans like VET FEE-HELP to mask the increased costs to students. The federal government argues that income contingent loans will encourage students and workers to enrol in TAFE and VET. That is not true, and history shows how untrue it is. In 1973, the Whitlam government abolished TAFE student fees. That resulted in enrolments increasing from 400,700 in 1973 to 671,013 students in 1975—a 59 per cent increase. That made such a difference to so many people's lives and helped to increase the skills base of this country.

At a time when our nation has ongoing, critical skills shortages and there are global fears of another financial crisis, changes which threaten the quality and affordability of TAFE will deter many from education and training and undermine the type of society we need to be building, particularly at this critical time, when we need to be working on the transition to a low-carbon economy. A variety of skills in our diverse section of our community is urgently needed.

The Productivity Places Program is also relevant to this debate. The PPP was a clumsy attempt by the federal government to cut costs in the TAFE and VET sector, and to increase the share of the so-called VET market held by private for-profit providers. Though it succeeded in these objectives, it failed students, industry and the community. More than 75 per cent of PPP funding went to private for-profit providers. The program was an attempt to privatise the TAFE system, effectively by stealth. You would have to say, when you look at the figures, that it is actually an example of the failure of the market in this area.

The Productivity Places Program was a hastily cobbled together election initiative of the former Rudd government. The $2.1 billion program was supposed to provide 711,000 new or additional places over five years. It did not achieve this. It was supposed to deliver higher qualifications in skills shortage areas, of which we have many. It failed to do so. It was inadequately funded, with many TAFE institutes unable to bid for places in the program because the funding allocated was less than half the cost of delivery. That skewed the program, making it attractive to private providers, who focused their activity on high-volume, low-cost courses, which, again, do not deliver the highly skilled workforce our country so urgently needs

To view the future, we can look at Victoria, where the coalition government has gone on an extensive program to push VET training into the marketplace. VET in Victoria was:

... confronted with an operating deficit of nearly $125m last year, after public payments to non-taste providers rose almost $140m to $275m.

That is nearly a doubling of costs. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (15:43): I, and also on behalf of Senator Moore and Senator Humphries, move:

That the Senate—

(a)   notes that:

   (i)   10 October was World Mental Health Day which aims to raise public awareness about mental health issues worldwide,

   (ii)   this event promotes open discussions on illnesses, as well as investments in prevention and treatment services,

   (iii)   Mental Health Day falls within Mental Health Week which in 2011 will be celebrated from 9 October to 15 October 2011,

   (iv)   1 in 5 of us in 2011 will experience a mental illness and at any given time more than 600 000 Australians are affected by severe mental illness,

   (v)   ready access to services can dramatically reduce long-term disability resulting from mental illness, and

   (vi)   all Australians share a responsibility to minimise the discrimination faced by people affected by mental illness;

(b)   recognises that:

   (i)   mental illness is experienced across a lifespan and most illnesses emerge before the age of 25,

   (ii)   most people affected by mental illness can recover a good quality of life with the right supports and community acceptance,

   (iii)   services responding to mental illness should not be confined to health care and community based services have an important role to play,

   (iv)   services must recognise and respond to the impact of mental illness on families and carers, and

   (v)   in the Australian context better integration of Commonwealth and state services is essential to deliver the holistic care required by people experiencing mental illness as well as their families and friends; and

(c)   calls on the Government to:

   (i)   collaborate effectively across all tiers of government and across the full range of health, community, housing, employment and education services to ensure properly integrated responses to mental illness,

   (ii)   recognise that the health system's response to mental illness must address the poor physical health status of people affected by mental illness, including higher rates of most major diseases and reduced life expectancy, and

   (iii)   recognise that the burden of mental illness ranks among the most serious health problems faced by Australians and continue to build the capacity of the mental health system to reflect this.

Question agreed to.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (15:44): I move:

That the Senate—

(a)   notes:

   (i)   that the Northern Territory Government adopted legislation to launch a territory-wide container deposit scheme from 12 January 2010,

   (ii)   that Coca Cola Amatil has proposed legal action against the Northern Territory Government citing a breach of section 9 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, and

   (iii)   Clean Up Australia's activities throughout Australia over the weekend of 16 September and 17 September 2011; and

(b)   calls on the Australian Government to adopt a container deposit scheme by all states and territories, effectively annulling the proposed court action by Coca Cola Amatil.

Question put.

The Senate divided. [15:49]

(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:52): I move:

That the Senate—

(a)   notes the current dismal state of debate on asylum seeker policy in Australia with:

   (i)   the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) calling the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) hypocritical, and

   (ii)   the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) calling the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) hypocritical; and

(b)   calls for Australia's international refugee obligations to be respected.

Question put.

The Senate divided. [15:53]

(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:56): I move:

That the Senate—

(a)   notes the asseveration of the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) that, in the issue of relations between Palestine and Israel, 'direct negotiation is the only true path to peace';

(b)   recognises that negotiations are most likely to succeed if they are between equals; and

(c)   backs the United Nations initiative for recognition of Palestine as a member state.

Question put.

The Senate divided. [15:57]

(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:00): I move:

That the first bill listed for private senators' time each week shall be brought to a third reading vote, unless the Senate, on that day, decides otherwise.

Question put.

The Senate divided. [16:02]

(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:05): I move:

That the Senate—

(a)   notes the recent motion passed by the Tasmanian Parliament regarding same-sex marriage that stated that the House:

   (i)   supports marriage equality, and

   (ii)   calls on the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to amend the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to provide for marriage equality; and

(b)   accepts the call for marriage equality.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (16:05): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for two minutes.

Senator LUDWIG: The Australian Labor Party's position on this issue of same-sex marriage is consistent with the party's national platform. The Prime Minister has made it clear that this will be the subject of a debate at the ALP national conference in December when the party platform will be reviewed and debated.

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:06): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for two minutes.

Senator BOB BROWN: That statement from the Manager of Government Business in the Senate should not deter Labor senators, like Senator Carol Brown, from supporting this motion, which went through the state parliament. The motion calls on the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to amend the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to provide for marriage equality. This motion should be supported by those Labor members who have already made it clear that they support this very motion.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Hanson-Young's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:11]

(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A letter has been received from Senator Fifield:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The harmful and damaging effects of the Gillard Government's proposed carbon tax on regional Australia.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (16:14): It is very timely that this matter be debated in the Senate. This is a disaster facing Australia—a carbon tax—and it will be a greater disaster for rural and regional Australia, where everything has to be carried in or taken out. It is going to be not only a carbon tax but a tax on transport that fits in with a carbon tax, and rural Australia is going to pay a very heavy price for this.

It does not really have to. The Labor vote in New England was eight per cent, and the Labor vote in Lyne was 13 per cent, yet those representatives are going to vote for a carbon tax that is going to hit rural and regional Australia desperately. When you think about this, you would have to think this is the greatest sell-out since Judas Iscariot took 30 pieces of silver. That is what it amounts to. These people have betrayed their electorates. The National Party whip took a survey the other day in New England and in Lyne, and that vote was 89 per cent against a carbon tax in New England and 87 per cent against a carbon tax in Lyne. Yet these two people are going to vote for a carbon tax that is going to hit their electorates harder than any other electorates. What a betrayal! What an absolute, total betrayal of the people that they represent! I expect both of them are looking for alternative areas to get an income from after the next election, and that next election is going to come around one way or another—maybe in three months time; maybe in six months time—and the people are going to seek their vengeance for this carbon tax. But none will be seeking it harder than the people in regional Australia.

But, before we get onto the effects of what is going to happen in regional Australia, this carbon tax really is unworkable. The Labor Party say that it is the greatest thing for Australia, but there is no modelling done. Senator Wong has said today that the modelling is available. ABARES modelling is not available. The ABARES modelling that this carbon tax is based on is not available. I have asked questions in the estimates committee. People have gone down and tried to buy it and have been refused. So how can anyone go to Australia and say, 'Here is a plan, and that plan is based on a model, but no-one has seen the model'? It is not just Senator Ron Boswell saying that; it is people like McKibbin and Ergas, who are some of the most prominent economists in Australia. They cannot get the model. They do not know what is in the modelling.

The modelling is based on assumptions, and the assumptions are that the rest of the world is going to do this by 2016. The rest of the world have shown no indication of doing it at all—none whatsoever—yet the Labor Party merrily goes along and says, 'The modelling is there.' The modelling is not there, and I will give a donation to the Labor Party if it produces this modelling. I will even give it to your union, Senator Cameron. That is how confident I am that the modelling is not available and never will be available, because if it were available then it would be out there in a package put in every letterbox if it proved that the Labor Party modelling was accurate and that there would be more jobs and more income coming in. The reason that modelling is not available and never will be available is that it would disprove what the Labor Party have said. The committee has written to the Treasurer, and the Treasurer has said the modelling is not available. People in various peak bodies have gone down and tried to find the modelling, yet we are told it is not available.

So the whole thing becomes a farce. The whole carbon tax is a farce because there is nothing it is based on—only the assumption that the rest of the world is going to get there by 2016. India is not going to get there. America is not going to be in it. Tokyo will not do it if America does not do it. India has said it is not going to do it. Jakarta cannot do it. The rest of the world will not get there. Yet we proceed down here, and the people that are going to get crunched the hardest are going to be the people from rural and regional Australia.

When you go through it and look at all industries out there—the dairy industry; the aviation industry; abattoirs; fruit; vegetables; fish processors—everything that moves in and out of Australia's regional areas is going to get hit. The greatest creator of jobs in Australia at the moment—it employs 200,000 people in rural and regional Australia—is the mining industry. It has 200,000 direct employees and 600,000 indirect employees, and it accounts for 55 per cent of the exports in Australia. One in four regional jobs depends on exports, and a carbon tax is going to hit that industry to the tune of $25 billion. That is what the carbon tax is going to cost. That is not what the mining tax is going to cost on top of that; that is what the carbon tax is going to cost. Then to come in here and say, 'Well, we're going to create jobs; everything's going to be all right in rural Australia,' is just an absolute nonsense, and the fact is that everyone knows it. That is why the vote of the Labor Party is so low. That is why the Labor Party is bottoming out at around 26 per cent. The sooner the election comes, the better it will be for all of us. I had a call the other day from a very irate person. He said I could use his name, so I will use his name. People in Brisbane will know the company I am talking about. It is Morgans Seafoods from Redcliffe. Morgans have a fishing company and they have a restaurant. In the restaurant, electricity charges are going to go up $7,856 in 2013 and by 2015 they will have gone up by $8,679. That is for the restaurant. For their wholesale fish coldroom, electricity charges will go up $16,982—effectively $17,000—in 2014 and by 2015 they will have gone up by $18,762.

Every farm that produces fruit or vegetables has a coldroom. The carbon tax will mean those coldrooms will cost an extra $15,000, $16,000 or $18,000 to run. Every farm that produces food puts it in a coldroom. It is transferred in a refrigerated truck into another coldroom. So there is going to be a carbon tax on every piece of food that goes into or out of a farm.

There is going to be a carbon tax on fuel. It starts off at 6c a litre and it works its way up. For vehicles that are under 4½ tonnes, it starts off at 5.52c in 2013 and in 2014 it goes to nearly 7c. That is going to add to the cost of every piece of food— (Time expired)

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (16:24): I always like following Senator Boswell in a debate on climate change because I always like to say that at least Senator Boswell is not like the majority of the coalition in the Senate—he does not hide the fact that he does not believe in climate change. Senator Boswell does not think that the sea level will rise; Senator Boswell does not think it is going to get warmer; Senator Boswell does not think that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat; and Senator Boswell thinks that we can keep ploughing CO2 into the atmosphere, polluting the atmosphere, with absolutely no consequences. At least Senator Boswell actually believes that.

The ones who are the problem are those in the coalition who actually know that CO2 is damaging to the future of this planet and who actually know that future generations will pay a huge price in their living standards and in terms of the environment. They are the ones who will pay the price—future generations. It is clear on any economic analysis that the best way to deal with carbon pollution is to put a price on that pollution. Senator Boswell says that no-one is doing anything. That is part of the misinformation; that is part of the fear campaign that is underpinning the coalition's approach to this very important issue. In fact, the opposite is the truth. China is the biggest producer and user of renewables—

Senator Williams: And coal.

Senator CAMERON: Senator Williams says they are also the biggest producer of coal. That is correct—they are the biggest producer of coal, they are the biggest user of coal and they are at the forefront, along with the Australian government, in trying to produce carbon capture and storage processes to make sure that we can continue to use coal.

The scare campaign which has been run by the coalition is simply short-termism. It is about trying to get short-term political advantage. It is about saying, 'We do not really care about future generations.' You do not care about my grandkids. Some of you do not even care about your own family's future if there is some kind of short-term advantage politically. The scientific facts are clear—there is an imperative to deal with climate change. Some in the coalition understand this. The member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, knows that full well. He knows that you have to deal with climate change. Your former leader was knocked off because he actually spoke the truth in the coalition party room. He was knocked off because he said the best way to deal with climate change is to put a price on carbon.

The majority in the coalition actually reject the science. They are antiscientific. They are absolutely antiscientific.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Senator CAMERON: You can hear the groans coming from the coalition—the groans and moans: 'They've got us again. Yes, we are antiscientific, but please don't tell us, because we don't like being told that we are antiscientific.' You are absolutely antiscientific, because the science says that you have to deal with climate change and what is your answer to that? Your answer is: direct action. What is direct action? Direct action is a fraud. Direct action is the biggest fraud anyone has ever attempted to perpetrate on the Australian community. It is such a fraud—the CSIRO has looked at the argument that you can have all of this climate abatement through soil carbon and has said that it is not achievable.

You will be consigning future generations to ever-increasing sea levels, ever-increasing carbon in the atmosphere and ever-increasing environmental problems, affecting their ability to have a decent life. There is a sound economic basis for what the government is doing; there is absolutely no economic basis for the coalition's policy. The argument that we are acting alone is wrong. The European Union has its carbon abatement scheme in place—a carbon trading scheme—and the rest of the world is moving to reduce carbon. The Commonwealth's modelling is the most effective modelling around to predict what will happen.

