Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:31): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011, reminding myself this morning that we only spoke about this same issue very recently. It is an issue that has been near and dear to my heart over the years—marine protected areas.

I have been involved with marine protected areas through my research at the University of Tasmania over the years, and I volunteered my time to consult with conservation groups such as the ACF and the Wilderness Society. In the rollout of marine protected areas in South Australia, I have briefed both the South Australian Liberal Party and Labor Party over the years on the economics of marine protected areas. And, of course, the economics are closely tied to the science of marine protected areas. But I will get back to that in a minute.

Essentially, what we are debating here this morning is the role of science: the importance of science in policy and decision making, and whether the government should be able to overturn good science for political reasons. Clearly, this has been a big issue in the chamber with the supertrawler debate over the last six months. I and other members of the Greens and, of course, recreational fishers and a large section of the environment movement have been accused of being anti-science in our questioning of the allocation of the quota for a very large fishing vessel with freezing capacity and the potential risks that poses to Australia's marine resources. In this case it was a small pelagic fishery.

The argument has been put very clearly by the Liberals, particularly by Senator Colbeck, who I expect is going to speak next, that the decision to allocate that quota was made on good science. There are a number of scientists from different agencies who were involved in those decision-making processes. It is interesting that the Greens moved to disallow that quota. The argument was very clearly put that parliament should not have the ability to interfere with the good science of that decision. Certainly, it was suggested that we were being populist and politicising a scientific debate.

I find it very hard to reconcile that logic with the Liberals doing exactly the same thing with marine protected areas, which is essentially what this bill is about, because marine protected areas have been based on years of scientific research. I will fill that detail in in a second, but there is over 30 years of research—not just in Australia, in places like South Australia, but all around the world. Thousands of scientific reports have looked at both the science—

Senator Colbeck: Thousands!

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thousands —and I can give you the source of that quote, Senator Colbeck—have focused on the scientific principles that underlie the benefits of marine protected areas.

Benefits can be increased biomass, increased fecundity and providing buffers against risks in our very complex marine ecosystems; and there can also be, of course, economic benefits and economic costs—which is, no doubt, one of the key reasons that the Liberals are casting concern over the rollout of marine protected areas around the country.

The concept behind a marine protected area is very simple; it is an insurance policy. This is unlike our land-based ecosystems, where we can actually send scientists into places like forests or wetlands and we can actually do science that is visible. We can take samples and we can have easy access to the resource. Of course, that still has a long way to go in terms of how we value our ecosystem services and the science behind that. But when you look at a maritime ecosystem, a lot of what we are focused on is underwater, and it is very difficult, very expensive and very costly to get the exact information that you need.

This has been widely recognised as an issue with marine protected areas over the years. It is not like you can suddenly and easily access the bottom of the ocean floor, potentially kilometres underwater. So with ocean ecosystems we have a much larger uncertainty in our studies and analysis of things such as the biomass of fish species, or the potential risks of extinction of species, or whether the biomasses are at a level where they can be commercially exploited. There is no doubt—and this has come up with the supertrawler debate as well—that it is expensive and costly to do the scientific research that is necessary to understand issues such as biomass and its extraction in our ecosystems. It is expensive, it is difficult and it is complex because marine ecosystems are influenced by thousands of variables.

What is the benefit of having a marine protected area? The benefit of putting aside an area for conservation is really simple. Marine protected areas can be multiple use; they can be no-take zones, which do not allow for activities such as commercial or recreational fisheries; they can exclude other extractive industries such as oil and gas or even tourism; they can leave an area alone. The key reason for doing that is that it provides a risk buffer from what both scientists and economists call exogenous shocks—in other words, things we can put into models for simulation purposes but that we cannot necessarily predict with any certainty.

A really good example is in Tasmania at the moment, with the rock lobster industry on the east coast of Tasmania being shut down because of an exogenous shock—a toxicity impact from algal blooms. We also know in relation to the rock lobster industry and the small pelagic fishery that ocean temperature changes, both at the surface and the subsurface, have been responsible for the productivity of those fisheries. So climate change issues are also exogenous shocks. We have had viruses in our fisheries in species such as abalone. Given the best fisheries management practices in the world—and I am quite happy to accept the argument that Australia has some of the best managed fisheries in the world—we still see declines in species. With all the best intentions and all the best science, we have examples such as the rock lobster industry in Tasmania that show that sometimes we do not get it right. That is no-one's fault. That is because these ecosystems are very complex and the variables that influence them are very difficult to predict. Even the Atlantis model, which CSIRO have constructed and based out of Hobart, cannot possibly accurately predict some of these impacts. So it is really simple: if we accept that we have limitations in our understanding of our ecosystems, that we do not know everything, then we need to put aside some areas that we cannot touch. That is what marine protected areas are designed to do.