We heard a bit said earlier about Professor Henry Ergas. It always amuses me to hear the coalition use Professor Ergas as an expert on what should be done. This is a man who ran a company that was put into liquidation. He tells us at committee after committee: 'I can't run my own company. My company went into liquidation but listen to me and I will tell you how to run the country.' What an absolute joke! Up comes Professor Ergas time and time again, telling people what they should be doing when he could not even run his own company. Maybe it was because the coalition did not pay their bills. I am not sure because he was the chief economist for the coalition in opposition and he was the guy who ran all of the coalition's arguments on economic policy. All of them were wrong; all of them were bad; all of them were crook. So do not quote Professor Ergas as some authority on anything when he could not even run his own company.

We heard the argument that there was all doom and gloom out there in the regions. I just had the good fortune to hear Mackay Sugar—what could be more regional than Mackay Sugar, a 140-year-old canegrowing company?—say that, yes, you have to put a price on carbon and yes, it is going to mean great opportunities for us. What are their opportunities? They are going to diversify their operation and they are constructing a $120 million renewable co-generation plant which will supply about one-third of Mackay's electricity. How can they do that? They can only do it because there is a price on carbon and there is a renewable energy target. It is a federal government initiative. That is the only thing they can do.

Senator Sterle: It's gone all quiet over there.

Senator CAMERON: It has gone all quiet over there. These are canegrowers, people who actually understand the economics of doing something. They said that they will contribute to Australia's renewable energy market. Their perspective is that it is not a job destroyer, that the $120 million co-generation plant was based on the 20 per cent renewable energy scheme. They say, 'The carbon tax should enhance our revenue from co-generation.' That is what is happening. 'And we are hoping it will allow us to go ahead with another co-gen plant within a couple of years. These projects typically employ about 250 people during the construction period and a dozen or so under operations.' So, hundreds of construction jobs and dozens of full-time jobs being created because we are taking an initiative to put a price on carbon. It is only those on the other side who would deny this. Not only do they deny the science, but also they deny the economics. If you accept the science then you have an obligation to put up a proposition that reduces our carbon pollution at the least cost price. That is what the government has done. We have taken advice and that advice is to put a price on carbon and let the market determine the price. You put your cap in place, you put your price in place and you allow the market to determine the process. That is what is important for this country because we are about the future, not the past. We are about science and not being unscientific. We are about ensuring that future generations have a way forward for a decent environment in this country.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:34): I must comment on the 'short political gain' to the coalition that Senator Cameron referred to on this issue. I wonder then how he regards Ms Gillard's promise four days before the election that 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I wonder if that was 'short political gain'? I think it would have been. What if she had said, 'If we win this election, we are going to introduce the biggest and most expensive carbon tax in the world and after three years we will move to an emissions trading scheme and, by the way, after two years we will inflict what Mr Sheldon from the Transport Workers Union calls a 'death tax' on the transport industry'?

But back to the debate about regional Australia. Senator Cameron only ever mentioned Mackay—he did not mention any more of regional Australia, where we now pay the highest electricity bills. In regional New South Wales we spend 25 per cent more on electricity than those consumers in Sydney. People in regional Victoria spend 30 per cent more on electricity than those in Melbourne. In regional Queensland, they spend six per cent more on electricity than those in Brisbane. This is the point that Senator Boswell made today about the cost on regional Australia.

We cannot have a Senate inquiry into this legislation. The house of review in our federal parliament cannot have an inquiry into the carbon tax. The government just shuts down the Senate and does not let it do its job. But in the recent inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation—it was an inquiry of just a few-weeks; it had to be guillotined and then shut down—the Nationals member for Dawson, Mr Christensen, quoted the following statement from Mr Garnaut's report:

From the commencement of an emissions trading scheme costs of agriculture inputs—electricity, liquid fuel and fertiliser—will rise. This will particularly affect parts of the sector where energy costs and energy-dependent costs are a large proportion of total costs.

These are the words of Professor Garnaut. When questioned about that quote Professor Garnaut said:

Yes, that is quite true and not at all inconsistent with what I have said before.

Mr Christensen, the member for Dawson, again quoted from Mr Garnaut's report, which said:

... imposing a carbon price in Australia ahead of similar carbon constraints in our trade competitors ... could result in some movement of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries from Australia to other countries that impose less of a carbon constraint.

That is what Professor Garnaut says. This is the point—what is going to happen to regional Australia?

We know about the deal done with the Greens. But the Independents—Tony Windsor, the member for New England, and Rob Oakeshott, the member for Lyne—said the deal for putting this government in place was all about protecting regional Australia. It is not uncommon for Mr Windsor to do surveys in his electorate. He did a recent survey on taxation reform, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. He got 1,600 responses to the survey from right throughout his electorate. Recently I sent out 57,000 survey forms on the carbon tax in the seat of New England, where there are about 93,000 voters. I did not get 1,600 back—more than 5,000 were returned. Nine per cent of the forms were returned to my office. Those 9 per cent indicated that 89 per cent of the people in New England opposed the proposed carbon tax put together by Mr Windsor. He was the one who said proudly that one of the aspects of the deal to put Ms Gillard into the Lodge and Labor and the Greens alliance into government was the formation of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, driven by Mr Windsor.

In the last parliament Mr Windsor put up a private members bill for a massive 30 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 based on 1990 levels, and by 2050 a massive 80 per cent. On ABC radio prior to the 21 August election last year, Kelly Fuller asked Mr Windsor why he put those bills in and he said they were not his bills; he was just putting them in on behalf of some of his constituents, representing his constituents. He ran adverts saying he was the people's representative, but he will not survey the people of New England on his proposed carbon tax that he has worked on putting together with the committee.

I sent 62,000 survey forms out into the seat of Lyne, held by Independent Rob Oakeshott, and 3,740 households want Rob Oakeshott to vote against the carbon tax and just 542 want him to vote for it. On that basis, 87 per cent of the people in Lyne do not want this carbon tax to proceed. These are the two Independents that keep the government in government. Are they the people's representatives? Not only were those forms returned, but there were many comments. There was a comment from Glen Innes saying:

... disgusting the way Labor twists their failures and blames others, Tony Windsor betrayed us. Labor do not care for the people—they are self driven.

One person in Inverell said they:

... will not vote for an Independent again State or Federal.

From Tamworth, where we had the biggest opposition to the carbon tax, 1,278 households opposed the carbon tax and just 217 supported it. Tamworth people said:

Windsor sold us out. We cannot get any poorer. What is next—will Gillard send us out in boats and get more in?

They are some of the many comments written on the survey forms. So what do we have? We have a carbon tax proposal for regional Australia. As I said, we already pay the extra electricity costs. We have the extra cost of many goods because of the freight component, and that is going to go up. There is even a tax on domestic airlines. What about crop dusters and other agricultural planes? They have been classified as domestic airlines. Crop dusters in Armadale will be paying an extra $40,000 a year on their fuel costs alone—to do what?

Last year China increased their consumption of coal by 434 million tonnes. Australia's total production of coal last year was 420 million tonnes. We are one of the few countries that actually burnt less than we did the year before—3.6 per cent less. China is now producing 51 per cent of the world's coal and they consumed, last year, 3,200 million tonnes of coal. As I said, their consumption increased by more in one year than the whole of Australia's output of coal—and we are going to save the planet! According to Treasury figures, this year China will produce 10.3 billion tonnes of CO2. That will go up to 17.9 billion tonnes by 2020—a 7,600 million tonne increase in CO2by 2020. Australia's production is going to go up 43 million tonnes—and we are going to change the planet. After this tax there will be no more droughts in regional Australia, no more floods, and cyclones will disappear.

This is outrageous. The cost is greatest on regional Australia. As I said, people in the Labor Party, supported by the Transport Workers Union, should hang their heads in shame—a $510 million tax a year on the truckies when they have already introduced their Euro 5 motors, which are far cleaner than the older style motors, with far less pollution, though they do use 10 per cent more fuel. Hence the truckies have already paid their tax by cleaning up their motors. Tony Sheldon from the Transport Workers Union told the Senate inquiry, chaired by my colleague Senator Cormann, that this is a death tax on truckies. I think the words he used were that we were sweating the drivers longer and sweating the trucks longer, putting drivers' lives at risk. That is what the Transport Workers Union says. I wonder whether those on the other side, who are supported by the Transport Workers Union, will heed the warning of Mr Sheldon. This is a cost on regional Australia when we need the truckies to take our exports to the waterfront, when we need so much brought into our regions where we do not have rail networks. If only we had spent what we spent on school buildings on the rail network, or if the pink batts money had been spent on our rail network or our ports, then we would really have been making progress.

Today at question time I asked about the effect of the carbon tax on abattoirs. There will be a $1.74 million cost to the Bindaree Beef abattoir, in Inverell, in the first year. That cost will not be inflicted on abattoirs in America or Brazil, who we compete against—especially America. We are battling to keep our markets in Japan and Korea et cetera, but the Americans will not face that cost. They will simply be emitting more. That is why this is so wrong. It is a cost to the very sector that provides our nation's wealth. We have heard from the Australian coal industry what effect it will have on them. As I said, last year China increased its consumption of coal in one year by more than the whole of Australia's production of coal—but somehow we are going to change the planet, change the atmosphere, lower the temperatures and the lower the sea levels. It is a farce.

Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales) (16:44): This matter of public importance on carbon pricing before the Senate this afternoon is a clear demonstration of just how out of touch those opposite are when it comes to protecting the environment and the welfare and living standards of Australians living in rural and regional communities. If there is one group within those communities which stands to lose the most from inaction on climate change it is people in rural and regional economies. That is why this government is taking action on climate change. That is why we are acting to protect the long-term sustainability of our climate, regions and communities.

We believe that climate change is real. We believe that human induced activities are causing the warming of our planet. We heed the expert advice of scientists who, throughout the world and in Australia, have overwhelmingly said that the warming of the planet will see a greater incidence of floods, of extreme drought conditions, of coastal erosion and of extreme weather events. The nature of our climate and habitat and of our country and its position in the world mean that these risks associated with climate change will have a proportionately larger effect on many rural and regional commu­nities and industries, in particular Australia's agriculture and aquaculture industries.

This is a point that was very well made by a farmer who attended a forum put on by the member for Calare, John Cobb, in Bathurst on 29 August. I attended that forum as the duty senator for the seat of Calare. Unfortunately, the organisers of that forum did not allow me to speak. They did not want to hear what the government was doing to take action on climate change. But I was surprised when a farmer—quite a brave farmer—stood up in that forum and said that he believed that climate change was real. This person was a farmer who grew grapes for the wine industry in the local community, and he believed in climate change because he was beginning to see the effects on his crop. He was seeing changes in weather patterns. He was seeing a greater incidence of extreme weather events, including hail, and the potential damage that these would have on his crop. He was seeing pests appearing at times of the year that they were not supposed to appear. Most importantly, he said that he was investing in China. He had been to China and visited a number of regions there because of investment opportunities, and he was blown away by the fact that the Chinese government was taking action on climate change, that the Chinese economy is the biggest producer of wind turbines and of solar energy in the world and that the Chinese government has a five-year plan to transition to an emissions trading scheme. His message to those people at the forum was: we need to get on board. We, as a community, a government and a nation, need to take action on climate change, and the longer we wait the greater the cost will be for our communities—particularly for those who live in rural and regional areas.

The Garnaut climate change review highlighted some of the potential effects of climate change on rural and regional communities. It highlighted that changes in climate will produce extreme changes in temperature, rainfall and extreme weather events that will affect water availability and change water and soil quality. It will pose increasing fire risks for rural and regional communities. It will see an increasing incidence of pests affecting crops and an increasing incidence of noxious weeds and disease. Those who work and live in our regions and those who work the land understand the effects of climate change and the potential risks that it poses for their livelihoods and for their communities. Most importantly, they also understand the potential damage that is done by us not acting and the potential increase in costs that they will bear if we delay in taking action. They are the most vulnerable. They are the people at the front line, who will potentially be affected the most by climate change if we do not act.

The Garnaut climate change review found that irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin could decline by 92 per cent by 2100 if we do not take action to reduce carbon emissions. It also highlighted increases in sea temperatures and the effects that this will have on aquaculture. Again, those who are working on the front line understand the importance of taking action.

I want to draw the Senate's attention to a report by Surf Life Saving Australia. The erosion of our coastline is a potentially damaging effect of rising sea levels, and Surf Life Saving Australia has commissioned a study to develop a climate change adaptation road map that will assist in the management of projected climate change impacts. These are the people on the front line, protecting our communities in surf life saving week in and week out. This study has shown that of the 128 surf clubs in New South Wales 47 per cent are located in coastal zones classified as zones of potential instability. Many of these are in rural and regional communities. Here we have a well-respected community organisation understanding that we need to take action on climate change and supporting what the government is doing.

The government also understands that there will be impacts associated with the transition to a clean energy future, and that is why we are working with rural and regional communities to make sure that transition is a smooth one and that we protect the livelihoods and incomes of people who work our land. That is why the government has excluded agricultural land sectors from the carbon price. However, there will be opportunities for those in these land sectors to secure economic rewards under the Carbon Farming Initiative. If farmers do take voluntary action under the Carbon Farming Initiative then there will be opportunities in terms of the way that scheme works. I attended a carbon farmers conference in Dubbo on 29 September. I was pleasantly surprised by the submissions that were made to that conference. That conference drew together carbon farmers not only from throughout Australia but from throughout the world. Many of them understand the opportunities that the Carbon Farming Initiative and the government's Clean Energy Future package will pose for those who work, day in, day out, on our land. I was really heartened by the fact that many at that conference expressed the view to me and to those present that Australia leads the world when it comes to carbon farming initiatives and new carbon farming techniques. Many of those farmers presented to the conference on some of the initiatives that they were taking on their land, particularly their non-arable land, their hilly country, and the plantings that they were using as carbon sinks and the opportunities that will come from the Carbon Farming Initiative once it is up and running. So there is widespread support for the scheme amongst the farming community. I was pleasantly surprised and heartened by the representations from those carbon farmers at that conference in Dubbo in late September.

Senator Boswell has raised the issue of modelling. I find this surprising, given the Liberal Party's performance when it comes to modelling on the carbon tax. I draw the Senate's attention to the modelling that was undertaken by the New South Wales government on the potential effects of carbon pricing on regions. They found through their modelling that there would be effects on employment in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra. That is disputed and I will not go into that. But what they did not disclose to people was the fact that the modelling also showed that in other regions, including northern New South Wales, the mid-north coast and the south-east coast, there would be more job opportunities associated with the carbon pricing legislation—a clear demonstration of this misleading campaign that those opposite are running to try to hoodwink the public when it comes to this very important environmental issue.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:54): I seek leave to table the results of the carbon tax survey I carried out in the seats of Lyne and New England and have them incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

SURVEY OF THE NEW ENGLAND AND LYNE ELECTORATES

Subject — Carbon Tax

New England electorate — 57,700 forms distributed

Lyne electorate — 62,200 forms distributed.

Forms distributed by Australia Post w/c 19th September, 2011

RESULTS BY POSTCODE — NEW ENGLAND HOUSEHOLDS

RESULTS BY POSTCODE - LYNE

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (16:54): What we are seeing this afternoon from the Labor Party—and it was quite a tragic performance from the last speaker, I have to say—is regional Australia being represented by speakers from the Labor heartland on this matter of public importance debate on the impact on regional Australia of Labor's carbon tax. They have sent in speakers in from Labor's heartland, senators who have their offices in Sydney, in Springwood, in the CBD of Sydney and in North Melbourne—the heartland of regional Australia! The old adage comes straight to the fore: do not listen to what the government say; look at what they do. The description of the Carbon Farming Initiative that was given by Senator Thistlethwaite a moment ago just staggers me. He was obviously sent in here to do a job. I understand that. That is the role that the government senators have been given—they are sent in to defend the government's position. But at least have some understanding of what you are talking about.

I spent two days at the Burnie Show just a week ago talking to farmers. They were lining up to talk to me as we were setting our stand up, telling us what the impact was going to be on them and their farms, particularly the dairy farms. They know that the government's carbon tax is going to cost them on average $10,000 per dairy farm in direct costs and another $10,000 in costs back from the processor. The processing sector for food in this country—Australia's largest manufacturing sector—is severely hit by the carbon tax, and they know that the costs will be passed back to them, because that is what happens. So they are not fooled by all this rhetoric that is run out by the Labor Party in relation to the carbon tax.

Senator Williams talked about polling that he conducted in a couple of seats in New South Wales. There was some polling released in Tasmania on the Friday before last—in Burnie, just outside the show. That showed that 62 per cent of Tasmanians polled were either opposed to or unsure about the carbon tax—51 per cent of them directly opposed it and 11 per cent were unsure about it. The best that the government could do was 17 per cent—

Senator Carol Brown: Whose survey was that?

Senator COLBECK: It was done by EMRS actually, an independent poll. Only 17 per cent strongly supported the carbon tax. They cannot even do half the percentage of those that oppose it in Tasmania. That is also showing through in the more general polling about the government. In fact, there are predictions in Tasmania that the Labor Party will be third in the next poll, behind the Greens. You might be interested in that, Mr Acting Deputy President Ludlam. I know you cannot comment from the chair, but it might bring a smile to your face that the Labor Party could even be the third party in Tasmania at the next poll that comes along.

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Senator COLBECK: Another one of the city-centric senators has come in to talk about regional Australia. Welcome, Senator Marshall. It is good to see you here. It really is delightful to see you here to talk about regional Australia.

I was at a growers meeting on Wednesday night last week. They actually understand the climate. They understand seasonal varia­bility. What they are concerned about is their R&D dollar—how it is apportioned, how it is spent, how the extension from that works. They are not running out telling me that they want a carbon tax. In fact, the attitude to it in the room was quite contrary to what we are being told about, particularly by Senator Thistlethwaite, who obviously has ventured outside the city on the odd occasion to talk to some constituents—which is encouraging, I have to say.

But then you look at the direct impacts. I have already mentioned the impact on the dairy industry, which is significantly impacted. The dairy industry and the beef industry, which Senator Williams has already mentioned, are the two agricultural sectors that are most severely impacted. Prime Minister Gillard—the name that the Labor Party dare not utter in the current debate—dropped into King Island a few weeks ago on the way to Tasmania to have a chat to the locals about the carbon tax and a number of other things. She tried to convince constituents that the impact would be less than one per cent. Unsurprisingly, they did not believe the Prime Minister, because they know that the cost of shipping will increase because there is no exemption for shipping fuel and that the cost of aviation will increase because there is no exemption for aviation fuel. Everything that comes in and goes out of King Island is either shipped or flown. People know that they will disproportionately be impacted in their regional community because of the impact of the carbon tax.

It would be nice if members of the government were prepared to actually address the impact on regional Australia in their contributions to this debate. But they are not. They trot out the government's 'modelling' because that is all they have. Of course, regional Australia is expected to believe that the modelling which is done on a broad base can be extrapolated back to regional Australia. Regional Australians know it cannot be. The compensation, which is based on this broad based modelling, also does not fit regional Australia.

When the Prime Minister told constituents on King Island that they would be compen­sated for this less-than-one-per-cent cost to their economy (a) they did not believe that the cost would be limited to less than one per cent and (b) they obviously did not believe that the compensation would be adequate, either, because it will not. They know that the cost of their goods that come in by either ship or air will go up by more than that number. They know that, and that is borne out by the polling that has been done in Tasmania, which has the most regionally dispersed population of any state in the country. They know that and they understand that.

ABARES held their outlook conference in Launceston last week. The farmers actually do understand the real deficiencies in things like the Carbon Farming Initiative, where you cannot even plant a windbreak, because the government says it is common practice. We are not doing the things that we ought to be encouraging.

Then you come to what is as regional as anything that you will get, and that is my portfolio area, which is forestry. The government are not doing anything in that area that might be supportive of one industry that has a really strong capacity to benefit the globe. If that is what they say they want to do in respect of carbon storage, then they are driven by green prejudice and dogma. They exclude biomass from the carbon tax. Why? I have no answer to that, except for green dogma and prejudice. If you look at biomass—and the Greens have mentioned in this place our life-cycle costings of energy generation—you will see that it has four per cent of the emissions that coal has. So reduce your emissions by 96 per cent by using biomass. What do the Labor Party do? Obviously, at the insistence of the Greens—the Green masters say 'exclude biomass'—it is out of the carbon tax. Here we have a method where you could generate 8,000 gigawatts of energy without touching another twig or tree. Yet the Greens and the Labor Party rule this out. The Labor Party say that they are looking to reduce Australia's carbon emissions but what they really do in their legislation does not actually achieve that.

The Carbon Farming Initiative does not achieve that and the farmers know it. The carbon tax is a disaster for regional Australia and the farmers know it and they tell us. The Labor Party are right: the farmers are prepared to work with seasonal variation, they are prepared to manage their country sustainably, but the Labor Party's policy platform does not allow them to do that and does not provide incentives. Why rule out the opportunity to put in a windbreak? If a farmer is not doing that and you can put those trees, that biomass, which will store carbon as it grows, back into the landscape, why deny the capacity to do that? It is just absurd.

We hear rhetoric from the Labor Party, the dogma about the science and all that sort of stuff. I am not sure they actually believe it, because their policy at the end of the day does not achieve it. It certainly disadvantages regional Australia. Their modelling does not look at regional Australia; it just lumps them in with the rest of Australia and we are expected to accept this 0.7 of a per cent. Less than one per cent is what we are told time and time again, and it just will not work for regional Australia. (Time expired)

Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (17:05): The difficulty in engaging in this matter of public importance debate with the opposition is that they do not actually believe in climate change at all. They do not believe that the climate is changing and they certainly do not believe that the climate is changing due to human activity. The problem they have when coming into this place is that they do not want to engage in the science and they do not want to engage in a rational debate. All their utterances are about generating fear and trying to scare the public for their own short-term political opportunity. We see this because, while those over there say they do not believe in it and they do not believe that pollution is a bad thing for the environment, they still have their own policy, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions to the same level that we seek to reduce them to.

But the fundamental difference between the way the government goes about it and the way the opposition propose to go about it is that they say: 'You're still free to pollute. Pollute as much as you like. The biggest polluters in this country are free to continue to pollute our environment as much as they like.' The opposition will take taxpayers' dollars and give those taxpayers' dollars as a gift to those companies in the hope that they may introduce some carbon abatement and may reduce their emissions. They say, 'Pollute as much as you like,' and they expect us and the taxpayers to actually give those companies who are the biggest polluters taxpayers' money to help them through the process. Our approach is the one that is supported by the market. It is the approach that John Howard supported in the previous Liberal government. It is the approach that they came to after a long, detailed and lengthy study by Peter Shergold, on behalf of John Howard, for the previous coalition government. They came to the conclusion that the way to reduce our pollution of the environment was to put a price on it. There are a number of ways in which to put a price on it and, clearly, with our legislation we are now proceeding down a path of putting a price on pollution.

What is the importance of putting a price on pollution? We know the market reacts to price signals. Every time you put a price into the market, the market that has to pay that price will seek to avoid it. How will it avoid it? It will be avoided by doing things in a more efficient manner, by investing in clean technology and in materials that cost less to heat and less to cool and by having buildings that cost less to heat and less to cool. New products will be developed in order to avoid paying that price signal, which will affect the way business conducts itself.

It is very important to keep focused in this debate. We know that the tax that will apply to pollution will apply to the 500 biggest polluters, not to anyone else. But we know that many of those companies, certainly in the first instance, will simply seek to pass on some of those costs, and it will work its way through the economy. But all the money raised through that tax still sends that price signal. It still puts a price on pollution so that people will try to avoid that process all the way through the economy, all the way through the market. Every cent raised will go into supporting households, jobs and new technologies that will help industries and our society adapt to the very important challenge ahead of us—that is, reducing pollution and the impact of human induced climate change.

I do believe in the science, and right across the world everyone else does. Australia is a little odd in the sense that we are having this debate when, really, the science has been settled for a long time. As a developed country we are in the position of knowing the effect of human induced climate change. We know what we have to do about it. We know that we can do something about it, yet those in the opposition simply seek to avoid the whole issue and use it as a political opportunity. Instead of taking the responsible path of acknowledging that the science is there, that overwhelming science is there, that we need to act and that we need to change the way in which we act in our society to reduce pollution, instead of acknowledging that we need to do something about it, they simply say: 'It's not real. It doesn't exist. Pollution is safe.' In fact, I think they have started up Friends of CO2. I think that former senator Nick Minchin and several other senators that I see on the other side—well, there are only three of them—

Senator Cash: The three likely culprits.

Senator MARSHALL: But three of the best ones, and they have probably joined the club too. Really, it is such an irrational process they have engaged in; they seek to engage in an irrational debate. But on this side of the chamber we know what we have to do and we know why we have to do it. I for one am not going to be condemned by my children and my grandchildren, and everyone else's children and grandchildren, for being part of the generation that probably consumed more of the Earth's resources than any other and that knew about the impact of climate change but refused to stand up and take responsibility for doing something about it when we could do something about it. We know, and every economist will tell you, that the earlier we act to reduce human emissions the cheaper it will be. John Howard knew it because that was the result of Peter Shergold's study. That is why the coalition had a plan which was effectively a carbon tax plan, and that is why we have one too. We know that the sooner we act the cheaper it will be for our economy.

We are not doing it for me; we are doing it for the next generation and the generations after that. We are taking responsibility for what has happened before us, but previous generations did know the impact of what we now know—that is, human induced climate change is actually happening. So we have an absolute obligation to act. We have a responsibility to future generations to act. We have an absolute responsibility to the environment to ensure that the market can help solve this problem for us. We as legislators need to do that. We need to put in place those market based signals and put a price on pollution.

That will drive many new industries. It will certainly change in many respects the way in which we work in our economy. But we will make sure that nine out of 10 households are not worse off. In fact they will be better off because we will put in place a compensation package to ensure that, whatever the impact of climate change is on them—and extensive economic modelling has been done on that—they will be compensated by the very tax that is raised from the biggest polluters. So we put the price signal on through the 500 biggest polluters, raise the money and compensate people with that money.

I have heard people say that that is just the money churn, but what they forget is how the market operates and how businesses will seek to become more cost-effective and more efficient. It will drive new technologies. It will drive R&D. People will seek to reduce their electricity bills. People will seek to reduce a whole range of polluting activities because that will now add a cost and, if they can avoid that cost, they will. If they do not try to avoid it, someone else will come along with a different style, a different technique or a different process, and they will avoid the cost and they will be cheaper. That is the way the market works. That competition will be there and it will drive innovation; it will drive a change in the way that we act in our environment. It is essential to this country that we do that not only in the cities but also in the country.

We are not the only country that is acting. Right around the world people are well ahead of us in what they are doing to fight human induced climate change and its impacts. It is happening all around the world. We really need to get over this scare campaign, this irrational position that is constantly put by the opposition. Accept the science and let us get on with our responsibility as legislators and as Australians to do this thing.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Boyce ): Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:57): I rise tonight to speak about a man who has spent the best part of his life representing the people of Launceston and surrounding areas in my home state of Tasmania. I feel honoured to call Ray Shipp a friend and I feel it is only appropriate that I say a few words about his 27 years in public office. A local boy, he grew up in Launceston where he and his father, Bill, built their driving school. Ray worked in the driver education business in Launceston, teaching new Australians and young people of Tasmania road safety and the correct attitude and responsibilities when driving. Ray spent many of the following years giving driving tips and road safety advice on local television and radio.

Ray was a member of the Legislative Council for the seat of Launceston from 1968 to 1982. He then stood successfully for the Launceston City Council in 1985. He was re-elected at each election thereafter. Ray also held the position of Deputy Mayor from 1994 to 1999. Ray's dedication to his council responsibilities has been unwavering. I cannot overemphasise or overstate the contribution Ray has made to our community. I also need to mention his wife, Gail. I know she has been Ray's biggest supporter over the years and I would like to place on the public record my thanks—and I am sure I speak on behalf of our local community in thanking her—for her wonderful support to allow Ray to make the contribution he has over so many years.

It could be said that Ray is of the old school. He was and is a true gentleman. He has always been first and foremost a listener. Then, when he needed to make a contribution, it was always well thought out and relevant to the conversation, debate or discussion that he was participating in. His long career added to these discussions, as he has an example or story for almost every situation. His life experience enabled him to contribute and participate in the Launceston community with knowledge and experience like no other. He would often tell stories of his days teaching young people how to drive. He has seen many changes in legislation, both in local government and in his years as a legislative councillor. His council committee involvements include the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee, the Tender Review Committee, the Code of Conduct Panel and the Launceston Access Advisory Committee. Ray was also chairman of the York Park committee at the time of the sporting precinct's first major development in the late 1990s. He also played an important role on a Legislative Council select committee to investigate all aspects of the Tamar River, which is a local icon in the city of Launceston.