A lot of the variables that influence how effective marine protected areas are in rebuilding our marine ecosystems depend on factors such as how denuded they are in the first place, the ocean currents, the bathymetry of ocean floors, the existence of other species, and all these variables need to be modelled. But the studies we have on existing marine protected areas show us that if we put an area aside and leave it alone, then over a period of time—it does not happen straight away—we observe what both scientists and economists call spillover effects. We see a build-up of biomass as we do not fish the area, as we take that pressure off it. Clearly, fishing is a man-made activity that puts pressure on ecosystems. We know that overfishing all round the world has been one of the most significant causes of species decline and loss of biomass. There are some really famous examples, not necessarily in Australia but certainly internationally, that no-one in this chamber would dispute have led to species collapse in commercial fisheries.

If we take the human element out of it, we have to assume that other impacts will occur in our marine protected areas such as from climate change. Agricultural run-off is another really good example of a man-made influence that negatively impacts on our marine ecosystems. We have also seen nutrient changes. We can see issues with shipping and pollution from oil and gas. What we saw recently with the BP spill in the US is a very good example of where the externalities posed by commercial activities in marine protected areas can cause extensive damage to marine ecosystems. So, again, if you put aside an area in the ocean, which is a really simple concept, then that is an insurance policy for future generations to allow marine species to grow in numbers. If you take a lot of that pressure off, you clearly have at least the ability to recoup some of what you have already lost. Over time, these spillover effects, which will include the building of biomass and will vary depending on what species you are discussing, will produce benefits in the areas surrounding the marine protected areas.

I mentioned in the chamber a month ago that the first marine protected area was discovered by accident. It was not protected because people wanted more fish or wanted to leave an exploited resource alone. It was protected because the Space Shuttle and, before that, the Saturn rockets needed a security exclusion zone at Cape Kennedy, which used to be called Cape Canaveral. That exclusion zone varies between 50 and 30 miles, or up to 40 or 50 kilometres. People started noticing that areas surrounding that exclusion zone were very abundant in fish life and other marine species, and that was where the first studies occurred. So marine protected areas were discovered by accident, thanks to the Cape Kennedy space station. That was the birth of the application of science to marine protected areas and the benefits they may have.

I mentioned earlier that there have been a number of studies, and I want to read a quick version of a report put together by Dr Melissa Nursey-Bray at the University of Adelaide. She summarised 48 recent scientific reports on the science of marine protected areas, outlining all their recommendations in terms of the positive impact they have had on fisheries and, in some cases, where the evidence has not shown that. There have been some examples where marine protected areas have not necessarily increased the fecundity or the biomass of fish species, and there are good reasons for that.

These studies were from right across the world: from Arabia, Spain, South Africa, the Philippines, New Zealand, South Australia, Tasmania—including off Maria Island which is a very small marine reserve—Great Britain, the USA—and that includes Florida, California and Maine—Kenya, Fiji, Western Australia and the Bahamas. Wherever marine protected areas have been scientifically studied they have been shown to have benefits to fisheries. One specific report actually summarised 89 separate studies dating back to 1992, and that was just one of the reports that Dr Nursey-Bray aggregated in her report. That was what the Los Angeles Times recently focused on when they wrote a story on the science behind marine protected areas. They said:

In a survey of 89 scientific papers, UC Santa Barbara researchers found that 90% of marine reserves around the world had more fish, 84% had much larger fish and shellfish and 59% had a far greater variety of marine life than did adjacent waters—

that were not protected. They went on:

So far, the spillover effect hasn't won many converts among anglers, who disdain it as "junk science," and fear new limits on where they can fish.

'Junk science' is the issue that we started with and no doubt it is the Liberals' point here in the Senate when they dispute the benefits of marine protected areas. It is probably the underlying reason they want the ability for parliament to disallow the science behind marine protected areas, because that is essentially what we are doing in here today. We are giving us as senators and as MPs the ability to disallow over 30 years of scientific research on the benefits of marine protected areas.