Martin Gilmour, the Editor of our local newspaper the Examiner, said recently:

The decision by Alderman Ray Shipp not to recontest his seat on the Launceston City Council marks the end of an era.

To spend more than 20 years on the council, in addition to 14 years as an MLC for Launceston, is an extraordinary commitment to civic duty by any measure.

Many people regard Alderman Shipp as the council's unofficial historian and there is no doubt that this corporate knowledge has served the city well.

I could not agree more with these comments.

True to form, Ray's decision not to contest the next election was not based on any selfish motives, nor is he in ill health. Ray has decided to make way for someone new because he has, and always has had, the best interests of the people of Launceston at heart. Ray said it had occurred to him that if he was successful this election, the next time he was faced with the decision to stand or not, he would be almost 90 years of age. He said:

I thought it was probably time to make way for another person from Launceston who may have their eyes on a council career.

I truly believe that the elder individuals in our society, such as Ray, still have so much to offer the community. Their presence in the workforce is highly valued. Ray sets an example of how older Australians can continue to contribute to their communities well into their 70s and 80s. It is a well-known fact that we are now living about 25 years longer. The community benefits from retaining the older and more experienced individuals in the workforce but I also believe these individuals gain a great deal of purpose and satisfaction from contributing to society in an active way. It is no longer necessary to retire at 65 and wonder what to do for the next 20 years of life. Like Ray, we can continue to take an interest in our community and contribute for many years.

You may be wondering why I have chosen to stand here tonight and speak about a local council alderman. I believe Ray Shipp is a shining example to all of us. Ray is a man who has devoted his life to the betterment of his city and surrounding area. He has given his time to the community and he has been a voice on important issues for the people of Launceston. In my opinion, Ray is a man who reminds us all that we are here for a very important purpose. We are all representatives. We are here to be the voice for the voiceless, to stand up for the marginalised and to always ensure that the best outcomes are achieved for our country and communities.

As I said, Ray has made an outstanding contribution to our local community. He was never politically aligned during his time as a legislative councillor. He was an Independent—a true independent. In later years he joined the Australian Labor Party but when he was first elected to the Launceston City Council, once again he stood as an Independent. For me, it has been an honour to know Ray, particularly so over the last decade on a more personal basis. He has always been a good supporter, someone who is prepared to talk quite frankly to you, to put his point of view. But always at the forefront of his mind and his argument was what was best for our community.

Those genuine gentlemen are not always as obvious in our community as I think they ought to be. He was renowned, as I said, for speaking up for our community, for being there, for being a very good listener, being able to contribute to the debate but to bring a common sense point of view to whatever debate he was participating in. I wish Ray every best wish for his retirement from the Launceston City Council. He may believe that he is 'retiring' and is not going to have a public life in future but I think he will find it very hard to totally retire. He has certainly earned his stripes and the community's respect. I hope he has many more years ahead to enjoy his children and grandchildren and takes the opportunity to spend time with Gale and to reward her with his presence and his undivided attention as he has been able to have her support in enabling him to make a contribution to public life.

One of my colleagues said, 'Has something happened to Ray?' I said, 'No, I am making a contribution and acknowledg­ing his contribution to our community. I can assure you he is in very good health.' Health is not a reason for him to consider retirement. He is one of those people who has come to the realisation that it is time to let someone else share some of the burden, some of the responsibility and leadership of our community. I acknowledge a job very well done and thank him for his contribution to our community. I also note his contribution in more recent years to the Australian Labor Party and its Tasmanian branch and, on a personal note, thank him for his guidance, his always very frank advice and his encouragement.

Senator CASH (Western Australia) (19:05): October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and tonight I rise to speak on the issue of breast cancer. It is an issue that is very close to me because my fraternal grandmother passed away from it, and it is an issue that is close to so many of us in the Australian community. One in nine Australian women will develop breast cancer over the course of their life, making breast cancer the most commonly diagnosed cancer amongst Australian women. That means that one way or another, whether we like it or not, breast cancer will touch almost every Australian. If an Australian woman herself is not diagnosed with breast cancer, her mother, sister, girlfriend, niece, aunt or daughter may well be. There will be someone known to each and every one of us.

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of deaths by cancer in Australian women. The sad reality is that more than 13,000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year, and 2,800 women will die each year from this cancer. Nine out of ten women who develop breast cancer do not have a family history of the disease. Breast awareness amongst Australian women has progressed thanks to public health campaigns and thousands of dollars have been raised by the National Breast Cancer Foundation through Pink Ribbon Day related events. For all these groups and for related services we can be very grateful. Rates of death from breast cancer where access to medical treatment delays diagnosis or prevents treatment are far higher. It is testament to the work of the National Breast Cancer Foundation and other breast cancer groups around the nation that women are no longer afraid or embarrassed to publicly discuss the health of their breasts or check that family or friends are up to date with mammograms and screening. In Western Australia we also have Breast Cancer Care WA, founded by philanthropist Ros Worthington OAM, which provides support for women and for their families at the diagnosis and treatment stages, and long term after their period of medical treatment may have ended.

Last week, I had the great honour of hosting a Pink Ribbon morning tea in Rockingham, a suburb in my patron electorate of Brand, along with Donna Gordin, the Liberal Party's candidate for Brand at the 2010 Federal Election. I was delighted that the member for Mackellar, the Hon Bronwyn Bishop, was also able to join us. Mrs Bishop's daughter Angela is herself a member of the Sydney Breast Cancer Foundation and Pink Ribbon Ball committee in New South Wales. Over 100 people joined us for morning tea, with breast cancer survivor Valma Sulc sharing her journey with breast cancer publicly and very bravely for the first time. Breast cancer is now so common that it is easy to forget how personal each case and the story of breast cancer, and indeed of each individual case of any cancer, actually is. Valma reminded us of that as she described how her grandchildren helped her to maintain her humour and enthusiasm throughout her treatment. I am proud to say we were able to raise more than $1,200 for the Cancer Council, and I thank the owner of Andiamo Restaurant, Andrea De Luca, for the enormous support he and his staff provided on the day, with the wait staff even dressing in pink.

While cases of breast cancer are increasing, better research means women are more likely than ever to survive, with women whose cancer is restricted to the breast having a 90 per cent chance of survival. Early detection through breast screening and mammography is the main reason more women are surviving breast cancer. Trials like the LATER study, which commenced in 2007, are providing some hope that there may be a chance of preventing or delaying the recurrence of breast cancer in post-menopausal women.

However, the reality is that seven women still die every day from breast cancer in Australia and by 2015 it is expected that 42 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer every day. Seventy-five per cent of cases occur in women over 50, although women in their 20s have also been diagnosed. More than 800 women under 40 years of age are expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer this year.

Another cancer which has less of a profile in Australia, and which is unfortunately detected at a much later stage than breast cancer, is ovarian cancer. Approximately 800 women die from ovarian cancer in Australia each year. Three-quarters of these cases are at an advanced stage and have spread to other parts of the body by the time they are diagnosed, making them far more complicated to treat.

The most common signs of ovarian cancer, like abdominal or pelvic pain, a swollen or bloated stomach, the need to urinate often and a reduced appetite or difficulty eating, are shared with what are often common ailments and symptoms of less sinister complaints. Because of this, many women dismiss symptoms, associating them with weight gain, tiredness and feeling generally unwell or run down. Other symptoms women need to watch out for include unexplained weight gain or loss, inexplicable bleeding, back pain, indigestion or nausea, or excessive fatigue.

Like breast cancer, the cause of ovarian cancer is unknown, but on average three women will be diagnosed with the disease today and every day this year. Because the symptoms of the disease are so broad, Ovarian Cancer Australia advises women to be in touch with their bodies and know what feels normal to them, and when something does not feel right to make sure that it is investigated thoroughly. Ovarian cancer patients have been misdiagnosed in the past and sent for various treatments including physiotherapy for pulled groin muscles and painkillers for arthritis when there was a benign tumour the size of a five-month old foetus, and women have even been sent away from hospital being told there was nothing wrong with them.

Diagnosis for ovarian cancer can be made by physical examination, blood tests for a protein or tumour marker called CA125, which is higher in some women with ovarian cancer, or ultrasound or other types of imaging tests—but because there are four types of the cancer and because the symptoms are so broad, diagnosis can be difficult. However, there is hope for some women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after an Australian-led trial conducted at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney and several overseas hospitals found a drug that delays progression of the cancer in a patient with the most resistant type of the disease.

Although Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month is February, a group of women created an initiative in 2007 which runs each October, and last year, in its fourth year, it raised $112,000 for research into the disease. Frocktober began in Geelong when a group of friends passed a hat around at the pub, with the aim of starting to raise money for women's health. They chose to support ovarian cancer because of its lower profile in Australia. Frocktober is now a national event where women wear a dress each day in October and raise money through friends, families, workplaces and local communities. The organisers encourage women not to buy a new dress but to wear an old one and contribute the difference to the cause. In Parliament House we have Alessia Maruca, from Senator Boswell's office, undertaking the challenge, as well as journalist Katina Curtis.

It is part of Ovarian Cancer Australia's mission to ensure that all Australian women know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. I believe every Australian should know those symptoms. It is only through awareness and taking more seriously symptoms and changes in the way we feel, and the way our mothers, daughters, partners, sisters and friends feel, that diagnosis and prospects for survival can increase.

I urge everyone in this chamber and anyone who might be listening to this speech or might read a transcript of it to start having conversations about ovarian cancer and what the signs and symptoms are. Our lives are incredibly busy but nothing is more important than our health, and signs and signals that we might brush off may turn out to be more than just being a little bit tired or feeling a little bit unwell.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (19:15): I rise to speak on a different matter but one which perhaps has some relation to the contribution just made by Senator Cash. To begin with, I acknowledge the Arabunna and the Kokotha people of central South Australia, who are coping with the news as of yesterday that the Commonwealth government has signed off on a colossal expansion of the Olympic Dam copper-gold uranium mine. I also acknowledge my South Australian state parliament colleague Mark Parnell, who has done an enormous amount of work watchdogging this project and trying to come up with constructive counterpro­posals that would let the project go ahead without the extraordinary environmental, social and public health impacts of the project as proposed. I am speaking in particular of a study that was conducted about this time last year by Dr Gavin Mudd, a hydrogeologist at Monash University, on a proposal for the expansion of Olympic Dam that would go ahead without the uranium circuit—so the mine would proceed as a copper-gold venture—and with the process­ing being undertaken here in Australia rather than BHP's current proposal to simply export the smelting operations and, indeed, those highly skilled jobs to China.

The concept of environmental protection took on new meaning yesterday with the announcement of Commonwealth environ­mental approvals for this venture. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, said, 'We have the toughest environ­mental conditions that you'll ever find imposed on a uranium mine.' This, I think, is known in the technical literature as a bald faced lie. We know this because the toughest environmental conditions found at a uranium mine are 2,000 kilometres northward at the Ranger Uranium Mine, on a lease chopped out of Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. There the company is required to backfill the mine voids with radioactive waste, removing—

Senator Carol Brown: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that part of Senator Ludlam's contribution about Mr Burke being a bald faced liar is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Pratt ): Yes. I ask Senator Ludlam to withdraw those remarks.

Senator LUDLAM: I withdraw the accusation that our environment minister is a bald faced liar, Madam Acting Deputy President.

Senator Carol Brown: It would be nice if he did it with some courtesy.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have to withdraw it without repeating it, Senator Ludlam.

Senator LUDLAM: Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, if we are talking about what world best practice or highly regulated uranium mining is, we need only point to what is occurring at the moment in Kakadu National Park, where the company is required to isolate the radioact­ive wastes from the wider environment for a period not less than 10,000 years by removing the radioactive tailings and putting them back in the mine pit. This is clearly an impossible task, but it is at least a worthy ambition. No such duty of care will be applied for the benefit of South Australians. Mr Burke has earnestly reassured the public that conditions will apply for 10 years after the life of the mine. He has granted approval for the mine-tailings waste to be dumped and left out on the surface in apparent ignorance of the fact that the residual inventory of uranium 238 has a half-life of 4½ billion years and that the mine wastes will contain a cocktail of unwanted daughter isotopes including radium, protactinium, radon gas and radioactive lead.

In the course of processing, the uranium ore is milled to the consistency of wet talcum powder and chemically treated to extract most of the uranium, leaving the rest of this toxic garbage behind. By 2020, with operations in full swing, the company informs us that around eight megalitres of contaminated, radioactive water will be leaching into local groundwater every single day from beneath the largely unlined tailings structures. The company has sought to minimise costs by lining only a small area of each tailings cell. So the minister has just agreed to require up to four per cent of the tailings storage facility to be lined—stringent conditions indeed.

If these ore bodies are locked up in the host geology hundreds of metres below ground, they pose no hazard to human health. However, if blasted free, crushed and left on the surface in colossal piles, it is inevitable that this material will gradually work its way into the environment and into the food chain as it is right now at other neglected uranium mine sites around the world. Not all of it will be left in South Australia, of course, because BHP's preferred project configuration has the majority of the uranium infused bulk copper concentrate—some 1.2 million tonnes of mine wastes every year—sent to China for smelting, leaving much of the radioactive material as someone else's problem. But we will have our own legacy in Australia. Out to 2050, BHP plans to mill and dump 2.3 billion tonnes of toxic, radioactive mine tailings in outback South Australia. That will leave behind roughly 1.3 cubic kilometres of radioactive waste, enough to bury Adelaide's central business district 370 metres deep—almost exactly three times the height of Adelaide's tallest building—in finely powdered radioactive tailings.

I am well aware that these back-of-the-envelope calculations will not be of the slightest interest to the assembled politicians who lined up to abase themselves before BHP's otherworldly revenue estimates. It is assumed that the future will take care of the intractable wastes left behind, and there is actually a grain of truth in this. Check your current federal budget and you will find several million dollars appropriated to assess a clean-up strategy for the relatively small Alligator Rivers uranium mines in the Northern Territory. The clean-up bill for these radioactive hotspots, mined out half a century ago, will look like loose change compared to the liability being planned for future taxpayers as a result of yesterday's decision.

Radioactive wastes cause cancer—a small detail that does not get much of a mention in BHP's environmental documentation. Something has gone deeply wrong here. It is by no means certain that this project is going ahead—although that is for reasons more to do with global market instability than anything else—but what confidence should we have in our body of environmental law, built up over a generation, when the creation of a carcinogenic waste pile the size of a small mountain range is not only legal but cause for celebration?

Again I would like to acknowledge the work of local Aboriginal elders and antinuclear campaigners, in particular Uncle Kevin Buzzacott, who has been tireless and inspirational in this role over a long period of time. He was reported as saying that he has been opposed to the mine from the outset because it encompasses sacred areas for the people of the region. He says:

We are not going to rest until the government reverses its decision. We want BHP Billiton out of the desert.

These words, although they may seem a long way away from Capital Hill, have inspired people like me and a whole generation of campaigners who will not rest until the toxic, deadly and obsolete uranium mining industry is phased out in Australia.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (19:22): I would like firstly to take the opportunity to associate myself with the speech by Senator Cash about ovarian cancer. It is an area that I have spoken on myself previously in this place, and it is a very important issue. So I thank her for her speech on that.

But tonight I rise to speak on the Micah Challenge, which is a Christian movement that is part of a global campaign to improve society's understanding of justice issues, to engage with the poor and to reduce poverty. Micah Challenge is focused on contributing to ensure that Australia reaches the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs. Australia joined with other nations in New York in 2000 for the Millennium Summit, to declare:

We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty …

Since 2004, over 114,000 Australians have taken part in the Micah Challenge to support the MDGs. It is a sign of the generosity of spirit within the Australian community to see so many people committed to helping others. The Micah Challenge campaign has been endorsed by more than 50 agencies, and the movement is lobbying the government to do everything possible to achieve the MDGs by 2015.

I had the opportunity to meet with some members of Micah Challenge while they were visiting Parliament House in September, and I have also met with other members in previous years. The members of the group I met this year were Jeff McKinnon, Robyn McKinnon, Nick McKinnon, Cranston Laycock and Tiarna Jenkins. Robyn also brought with her possibly the youngest member of the Micah Challenge, her six-month-old son, Will. The members of this group are all from my home state of Tasmania, and it is heartening to see Tasmanians working to ease the suffering of others, even though those others are thousands of kilometres away. Tiarna and Cranston are both students at Cressy District High School and are a fine example that anyone, of any age, can help to make a difference. It was obvious that each member of the group was dedicated to the causes they were speaking about. It is wonderful to see our teenagers taking an interest in the wellbeing of others.

Micah Challenge participants make an annual pilgrimage to Canberra, known as Voices for Justice, and in 2011 approxi­mately 230 people travelled to Parliament House to hold meetings with members and senators. They also held a breakfast to further raise awareness on the issues of poverty and social justice. The message from the 2011 Voices for Justice was WaSH, which stands for: access to clean water, basic sanitation and hygiene. WaSH focuses on how clean water, basic sanitation and hygiene contribute to improved child and maternal health, which is related to MDGs 4, 5 and 7. The United Nations General Assembly states:

Safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights …

Goal 4 is to reduce child mortality, goal 5 is to improve maternal health and goal 7 is to ensure environmental sustainability.

Globally, progress has been made on all MDGs, but there is still more work to be done. According to this year's United Nations Millennium Development Goals report, there have been some improvements made in developing regions since 1990. The number of people living in poverty has fallen from 46 per cent to 27 per cent. The number of people suffering from hunger has declined from 30 per cent to 23 per cent. The percentage of people with access to clean water has increased from 72 per cent in 1990 to 84 per cent in 2008. Some parts of the developing world have seen a decrease in figures for people living with diseases such as malaria, polio and HIV-AIDS. But, sadly, each year about 8.1 million children still die, and a large percentage of these deaths are preventable. To put that into context for people listening, that is equivalent to almost a third of Australia's population. It is a fact that is difficult to appreciate, but it is one we should not and cannot ignore.

The World Health Organisation estimates that 28 per cent of child deaths could be prevented by using the WaSH motto. That is more than two million children who would be saved from death from preventable diseases in a single year. Thousands of mothers would also be saved from prevent­able infections and inadequate nutrition by using the WaSH motto. Improvements to WaSH can be made at a relatively low cost. The World Bank estimates that WaSH is one of the most cost-effective interventions available. In addition to the health benefits gained from WaSH, there is also a consider­able positive impact on the economy. WHO estimates that each dollar invested in WaSH provides a nation's economy with a return of $8, which is a considerable return to the economy.

Australia is a very fortunate nation, and most of us take clean water and access to a toilet for granted. However, many people are not as lucky as we are. An example of the importance of WaSH is that, in developing countries, almost 15 per cent of child deaths are directly attributed to diarrhoea. That is pretty hard to imagine in Australia, where the rate is almost nil. It is estimated that half of the hospital beds in the developing world are at any one time filled with patients who are ill because of inadequate WaSH. In addition to diarrhoea, malnutrition, intestinal nematode infections—also known as roundworms—the eye disease trachoma and schistosomiasis, an infection caused by using water bodies contaminated with excreta from ill people, are all related to WaSH. Malaria and dengue fever are also related to WaSH.

The application of WaSH could also significantly improve education in undevel­oped nations. Two hundred and seventy-two million school days could be gained by meeting the WaSH MDG, which is especially important for girls. The rate of girls staying in school increases when there is access to private toilets, so the lack of these facilities causes some parents to withdraw their child from school for safety and privacy reasons. Children who suffer constant water related illness are often disadvantaged in their study because they may have a high rate of absence or may have trouble concentrating, and therefore leave school early.

Ready access to clean and potable water provides significant improvements to the lives and health of those living in poverty. Lack of adequate water supply and sanitation exposes people with HIV-AIDS to increased risk of infection. HIV infected mothers require clean water to make formula milk so that they do not pass on the infection to their baby. Poor sanitation and drainage contribute to malaria, which claims some 1.3 million lives a year—90 per cent of those lives are children under the age of five. It is important to integrate water and sanitation into national and global strategies for tackling malaria. Investing in drainage and sanitation facilities can reduce the presence of flies and mosquitoes.

According to the United Nations, the net benefit of achieving universal access to sanitation and drinking water is approximately A$180 billion per year. That benefit comes from reduced costs to health care, improved productivity in schools and workplaces, time savings from the reduced need to collect water and people living longer and being healthier. The return through associated improvements in quality of life, reduction of childhood mortality rates and reduction in suffering from water borne diseases is immeasurable.

We are committed to international aid and, through this, to playing a role in improving the health of people in other countries. The Australian government works with the governments and people of developing countries to deliver aid where it is most needed and most effective. In the 2011-12 budget, the Gillard government has focused on improving access to education, better maternal health for women and children, access to water and sanitation, tackling avoidable blindness and eliminating violence against women.

On 5 October 2011, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, launched the Dollar for Dollar initiative, which matches each dollar donated by the public to the Horn of Africa appeals run by 16 AusAID accredited non-government organisations. Under the initiative, every dollar the Australian community donates will be matched by the Australian government. The initiative will continue until 30 November 2011 and allows the Australian community to choose for themselves where their money should go. Each of the non-government organisations involved has a current appeal running and has been accredited by AusAID. Twenty dollars will provide a clean water kit—soap, bucket, and water purification tablets—for a family of five for one month. Fifty dollars can power a borehole pump to supply water to 500 people for four days; under the Dollar for Dollar initiative we can make that 1,000 people for four days. Four hundred and fifty dollars can truck in enough water for 50 refugees for a month; under the initiative we can make that 100 refugees.

Australia's foreign aid is forecast to increase from 0.33 percent of gross national income in 2011-11 to 0.35 percent of GNI in 2011-12. (Time expired)

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (19:33): I rise tonight to talk about football and netball. In Victoria and across the country, the lifeblood of many regional communities is their local football or netball club. As generations of families work together, playing, supporting and volunteering for their local clubs, a strong sense of connectedness has developed. Many lifelong friendships and, yes, I admit, rivalries have been forged on the sidelines while cheering a local team on. We can all picture our local club where families, particularly in country areas, drive long distances for a day out, packing chairs and thermos as well as beanies and netball gear that display the passion for local teams. Over the last month, during finals time, particularly in country areas, the main streets of country towns have been decked out with team colours.

Dr Ramon Spaaij, a senior research fellow at La Trobe University, states that:

Local sports clubs are integral to the social and cultural life of many country towns and provide an important public space for connection.

In his book Sport and Social Mobility: Crossing Boundaries, Dr Spaaij quotes a school teacher in north central Victoria he interviewed as part of his research who says that organised sport in their community is 'the binder rather than the segmenter'. That's about how local football and netball clubs bring communities together in places where there may not be as many opportunities for social and community interaction.

Communities are strengthened through their clubs, breaking down barriers between social classes and between people who might not otherwise interact. Many parents start out on the sidelines of junior football and netball and go on to become involved in coaching, fundraising, working in the canteen and progressing to team trips away for carnivals. They even stick around when their children have children of their own, coming along to watch the grandchildren. These children and young people are imbued with a sense of pride in their team and their club, and hence in their local community. Their commitment is fostered, they have role models and this spirit goes beyond the team, filtering through families to the broader community. Football and netball clubs also, of course, promote physical activity and fitness, and promote self-esteem and wellbeing in young people. These are all qualities to be commended and something I am particularly interested in, specifically for young women.

During the sitting break, I had the privilege of attending the Bendigo Football Netball League grand final day. Congratulations to the mighty Golden Square for winding up 2011 football premiers with a very powerful performance, one they sustained all season, against Eaglehawk. Congratulations also to the Bendigo Football League on its 130th anniversary—an impressive history. In country Victoria, grand finals are a celebration that is part of the fabric of so many communities. Talking about participation in football in country areas, I am reminded that almost one in four eligible juniors in regional and rural Victoria participates in local football. That figure is substantially higher than that of Melbourne. In some regions participation is much higher again. In Buloke Shire, north of Bendigo, 90 per cent of young men aged between 13 and 18 play football. That is an extraordinary figure.

However, I am not here to speak just about football. There is another game with rich traditions and, as a monarchist, I am proud to say it is played in most Commonwealth countries. ABS statistics show that 376,000 Australians play netball, more than AFL, rugby league and rugby union combined. Last night, I attended a dinner with many other members of the parliamentary sports club, for which, after hearing the results, I see that participation is clearly the focus. The focus last night was on the great sport of netball and, in particular, on the guests of honour: the members of the Australian Diamonds netball team. Tomorrow night they play England here in Canberra at the AIS. I am sure that everyone will join with me in wishing them the best of luck as they represent our nation as elite athletes. The Diamonds, winners of this year's world championship, are an inspiration to all budding netballers. The Australian Diamonds are great role models for Victorian and Australian girls and women. They are strong, physically active, healthy young women.

In wishing them all the best for tomorrow, I also want to congratulate the thousands of Victorians who participated in recent weeks in their own footy and netball grand finals. In the great tradition of the parliamentary netball team, where participation is more important than performance, I really applaud all those fantastic Victorian footballers and netballers who played all season without getting to the finals and are in there having a go. Like us, there is always next year.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:38): Tonight I would like to share with my fellow senators the memories of Australian soldiers who witnessed terrible atrocities during World War I. A few elderly New South Wales constituents have raised with me their concerns at how few Australians know about the genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people by the then Ottoman Turkish government from 1915 to 1923. I was ignorant of these facts and that many of our young soldiers bore witness to these crimes. I thank those who have provided me with this information. Some 1.5 million innocent Armenian men, women and children died in this act of genocide and a further one million were deported from their ancestral homeland.

ANZAC soldiers were taken prisoner on all the battlefronts with the Ottoman Turkish forces. These are a few of their stories. Australian Flying Corps Captain Thomas W White was captured in central Mesopotamia. In his memoir, Guests of the Unspeakable, he recorded that the Allied prisoners who were kept in the Armenian church of Afyonkarahisar used its graveyard as their exercise yard. White wrote that the iron-covered Armenian cemetery gates were 'riddled with bullets as if by machine gun fire' and suggested that some Armenians had 'sold their lives dearly'.

HMAS AE2 Able Seaman John Harrison Wheat wrote in his diary entry for 18 August 1915:

All the Armenians are driven from the town Afyonkarahisar. The principle cause of this is the Armenians are Christians and all the business of the town is carried on by them. There is a very strong feeling against the Christians in this Country. At this time, thousands of Armenians were turned out of these big towns to starve and thousands were massacred.

Lieutenant Luscombe, captured ANZAC 1915, recorded in his memoir, The Story of Harold Earl:

Towards midday we stopped at the rail junction town of Eskisehir, where we were provided with our first meal of the day. At this station we witnessed a sad and depressing sight. On the opposite side of the platform another train was standing. It was composed of a number of empty two-tier steel sheep trucks. On the platform a considerable number of Armenian women and children were huddled together. As our train pulled into the platform, Turkish soldiers armed with whips were driving the women and children into sheep trucks. It was evidently intended to transport them to some distant concentration camp.

Another twist of fate links Australia with this tragedy. The acts of genocide against the Armenian people started on 23 April 1915, just two days before the Gallipoli battle that saw the ANZAC soldiers attempt to invade Turkey. The Australian War Memorial records that this battle cost 26,111 Australian casualties, including 8,141 deaths.

When international jurist Raphael Lemkin coined the term 'genocide' in 1944, he described the deaths of Armenians from 1915 to 1923 as a defining example. Since then more than 20 nations have recognised the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity, as have a number of international organisations including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the European parliament, the South American parliament and the World Council of Churches.

The New South Wales and South Australian parliaments have also recognised the Armenian genocide. In New South Wales a motion was passed acknowledging the massacres by the Turkish government. The then New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, called on Turkey to acknowledge the genocide of the Armenians. The New South Wales motion condemned the genocide of the Armenians and all other acts of genocide, as well as all attempts to deny or distort the historical truth of the Armenian genocide. Sadly, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey, continues to deny the historical reality of the Armenian genocide. Armenian monuments in Turkey continue to be destroyed and under article 301 of the Turkish penal code individuals in Turkey can be prosecuted for discussing the Armenian genocide. It would be worthy of this parliament to pass a motion similar to that passed by the New South Wales parliament.