The economics is slightly different. It is not black and white, and I admit that. Marine protected areas are not a silver bullet solution to providing benefits, because there are costs associated with protecting and conserving parts of the ocean. That is purely from an economic point of view. If there is displaced fishing effort, then that fishing effort should potentially be compensated, and that is certainly something that has been dealt with in the bioregional plans, though no doubt they will dispute that and say that not enough compensation is being paid.

But we do not just look at costs in terms of financial or economic costs. We have a duty to look at a much larger array of costs when we look at our environment and the importance that it plays in our daily lives. We need to look at social costs and of course those costs need to be assessed in relation to impacts on communities, and we can look at cultural aspects there as well. But we also need to look at environmental costs and ecological costs in areas of overfishing. And, as any first-year economics student should be able to tell you, once you include those extra environmental and social costs into, for example, the price of fish, then that market is suddenly efficient because the price of those goods factors in all the costs.

I would argue that the externalities that we see in areas such as fisheries—and they are just one example—show that markets have often failed to price those costs into the goods that we buy and sell on markets. It is the role of government, in my opinion and certainly the opinion of the Greens and no doubt Labor on this issue, that the government has a very important role to play in making sure that these externalities are priced into markets. The carbon tax is a very good example of that, and the bioregional plans that provide conservation outcomes reduce the risks of increased costs in the future. If we do deplete our fish stocks—and as I mentioned earlier there are numerous examples of that occurring—then the costs in the future to future generations such as the kids in the chamber here today, are going to much larger. We have a role and responsibility to play in putting aside contingency plans to make sure that we have resources for the future.

That is what marine protected areas are designed to do. That is what thousands of research reports into marine protected areas have shown. The science has been going on for a long time and it has been funded all around the world. The science has shown that marine protected areas have positive spillover effects and positive benefits not just for fish stocks or other marine species, which further down the chain predate and feed on other types of fish species, but there are also positive benefits for communities in the area. If we do get recovery particularly into depleted and endangered or threatened species, then we have the ability to access those fisheries resources into the future.

Marine protected areas are not perfect because of that complexity that we see in our marine ecosystems and they are only one of the fisheries management tools. I agree that they are a fisheries management tool as well as a conservation outcome.

Senator Colbeck: It is not a fisheries management tool.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: It is a fisheries management tool—I will take that interjection. It has to be a fisheries management tool if you believe the science. The science says that fish stocks will recover.

Senator Colbeck: You misrepresent the science.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: You will get your chance in 16 seconds. Do I get 16 seconds back, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (09:51): If you make your sentence last.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you. They are a fisheries management tool because the science says very clearly that they will have a positive impact on fish stocks. (Time expired)

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (09:52): I rise to make my contribution to my private senator's bill: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. This is a very simple piece of legislation. It does one thing. It gives the parliament the opportunity to have oversight over the declaration of marine protected areas. It is a very simple piece of legislation.

We have just heard from the Greens what we continuously hear from the Greens—a whole heap of mind-reading. I love it that the Greens think that they know what we are thinking. They attribute thoughts to us. They attribute motives to us. They misrepresent what we say and what we think, even though I do not think they really do know what we think. We have just seen that again today. The representation from the Greens is that the coalition does not believe in marine protected areas. That is patently not true. If you look at our record with respect to marine protected areas, you will see that the areas we implemented in 2006 in the south-east around Tasmania, which is our home state, Senator Whish-Wilson—

Senator Whish-Wilson: What? One per cent of state waters, Senator.

Senator COLBECK: Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. There is danger in coming into this place and not knowing what you are talking about. The marine protected area in Commonwealth waters around Tasmania that we delivered was 20 per cent larger than the area that was proposed by the government in the initial round. What we implemented in those waters in the south-east was 20 per cent larger than what was initially proposed. The Greens were running around Tasmania saying that the coalition wants to shrink it. The initial boundaries were proposed by us. They were not good, I have to say. They had seriously bad impacts on the fishing industry in Tasmania.

There was a cooperative process that allowed negotiation between the fishing industry and the environment groups. We put everybody in the tent. We did not do what this government has done, which is silo the negotiations and play parties off against each other and basically take the line being run by giant environmental groups from not just Australia but the United States. Thousands of emails have come into Australia from overseas trying to push the government into implementing these marine protected areas. Through that negotiation process we changed the boundaries, provided the environmental values and provided the representative areas that were required under this process. We reduced the impact on the fishing industry in Tasmania by 90 per cent and increased the area by 20 per cent. So, Senator, do not come in here talking rubbish. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you have demonstrated that again here today.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order! Senators will address their remarks through the chair.