South of Sydney, stretching along the coastline from Cronulla down to Stanwell Tops, is the stunning Royal National Park. I am proud to be supporting a strong community campaign to win World Heritage listing for the Royal National Park, and also the nearby Garawarra State Conservation Area and Heathcote National Park. These three parks represent an extraordinary mixture of natural antiquity and cultural histories. The Royal National Park is already recognised on the National Heritage List. There is a strong case for them to gain World Heritage listing, and the community based campaign is growing in support as more people learn about the values of the parks and understand the significance and benefits of winning World Heritage status.

I am deeply committed to this effort to gain international heritage listing for Royal National Park and the associated parks. In 1975 I visited this national park each week to conduct field studies for my honours thesis, The nature of sclerophylly: ethylene and the growth of Banksia species under water logged conditions. It was a wonderful year for me, exploring the hanging swamps, heathland and sandstone ridges that make up the beauty of this park. The Royal National Park was the first designated national park in Australia and the birthplace of the Australian conservation movement. It was the scene of one of the first environmental protests in Australia and, I understand, possibly the world. From 1920 through to 1927, there was a successful campaign to stop logging within this national park.   

The three parks deserve increased protection and recognition due to their exceptional natural beauty, diverse vegeta­tion and geomorphology and outstanding Hawkesbury rock formations. The Royal boasts dramatic sea cliffs and caves, golden beaches, rambling inlets and the Port Hacking River. It is home to iconic features, such as the figure-of-eight pools, Palm Jungle and the Bulgo sea caves, which further contribute to the outstanding natural scenery.

As well as these natural heritage values, the landscape is scattered with evidence of the cultural continuity of its Aboriginal people, with many ceremonial sites, burials, middens and occupational sites and rocks. This exquisite country was settled over tens of thousands of years ago by the Dharawal people. You will find evidence of the Aboriginal occupants and their artistic and spiritual expression in this park. There is an Aboriginal calendar of the Royal National Park, not based on the sun; rather, it is a resources calendar. It is absolutely wonderful to see because it tells the story of what is important in the Royal, and ties events, movements and activities to natural phenomena. These cultural landscapes represent a unique example of the combined works of nature and humans, a designation used in article 1 of the World Heritage convention that determines if a site qualifies for World Heritage listing.

The Royal National Park, Garawarra State Conservation Area and Heathcote National Park share one of the richest concentrations of plant and animal species in temperate Australia. These areas exemplify the biodiversity of the ecosystems of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and display the continuing ecological and biological processes of adaptation. The drift of Australia from Gondwanaland and the long periods of isolation make Australia one of the great evolutionary stories of the planet. In this dry continent there are only a few surviving remnants of Gondwana biota, including those surviving in moist ecosystems in the Royal National Park. The Sydney Basin's abundant diversity of eucalypts provides an outstanding record of the evolutionary processes associated with global climatic changes during the late tertiary and quaternary periods.

The case for World Heritage listing for the Royal National Park and nearby parks can be compared to the case that was made for the Greater Blue Mountains region to gain World Heritage listing. In 2010 a group called the First National Park formed a campaign for World Heritage listing of this park and the two associated parks. I congratulate Bob Walshe, Phil Smith and Bob Lipscomb for the leading work that they have done and for the information they have provided to me. They have certainly inspired my work on this campaign. The Greens are proudly backing this work to get this area World Heritage listed. I will continue to work with the local community to build the case, and I acknowledge the support of my colleague Senator Larissa Waters, the Greens federal environment and natural heritage spokesperson. We think these parks are special and deserving, and we would love you to join us and add your voice to the call. The First National Park group is building the case, winning community support and taking this proposal to the government. I congratu­late them on their efforts to date and their long-term vision for Sydney and the nation's future. I look forward to one day visiting these World Heritage listed parks in Sydney.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania) (19:48): I have been a representative of working Australians for over 20 years. Through those years my union, the AMWU, and I have campaigned for improvements to Australia's workplace relations system in areas such as workers compensation, training opportunities and conditions. Tonight, I rise to speak about a very specific part of Australia's workplace relations system—that is, the protection of workers' entitlements when an employer is liquidated or declared bankrupt, workers hard-earned entitlements, such as redundancy pay, annual leave, long service leave and unpaid wages that have been wrongly spent and are gone.

For a company to whom a worker has been a loyal employee for decades to use these entitlements as some sort of a short-term, high-risk loan without making any provisions to pay them back is morally wrong under any reasonable standard. For a worker to be faced with a redundancy is a tough enough issue to deal with emotionally and economically without the added stress of missing entitlements. Australia is the country of a fair go. We are a country that believes in reward for hard work, not in the pilfering of workers' entitlements by company directors. This is wrong and the protection of workers' entitlements needs to be enshrined in legislation that will ensure that a worker receives all of the entitlements they have worked hard for.

One such case has occurred at the Automotive Components Limited factory in the northern suburbs of Launceston, in my home state of Tasmania. ACL emerged from a 1986 buyout of various automotive component businesses owned by Australian motoring brand Repco. The factory site comprises four plants, each serving unique purposes but interlinked in their many processes. The older plants are Nos 1 and 2. Plant 1 produces copper strips with powder sintered onto them which are carted up to plant 2 and used to make car bearings. The newer plants are Nos 3 and 4. Plant 4 produces metallic powders that, at plant 3, are poured from a great height into moulds and then baked. Moulds include high-tech car components as well as parts for stoves, lawnmowers and even lock mechanisms.

The global financial crisis hit the automobile industry hard. Car sales were down, affecting plants 1 and 2, but after-market sales were slightly up, which saw plants 3 and 4 doing better than plants 1 and 2. Further, ACL were normally able to hedge their exchange rate risk but the GFC rendered this unavailable. In August 2009, ACL entered into voluntary administration, placing the jobs of up to 300 Tasmanian workers at risk. However, the ACL voluntary administration was unique; the components manufactured by ACL were crucial to the Australian car industry, with the Launceston factory at the time being the sole supplier of a particular engine bearing for Ford Australia. The closure of this factory would have resulted in a serious production issue for Ford.

Ford had, only some months before, provided a substantial injection of funds to ACL, which had looked to avoid closure when it received this and a multimillion dollar assistance package from the federal and state governments. ACL had run multimillion dollar losses for the previous two financial years, but these cash packages gave workers and the industry hope that ACL would push through. As Ford was a secured lender to ACL as a result of its recent cash injection, it had the power to appoint a receiver-manager. It did so and, due to Ford's requirement for some of the specific components produced by ACL, it sought to continue trading. Unfortunately, within three or four weeks of appointment, the receiver-manager deemed that redundancies were necessary. One can appreciate that a company that had recorded losses of $11.5 million and $8.7 million in the previous two financial years and had received government and private sector bailouts but could no longer remain financially viable would need to restructure and that through this restructuring some 105 jobs would be lost. As an organiser at this factory for a number of years, I got to know a lot of the workers very well and days like that were terribly disappointing.

The shock of redundancies was one thing but to then discover that the bank was empty and no funds were available for entitlements was a whole extra shock for these workers. ACL's director Ivan James had used his employees' entitlements—annual leave, long service leave as well as provisions for redundancy payments—as a high-risk, short-term loan, which we all quickly found out the company had no capacity to pay back. This left ACL's redundant staff with nothing from the company. Most of the people had worked at ACL for many years—some for over 40 years of their life. They had given everything. They had collectively gone without pay rises and taken on fewer hours so that they could all keep their jobs and keep the company going.

At the same time, the managing director, Ivan James, did contribute to the issues the company was facing by reducing his income to $1 a week, as he advertised on the SBS Insight program around that time. However, once the company received government assistance, Mr James went back to his voluptuous salary of over $7,000 a week. But that was not enough. He then awarded himself an additional $2,000 per week. Some would say this was to make up for lost time. The workers saw it as a massive kick in the guts. From this revelation, the workers were angry—so angry that over 120 attended a barbecue lunch on the nature strip in front of Mr James's property one Saturday with one question on their minds, emblazoned upon T-shirts they all wore. That question was: 'Where are my entitlements, Ivan?'

The government somewhat assisted these workers through the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, GEERS. I say 'somewhat' because these workers were given a redundancy payout of up to 16 weeks—four months—pay. And the taxpayer had to foot the bill. Some of these employees had been with ACL for decades. Their enterprise agreement had provided for four weeks pay for every year of service in the event of a redundancy, with a cap of 96 weeks for workers who had in excess of 25 years employment. There was one worker who had over 40 years of service who would have been owed about $110,000, but because of the limit of GEERS at the time he got only $28,000. That is a worker whose family missed out on over $80,000 in payment—a payment that could have seen this worker enjoy a decent retirement; a payment that would have given a respectful end to his years of commitment and hard work at that factory.

This Gillard Labor government believes in protecting workers' entitlements. An election commitment from the 2010 federal election titled the Protecting Workers’ Entitlements package was released by Prime Minister Gillard in July 2010, at around the same time as the AMWU National Conference. In this election commitment, the Prime Minister promised to change the GEERS operational arrangements to provide workers' full entitlements, including redundancy pay up to a maximum of four weeks for each year of service, all annual leave, all long service leave and up to three months of unpaid wages. The Prime Minister promised to replace GEERS—which is an administrative system—with the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, which will be enshrined in legislation to ensure it cannot be abolished or easily amended so that the entitlements of Australian workers are protected.

I was a Senate candidate at this time of the announcement and the National Secretary of the AMWU, Dave Oliver, said to me after the announcement that this would be one of the pieces of legislation that I would see passed as a new senator and that it would be a very proud day when that occurred. To the credit of the Gillard Labor government, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Chris Evans, and the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations, Jacinta Collins, amended the GEERS to fix the redundancy pay issue from 1 January this year. This was a tremendous step forward for working Australians and for the Australian union movement.

A fond memory of the campaign was the time spent with former ACL workers whose redundancies had left them many thousands of dollars out of pocket but who recognised that if Australia re-elected a Gillard Labor government workers' entitlements would be protected in the future. These workers knew that any changes would not provide them with any extra payments but, in the true solidarity of the trade union movement, they knew that if other workers faced redundancy as they had, their colleagues—their mates—would receive their correct entitlements. People could see a real problem that a Labor government was committed to solving, if re-elected.

In 2011, hundreds of workers across Australia have been made redundant only to find that their company has not put money aside to pay their entitlements. This includes a further 33 workers at ACL in Launceston who were recently made redundant. However, thanks to the Gillard Labor government, the federal Labor member for Bass, Geoff Lyons, and the AMWU, there was a positive light for these workers. While they were faced with the terrible news that they were being made redundant, the amendments to the GEERS operational arrangements saw them receive their full redundancy entitlements, four weeks for every year of service—money that would allow time for retraining or for the transition to a comfortable retirement; money that these workers knew would not be possible without a Gillard Labor government. It was quite touching to hear from former ACL workers a few weeks ago that their service and their collective action had been rightfully recognised.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:58): This evening I rise to speak on an important topic for Australia and the world, and that is the eradication of poliomyelitis, or polio. Over 10 years ago, the World Health Organisation recognised that polio had stopped circulating in Australia and, indeed, in the western Pacific region. It is a truly important achievement. The eradication of polio from Australia brought a great deal of relief to so many. Globally, the incidence of polio has been reduced by a staggering 99 per cent over the past 30 years. That is thanks to a vaccine developed in the 1950s and distributed by governments and non-government organisations—like Rotary International—worldwide. Over the last 25 years, Rotary have been a driving force in the eradication of polio across many parts of the world. I am pleased that they are now part of a very strong push to finally end polio and completely eradicate this virus. As Rotary says about ending polio: 'It's a wind­ow of opportunity of historic proportions.'

This month is Polio Awareness Month. There are, I believe, a couple of things that we need to be aware of. The first is that, as organisations like Rotary and others such as UNICEF tell us, polio still has devastating effects in countries such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan. The second relates to the lasting effects that polio has had, and continues to have, on Australians. There is an important relationship between these two. We must stop this virus in its tracks for the humane reason of preventing thousands of people suffering its painful, debilitating and even deadly effects. It is a trauma that is still remembered here in Australia and many still live with its legacy. We are very fortunate that we have eradicated the disease here. It is a freedom that all should have and it is achievable if we commit ourselves to this effort.

Fortunately at a global level a lot is being done to eradicate polio but there is much more to be done. Much of the drive for this hard work is happening at a community level. For example, The End of Polio campaign is a grassroots campaign coordin­ated by the Global Poverty Project, in support of the efforts of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative by Rotary Interna­tional, UNICEF, the World Health Organisa­tion and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Some of this work, I am very pleased to say, is being done in my home state of Western Australia. Just last week, The End of Polio campaign held a breakfast in Perth to raise awareness of the work that needs to be done and to raise funds for this very important work. The breakfast was held in conjunction with the Rotaract Club of Subiaco and it packed the Perth Convention Centre. I would particularly like to acknowl­edge the work of Tegan Smith of the Rotaract Club of Subiaco. Tegan was the event coordinator for the End of Polio Breakfast and I think its success is an attribute of her wonderful donation of time and energy. Tegan is such a great example of the difference so many have made in committing to doing something about polio. All of those collective and individual efforts really have added up.

I also thank the Governor of Western Australia, Malcolm McCusker, for making a significant contribution to the event. I also congratulate Michael Sheldrick of The End of Polio campaign on his efforts in coordinating this important campaign. The campaign has been working hard to get the eradication of polio on the agenda for the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to be held in Perth at the end of this month. I think it is really fitting that in Polio Awareness Month this goal will be realised.

The End of Polio campaign has also planned a fantastic End of Polio Concert on 28 October, as part of the CHOGM events, at a great venue, the Belvoir Amphitheatre. I am very much looking forward to it because I am going to be able to see one of my favourite Australian hip-hop bands, Bliss n Eso, along with some other great acts: John Legend, The Getaway Plan, Hungry Kids of Hungary, Calling All Cars, Owl Eyes, and Andy Bull. It is going to be a fantastic event. I am looking forward to showing my support and I really encourage people in Perth to get down and enjoy it. Ending polio, as the campaign says, is the right thing to do, so do come down and support that fantastic event.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is doing its bit to eradicate polio in other countries. We directly fund polio eradication activities in endemic countries and ongoing vaccination efforts in other priority countries. For example, there is the Afghani­stan Polio Eradication Initiative, there is a United Nations initiative in Burma and there are polio vaccinations in Pacific island countries. Globally, we are so near to eradicating polio and with just some more effort this important goal can be achieved. I hope the call is heeded at CHOGM.

The ending of the polio virus in Australia belies the devastating effect the virus has had on our country, and these effects are still felt today. Major epidemics of the virus happened in every decade from the 1930s through to the 1950s in Australia. It is estimated that over 70,000 people were affected, but that figure is very hard to quantify because of the social and physical isolation and the stigma attached to the disease, poor health records and misdiag­nosis. Tens of thousands of Australian families were affected. It knew no bound­aries. Indeed, the former leader of the ALP and the current Australian Ambassador to the United States, the Hon. Kim Beazley, contracted polio at the age of six.

Some years ago the ABC TV program Timeframe pointed out a small piece of history which today, with CHOGM coming up, has resonance. Sharing the newspaper headlines with the 1954 polio epidemic was Queen Elizabeth II's first visit to Australia. Protecting her against the disease became almost an obsession. In Perth, where the epidemic was peaking, many precautions were taken to protect both our monarch and the large numbers of people who would be coming to see her. However, without anyone knowing it, the Queen had already been in direct contact with the disease. Betty Beazley, in Canberra with her husband, ALP frontbencher Kim Beazley Snr, was unaware that she was carrying the infection when she shook the Queen's hand. Fortunately, the Queen remained unscathed, and Mrs Beazley and her son Kim Jr made a complete recovery. The Beazley family story may have hit the headlines but there were also tens of thousands more Australians who were affected by this virus.

In my remarks this evening I would like to highlight that Post-Polio Health International have initiated 'We're Still Here!' week this week—Sunday 9 to Saturday 15 October—as part of Polio Awareness Month. Many people who experienced polio as a child still have symptoms and will recognise new symptoms in the years to come. Polio Australia calls this group of people the invisible group. As Polio Australia's President, Gillian Thomas, says:

Many polio survivors who have emerging symptoms tell me about the difficulty they have in obtaining correct diagnosis and treatment.…

As time passes, an increasing number of previously ‘stable’ persons with a history of polio infection experience new symptoms. The large number of survivors who are now reporting these symptoms has transformed the problem from an individual predicament to a social concern.

Getting on with raising awareness of the need to do more to eradicate this virus globally so that not only people in Australia but the people of India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan do not have to live with these devastating effects is a very important agenda. It is also important to keep raising awareness of the effects of postpolio syndrome here in Australia. I thank all the wonderful people who are doing this important work, and I look forward to seeing them at CHOGM.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (20:08): I seek leave to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Leave granted.

Senator MOORE: I join with Senator Louise Pratt this evening in a discussion around the very important issues of polio in our world. This month of October—and we are running out of months for awareness of particular issues—is, amongst other things, Polio Awareness Month. I think it is really important that people in this place play a part in raising awareness of this condition. We are heading towards 24 October, which is World Polio Day. A number of activities will be going on so that we can share in learning more about this condition, working with people to finally eradicate it from this world.

Polio is a disease that is almost forgotten in Australia except by those whose families have been affected. In my family, one of my cousins was part of the large postwar epidemic in Queensland, on the Darling Downs. We grew up knowing what had happened to her and learning more about polio. But, by and large, I think in Australia we mostly forget about this condition.

The word 'polio' is actually an abbrevia­tion of poliomyelitis, or infantile paralysis. It is an awful disease and is rarely encountered in Australia today by our health profession­als. It is a devastating disease that histori­cally affected thousands of people across the globe. We know that people of all ages can contract polio, but it mainly attacks young children under the age of five. Many people experience symptoms that go undetected, but sometimes these people go on to become carriers of the disease. In contrast, the people we see and know as people who have suffered from polio display common sympt­oms such as fatigue, fever and headaches—all those things we associate with being unwell. In some cases, though, infections can lead to irreversible paralysis, and this often happens in the legs. The virus spreads through the central nervous system and destroys nerves responsible for our muscles. Without the activation of these muscles, the limbs become limp and almost useless. In extreme cases, paralysis can result in quadri­plegia. So this is a very serious condition.

Many of the medical advances we now take for granted in the Western world were implemented out of the need to take action earlier in Australia's history. We can be proud of the way Australia led the world in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, simple things such as the way our intensive care wards operate had their origins in fighting polio. Before the 1950s, hospitals had little capacity for respiratory assistance for patients. The very first respiratory centre opened to treat severe cases of polio, leading to the first intensive care unit opening in Copenhagen in 1953, followed soon afterwards by Australia.

As we know, today we take intensive care units for granted. When we were attacked by this awful epidemic in the 1950s, one of the things that happened across communities was that the grass roots of medical philan­thropy began. Local fundraising committees were formed to help care for those who had caught polio, mainly kids. We learnt more about rehabilitation programs to help survi­vors. Polio survivor support groups have been instrumental to this day, as we heard from Senator Pratt, in advocating for disability rights.

Clearly, this is a disease that has changed not only the lives of those affected and their families but also, to a large extent, our culture. We heard about the development of the marvellous miracle-engaging vaccine in the 1950s, which has reduced the number of polio cases in the Western world from hundreds of thousands a year to just handfuls—but all those handfuls are import­ant to note. The last case of polio in Australia that we know of was in 2007, when an Australian student on holiday in Pakistan contracted the disease. With that identifi­cation, the raising of awareness of the illness in Australia continued. However, as we have heard, tens of thousands of Australians who survived polio must still manage the often debilitating effects—the legacy that polio has on their daily lives.

Polio clearly demonstrates that in an age of globalisation of air travel, there is absolutely nowhere that is completely safe. We have to be always vigilant on these contagious diseases. Leading up to World Polio Day, we can reflect on the successes of strategies employed to reduce the spread of the disease and to very, very nearly eradicate it. We can also reflect on the legacy of polio on Australian survivors and look forward to celebrating its ultimate eradication worldwide through the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. This initiative seeks to make sure that no child ever again experien­ces the crippling and fatal effects of polio.

At the 41st World Health Assembly in 1998—a while ago now—a resolution passed by delegates from 160 member states launch­ed the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. This initiative was spearheaded by the World Health Organisation, the wonderful Rotary International, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and UNICEF. Since then the Global Poverty Project, in conjunct­ion with Rotary International, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and the wonder­ful Gates Foundation, have continued to work on the initiative and are calling on the Australian government to place polio eradication on the agenda for the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. As we heard from Senator Pratt, there will be a major public engagement concert with a whole lot of bands—which, I have to admit, I had not heard of very well—getting together to entertain and raise awareness, and that is important. With a quarter of the world's leaders travelling to Perth for that meeting, Australia has a unique opportunity to focus global attention on this monumental and essential eradication opportunity.

Michael Sheldrick is the Australian campaign manager for the Global Poverty Project, an education and advocacy organi­sation focusing on ensuring that both the public and private sectors in OECD nations take action to contribute to the end of extreme poverty. Only last week he met with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to discuss the Global Poverty Project's call to make the eradication of polio a priority issue. Mr Sheldrick was able to hand the Prime Minister a letter signed by over 700 Australians, outlining why Australia should step up its efforts to eradicate this disease. In his blog Michael said 'the eradication of polio—a cause which has been making considerable progress since Australian Rotarians commenced their global eradi­cation push in 1979' must continue.

Collaboration globally between govern­ments, local communities and NGOs has successfully reduced incidence of polio by 99 per cent—so near. That last one per cent globally is the most difficult and expensive to immunise. There are serious challenges facing health and aid workers: geographic isolation, armed conflict—because many of the nations which are still facing this awful disease are involved in horrific conflicts within their own nations as well—and ongoing cultural barriers. But the challenges are not there to stop us; they actually should encourage us to do better.

Currently the initiative faces a worldwide shortage of money of about US$590 million for the full implementation of its 2010-12 polio eradication and strategic plan. Failure to meet the financial requirements of eradication is really a failure to protect future generations from polio. In the next 40 years more than 10 million children will be paralysed if the world does not capitalise on its US$5 billion global investment in eradication.

In the last sitting week there was a special event hosted here in parliament by the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. It had as its goal the end of polio. At the event were many members of parliament, diplomatic representatives from Commonwealth member states, and mem­bers of the Global Poverty Project, Rotary International, the Burnet Institute and UNICEF. The 2011 Australian of the Year, Simon McKeon, talked to us about how he felt the project should continue:

… we've dropped the ball in relation to going on beyond smallpox and dealing with other conditions, particularly polio … We've done 99 per cent of the work. We've actually done the majority of the hard work. It's just a matter of getting serious for once, putting the final nail in the coffin of this condition and dealing with those last four countries in which it's still endemic.

Mr McKeon said:

I'm looking forward to a positive announcement by the Australian government which says very plainly that we're part of this global effort to rid the world of this disease once and for all

This year saw some impressive contributions made to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. One that I think is well worth noting is that earlier this year the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, His Royal Highness Sheikh Mohammed, together with the Gates Foundation, committed a total of US$100 million to the global health partners the GAVI Alliance, WHO and UNICEF. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced a matching grant a few days later. With this grant the UK doubled its contribution to the eradication of polio.

I need to pay particular attention to the wonderful work of Rotary International. Over the years, Rotary have donated more than $1.2 billion to the eradication of polio, and we need to keep working on this goal. Rotary across the world have been fighting polio for 23 years, and through their network of over 33,000 clubs in 200 countries they keep this item clearly on the agenda and mobilise a marvellous volunteer army. The volunteers are working at a local level providing support at clinics and mobilising communities for polio eradication actions and immunisations—not just fundraising but visitations to countries and working on the ground, and then bringing back their knowledge and talking about these issues in our local community.

There are so many reasons for Australia to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. The first is humanitarian, the second is economic and the third is because we can do it. All Commonwealth countries, including Australia, have a stake in the elimination of the disease, and our opportunity to end suffering has never been greater. A study published in the Lancet in 2007 showed that the cost of eradicating polio once and for all is billions of dollars less than the cost of merely keeping infection levels where they are now. The economic benefits over the next five years more than make up for the cost of eradication. A study in the journal Vaccine in December 2010, a cost-benefit analysis of this project entitled, catchingly, 'Economic analysis of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative', assessed invest­ments made since the formation of the GPEI—the initiative—in 1988 and those predicted until 2035. It is estimated that the efforts will prevent more than eight million cases of polio in children, which saves so many dollars—you cannot even count the billions—in reduced treatment costs and productivity gains. The lead author of the study, Dr Tebbens of Kid Risk Inc., said:

The GPEI prevents devastating paralysis and death in children and also allows developing countries and the world to realize meaningful financial benefits.

We have had success. In 1994 the World Health Organisation was able to declare that the 36 countries that make up the region of the Americas were polio free. In 2000 the Western Pacific region, of 37 countries, was also declared polio free, and the incidence of polio has decreased so much since 1988, from an estimated 350,000 cases worldwide to just 1,600 reported cases in 2009.

One of the more fascinating issues is a story that has been documented on the web about the one case of polio that has been documented in India this year. I will go through that case. It is a little girl named Rukhsar. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative is striving to make sure that she is the last person to suffer from this condition in India. They talk about her family. She is the only one of her siblings not to be vaccinated against polio, because she was a sickly little girl and was often ill before she contracted polio. Because she had been unwell, her parents were reluctant to vaccinate her. This made a major difference. Her mother said that she did not even know what polio was. They thought that the polio drops were for general good health. Her father said:

I made a mistake by not giving her polio drops. I would beg every parent to vaccinate their child and not make the same mistake.

Now Rukhsar is the face of the need to eradicate polio on our planet. She is actually developing quite well, according to the website. Her condition is improving, but the physiotherapists working with her do not know whether she will ever be able to walk freely again. In addition to the loss of control of her legs, Rukhsar's parents worry about her prospects for schooling and employment and about her future. This shows us what the impact is.

That leads on to what I want to discuss in the last few minutes. Senator Pratt mentioned that we have many polio survivors in our country, people who were children when they caught this disease, just like Rukhsar in India. They have lived on and now polio survivors in Australia form the largest single disability group identified in the country. Between the 1930s and 1960s, more than 40,000 Australians contracted paralytic polio. The Australian experience of polio has shown that, as people age, they may develop new symptoms known as the late effects of polio. The symptoms are not infectious, but they are serious, debilitating and painful.

One of the consequences of Australia's success in eradicating polio is that many survivors who experience late effects find it difficult to obtain accurate diagnosis and treatment from health professionals, who often confuse the symptoms with the effects of just getting older. These late effects of polio will become a serious health issue in Australia as our population ages. We need to be aware of this and to be in a position to provide effective services.

The need for Australia to intervene on the late effects of polio was recognised by the federal member for Ballarat, Catherine King, who moved on the 17 August 2009:

That the House recognises that:

… the needs of polio survivors have been largely neglected since vaccination against the disease became a reality, and as they age with chronic disabilities this neglect must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

We heard from Senator Pratt about how the President of Polio Australia, Gillian Thomas, herself a survivor of polio, said:

The onset of the late effects is a cruel blow to polio survivors who fought hard to overcome their original disability. As we now increasingly lose mobility, function and independence, knowledgeable health care professionals who understand our unique issues are critical to maintaining our quality of life and our ability to continue as valued, contributing members of society. This is why Polio Australia's strategies for nationally consistent information and education programs are so essential.

Gillian's story is a clear example of the personal impact of this disease. We need to listen to and learn from her and other survivors about what we can do, as a nation, to help her and others.

Simon Moss from the Global Poverty Project recounted a story about his mother. He said:

When I was a kid, I never understood why my Mum walked funny, and always needed to rest.

I remember walking to school with her once—I would have been eight or nine. I ran off ahead, and she shouted after me to stop. I didn't—I thought it was funny. She tried to run after me, but couldn't. She seemed really upset, so I came walking back.

He went on to tell a deeply moving story about how he related to his mother, a polio survivor. This is an important way to understand.

We have had amazing success with our medical science in developing responses to a whole range of diseases. We saw, through the eradication of smallpox and the develop­ment of vaccines, that we can make a real difference. In 1998 at that world health assembly, Professor Fenner, who was instrumental in the eradication of smallpox in Australia, said:

By eradicating smallpox we no longer have to vaccinate young children, and as someone who myself received the smallpox vaccine as a young boy, when we were travelling to Indonesia, I can attest that it was a pretty painful vaccination to receive.

But it made a difference.

What we can do, during this month when we are talking about raising awareness of poliomyelitis and polio across our community, is learn from the successes of the past. We have been able to eradicate smallpox from the globe. As we know, we have eradicated 99 per cent of polio. There are two challenges for us. The first is to deal with that last one per cent across the nations of the globe, to ensure that people do have vaccination and support so that we have no more cases like that of little Rukhsar in India. The second is to understand the number of people living in our community—our neighbours, our friends, our family—who have survived polio but are now suffering the ageing conditions linked to that. We have a double responsibility and we can make a real difference. It is so important during this month—not only at the CHOGM but through community activities across our country—for us to maintain this message and to ensure that we understand and are part of the solution to this world curse.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (20:28): Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Leave granted.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: I have previously raised matters regarding the member for Dobell. Tonight I would like to disclose further transgressions by Mr Thomson regarding his failure to disclose company directorships and association involvements in his register of interests. Despite his protestations of no wrongdoing, the damning evidence against Mr Thomson is mounting day by day.

Previously, I have detailed to the Senate the connection between Mr Thomson, Mr Williamson and CommuniGraphix. Both men denied that they had received credit cards on the account of Mr Gilleland, the owner of the printing company which has a $680,000 a year contract with the Health Services Union East Branch. Not surpri­singly, we today see a report in the HeraldSun which demonstrates that, yet again, the member for Dobell has been caught out. The report says:

Senior NSW Police have been informed by American Express in the US that Mr Thomson and Health Services Union boss Michael Williamson were both supplied with credit cards by John Gilleland.

Communigraphix, a graphic design business run by Mr Gilleland, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to produce the HSU newsletter, Health Standard.

Senior police sources say Mr Thomson—who would be forced to resign from Parliament if charged and ultimately found guilty—had use of the American Express card for two years.

There is no doubt that this will place much more pressure on the Prime Minister's continued support of Mr Thomson. The use of the American Express cards forms part of the New South Wales police investigation into allegations of financial wrongdoing by the two men. As the article correctly points out, Mr Thomson could face up to seven years jail if charged and found guilty of receiving secret commissions after police confirmed he received an American Express card from a union supplier and that under New South Wales law people found to have received an inducement to behave in a certain way may face criminal charges and a potential jail sentence of seven years.

Interestingly, the article states that 'well placed sources claim he will argue that he had the card only briefly'. Two years, Mr Thomson, is not briefly. The Herald Sun 'believes New South Wales police have been told unofficially by American Express of the existence of the Gilliland cards and were awaiting documents'. Despite this, Mr Thomson maintains, 'I have done nothing wrong'. So much for the comprehensive statement he was going to make to parliament. Today's revelations well and truly up the ante for the Prime Minister and for Mr Thomson. The article sums it up:

The explosive developments will rock the Gillard government, which is relying on Mr Thomson fending off multiple allegations that he rorted union funds.

I now turn to other transgressions. As we in this place are all aware, members and senators are required to make certain disclosures on their register of interests. Following revelations about the payment by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party of Mr Thomson's legal fees, we suddenly saw Mr Thomson lodge an update of his statement. It states:

In May 2011, the Australian Labor Party New South Wales branch paid a sum of money in settlement of a legal matter to which I was party.

There has been speculation that the amount paid was $40,000, $90,000 and $150,000. I understand the figure is as much as a quarter of a million dollars.

As at 21 September, ASIC records show that Mr Thomson has been the director of a company called Dads in Education Ltd since 19 February 2009. The registered office of this company is 300 Main Road, Cardiff, in New South Wales and its principal place of business is at 80 North Crescent, Wyoming, New South Wales. Both appear to be residential premises. The company was registered on 24 January 2006. There have been reports which have described this company as a charity, however, the company is not currently registered for GST nor, more importantly, is it entitled to receive tax deductible gifts. It is not an endorsed entity listed on the ATO website of deductible gift recipients, nor does it appear on the list of deductible gift recipient funds, authorities and institutions. Mr Thomson has failed to disclose his directorship of Dads in Education Ltd on his register of interests. Since becoming a director on 19 February 2009, Mr Thomson has not included this directorship in updates or in his declaration lodged on 20 October 2010.

On the last occasion, I spoke of Mr Thomson's involvement in Coastal Voice Community Group Inc. I would remind the Senate that this entity is currently in the process of cancellation by the Fair Trading Commissioner in New South Wales. We await the results and investigation by the Fair Trading Commissioner. The Fair Trading extract shows that Mr Thomson, despite his assertions to the contrary, still remains the public officer of Coastal Voice and has been so since 3 May 2006. In what appears to be his original declaration lodged on 11 March 2008, Mr Thomson did not disclose his public officer status of Coastal Voice, nor has he done so since either in any update or in the declarations lodged on 11 March 2008 or on that lodged on 20 March 2010.

My question is: what else has Mr Thomson failed to disclose? What other matters is the member for Dobell hiding? His conduct with Dads in Education and Coastal Voice demonstrates the pattern with Mr Thomson—non-disclosure of matters but, when challenged, he denies the allegations. Subsequently, they seem to be proved to be correct, thereby exposing Mr Thomson for being untruthful and deceptive in his conduct. This is contempt of this parliament. I call on Mr Thomson to make full and proper disclosure of all matters immediately.

The Australian Labor Party has bleated continuously about standards and accused the coalition in government of a range of issues regarding conduct and disclosure. Well, the shoe is now well and truly on the other foot. I say to the Prime Minister: stop protecting Mr Thomson and uphold the parliamentary standards that you continually allege should be followed. The Prime Minister is running around the country saying she has full confidence in the member for Dobell. This is a person who not only has committed grave transgressions in relation to his union activities, which are currently under investigation by both the New South Wales and the Victorian police, but also has failed to disclose to the parliament material facts about his corporate connections.

All members and senators have obliga­tions to the parliament. Mr Thomson has failed to meet those obligations. He must, at the very least, make a full disclosure to the parliament as he promised to do so. Mr Thomson may now claim to hide behind the investigations but matters pertinent to the corporate involvements I have detailed this evening should be properly disclosed. This is a serious matter. Day in, day out, the Prime Minister rants and raves in parliament about parliamentary standards. I say to the Prime Minister: practise what you preach. Don't just talk about parliamentary standards. Comply with the standards; uphold them and uphold those standards that you daily bark at your opponents. Prime Minister, I call on you to show some leadership. Have the backbone to ensure that Mr Thomson fully complies with his obligations.

I now turn to some local matters in Dobell. On Tuesday 20 September 2010, I detailed a number of issues concerning the member for Dobell, his behaviour and his lack of attention to his electorate of Dobell. Today, as American Express confirmed that a credit card was indeed issued to Craig Thomson, we are still waiting for Mr Thomson to make his promised statement to the other place. Mr Thomson's sense of entitlement and his arrogance continue still to be in evidence in his electorate of Dobell. I would like to detail some examples of this arrogance. Take the example of the official opening of the Mardi pipeline project in his electorate on 31 August. Due to the ongoing media and political pressure, Mr Thomson decided not to attend the event and declined the invitation. Given the importance of this project, there were indications the Prime Minister would attend but, alas, the scrutiny of the good burghers of Dobell would have been too much to endure. Thus it was left to Senator Don Farrell to represent the Prime Minister and the government at the official opening of the Mardi-Mangrove pipeline on 31 August. Also in attendance was the member for Robertson, Deborah O'Neill, the Mayor of Wyong and Councillor Chris Burke representing the Gosford City Council, and the former members for Dobell and Robertson, Ken Ticehurst and Jim Lloyd, who were strong advocates for the project.

A plaque that was especially ordered for the official opening correctly reflected that the project was opened by Senator the Hon. Don Farrell representing the Prime Minister and the government and the mayors of Gosford and Wyong councils. The Wyong mayor at the time was Councillor Doug Eaton. I have a picture here of Ms O'Neill standing alongside Senator Farrell at the official opening with the media. The website of the Gosford/Wyong Councils' Water Authority carried news of the official opening complete with a photo of Senator Farrell, Ms O'Neill, Mayor Eaton and Councillor Burke. The article states:

History was made today with the first drops of water pumped along the $120 million Mardi-Mangrove Link, the Central Coast's largest infrastructure project in decades.

The system was officially turned on at a special ceremony at Mardi Dam by Wyong Shire Council Mayor Doug Eaton, Gosford City Councillor Chris Burke representing Gosford City Council Mayor Laurie Maher and Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water Senator Don Farrell. The ceremony was also attended by current and past Gosford City and Wyong Shire councillors and local members of parliament.

Hence it was with a degree of surprise that I noted a media alert dated 7 October from Wyong and Gosford councils announcing the 'historic opening to celebrate the achievement of the Mardi-Mangrove Pipeline link' on Sunday 16 October. But, hold on, didn't we have a proper opening on 30 August—or is that the opening you have when you do not have an opening? The media alert also said that the ceremony would involve the plaque unveiling by Wyong Shire Mayor Bob Graham and Gosford City Councillor Chris Burke, representing Gosford City Mayor Laurie Maher, federal member for Shortland Jill Hall, federal member for Robertson Deborah O'Neill and, yes, in a surprise appearance, none other than the missing member for Dobell, Craig Thomson. Perhaps my campaign about who is representing the people of Dobell is having some effect, because we are now starting to see Mr Thomson making the odd guest appearance. Councillor Bob Graham recently replaced Councillor Eaton as Mayor of Wyong. I am informed that Mr Thomson and Councillor Graham have a close relationship and are in regular communication. I also understand that Councillor Graham has been strongly supporting Mr Thomson over the last few months since his problems hit the headlines.

This would be the second official opening of this project, and we are led to understand that Wyong Council has ordered a second plaque for this event that will also reflect the attendance of Ms O'Neill, Ms Hall and, of course, Mr Thomson and his friend Mayor Graham. The media alert of 7 October states that a media release will be issued in the week before the event. Presumably the cost of both openings and both plaques will be paid for by the ratepayers of Wyong and Gosford, all to pander to the egos of Mr Thomson, Councillor Graham and other local Labor luminaries. One would hope that the media release will explain the need for a second opening and justify the additional cost to ratepayers.

While Craig Thomson has spent the previous weeks fighting for his political survival and hiding out from the media and his constituents, the Central Coast Group Training Skills Centre, the jobs incubator, is still to see the promised hand-on-heart funding Mr Thomson and Minister Albanese promised in July 2010, on the eve of the election. After marketing this initiative as a key election commitment and as a further indication of the government's commitment to skills and training, Craig Thomson and the government have yet to deliver on this sacred campaign promise to CCGT. I would like to take some time to highlight inconsistencies in the process and actions and statements of both the government and the department upon which CCGT has reasonably relied. This grant was announced by Minister Albanese and Craig Thomson at their request in the offices of CCGT Ltd in July last year—some 14 months ago. In April this year CCGT received correspondence from the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations advising it that the grant was now available.

Incredibly the department twice extended its deadline for the application. The first was due to its own administrative error and that was until the close of business on 10 August. And then for reasons unknown, but which I think are now obvious, it was extended until the close of business on 22 August. I also note that the CCGT lodged their formal application with the department on time in accordance with the published closing date for applications. It would now appear, incredibly, that the department accepted an application from Wyong Council lodged by the new 22 August deadline but at 10.25 that night. It likely explains the reasons behind the second extension. This application, of some 10 pages, does not comply with the guidelines compared to the CCGT fully compliant 120-page application.

At this stage it would be useful to remind this place of Craig Thomson's conduct in relation to CCGT. When announcing the funding for the skills centre in July last year, Mr Thomson said they were committed to moving the local economy forward by creating jobs and training opportunities for young people. Mr Thomson went on to say that this centre was the coast's most progressive employment initiative and that this pilot program would be keenly reviewed with a view to establish further skills centres. In fact, Mr Thomson was so supportive of the skills centre that he attempted to get a position for his ex-wife, Christa Thomson, at the centre and he used his parliamentary email to send her resume and contact number to the centre with a message that read: 'Hi Alison, here is Christa's resume as discussed and you can give her a call on ... Regards Craig Thomson'. Then, when annoyed with Councillor Best over his criticism of the GP superclinic during a local radio interview, Mr Thomson turned around and threatened that funding commitment by sending Councillor Best, who is also the CEO of CCGT, a text message that read, 'Bye-bye job incubator.' This begs the question of whether this new funding application, which is supported by Labor councillors from Wyong Council in opposition to the application from CCGT, is Mr Thomson's way of delivering his 'Bye-bye job incubator' threat to CCGT.

The Gillard government and the department have represented in numerous letters and correspondence that CCGT would receive the grant funding, and have induced CCGT to expend its scarce funds in preparing an application—funds that would otherwise be spent on assisting youth employment initiatives. To date this application process has cost the centre some $50,000 in company resources; this would have paid for two trainees to be employed at the centre. CCGT has for 14 months included delivery of the skills centre in its budgets and business plans, and its non-delivery has frustrated the core business and impeded its ability to provide jobs for young people on the Central Coast, where youth unemployment sits at around 32 per cent.

To date I have been unsuccessful in getting FOI access to documents about the jobs incubator. Whilst I appreciate that it involves third parties and that additional procedures are required, it is critical that the documents in relation to what has now become a sad and sorry saga as far as the youth of the Central Coast are concerned be put on the public record. Clear commitments were made to CCGT by Minister Albanese and Mr Thomson regarding the $2.7 million funding in relation to the jobs incubator. I have raised this matter in the media and I have raised it in this place. The granting of access to these documents is in the general public interest and is most certainly in the interests of the people of the Central Coast in New South Wales.

I conclude with the observation that Mr Thomson and the Prime Minister have serious questions to answer. The Prime Minister's continued defence of Mr Thomson is now becoming untenable. Day by day the sad and sorry saga of deceitful conduct appears in the newspapers. At what point will this Prime Minister realise that her continued support of Mr Thomson is no longer tenable? I note that there is a website which has been set up called thomsonquitnow.com. Time will tell if Mr Thomson heeds this advice.

Senate adjourned at 20:48