Senator COLBECK: Let us go to what a globally recognised expert says in respect of marine protected areas. The senator has just gone through that process here yet again in his representations this morning. Professor Ray Hilborn is one of the most globally recognised marine scientists in the world.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator COLBECK: You say he is paid for by the fishing industry, but when he went to find out what was going on he put together a group of people from across the spectrum. He did not just go and science shop; he put together a group of peers from across the spectrum—from those directly opposed to his view of the world to those who have a more extreme view in the other direction. He did not just go and science shop. He did not find somebody who did not know anything or did not have any expertise in the area, which is what the Greens quite often do, and get them to comment on a scientific area in which they have no expertise and attack scientists who do have expertise.

He got a full spectrum of people to provide a report that put a very different picture than what one of the scientists, Dr Boris Worm, had initially indicated. He went to the person involved in that piece of science that said that the oceans could be empty of fish by 2047. That was the science that Dr Boris Worm had put together. Professor Hilborn went to Dr Worm. A group of 23 scientists put together a report that caused Dr Worm to step back from his initial statement. That was the work he was prepared to do. Senator, you should not just science shop and pick out a few people who will provide the answer that you want. You should go to the direct science, the real science and the credible science. Do not come in here with your claims.

I am proud of the record that the coalition has with respect to marine protected areas. Our record stands. The people who have been involved in working with us know that that is the case. Why are we taking the stand that we are taking right now? Not because we do not believe in marine protected areas but because in the development of these marine protected areas the science has not been used. That is why we have a concern about this current process. How do we know the science has not been used? Because the government has admitted it.

The Greens are happy to go along with lockups, because that is what they do. They live in the past. Before the EPBC Act came into being and before a whole range of other management tools came into being, the only way to protect some areas was to lock them up. I am happy to concede that that was the case. We in Australia have done some pretty average things to our environment—to our marine areas and our land areas—but we have learnt. As Senator Whish-Wilson has conceded, we do have among the best fisheries management systems in the world. We need to continue to improve those.

Rather than just lock up bits of the environment, which is what the environmental groups who still live in the 19th century would like us to do, we need to look after all of our marine environment. We should not just lock up huge swathes of the ocean and say, 'You can't go there.' That is not what we ought to be doing. We ought to be looking after it all. So do not come in here and tell us that we do not have any desire to look after our marine environment and we do not have any desire to protect areas. We believe that if there are areas that deserve to be protected then we should protect them, but we should not be making decisions based on representations by, for example, the Pew Foundation, which has run a campaign to lock up pretty much the entire Coral Sea.

Senator Whish-Wilson talked about economics. What really gets up the nose of my constituents, your constituents and other people here in Australia is that the Pew Foundation then admit that it is not going to pursue the same scale of lockups in the United States because it does not stack up economically, because of the negative economic impact on the American economy.

So they are happy to come and lock ours up but they will not do it in the United States because of the economic impact.

Here we have Minister Burke admitting that there are fewer marine protected areas off New South Wales because he has locked so much up in the Coral Sea. Tell me that is based on science. What a load of baloney. Here we have an area that has huge potential in respect of meeting our future seafood needs—and they are significant as 25 per cent of the globe's protein currently comes from seafood. If you were to replace that with terrestrially based protein, you would have to clear the world's remaining rainforests 23 times over—so talk about a small picture view of the world from the Greens and talk about a small picture view of the world from the government!

Let us have a look at the broader picture. Let us look at the requirements to look after our environment and also to feed ourselves and those of us on the planet. Let us not lock ourselves out of a huge swathes of the ocean when we have a whole series of other management tools. Let us not lock ourselves out of our oceans and our fisheries because somebody else is raping and pillaging theirs. What a sensible move that is! How ridiculous to suggest that, because fisheries management is unsustainable in other parts of the world, we should close down ours. Give me a break!

What we should be doing—and, in fact, this is what Australia is doing—is participating in improving fisheries management in other parts of the world. We are acting in a whole range of fisheries, through a number of fisheries management systems and through a number of international agreements, to improve fisheries management in those regions. You talk about small pelagics; we are involved in looking at the South Pacific small pelagic fishery and improving that, an area where the fish stocks have collapsed because of overfishing, not because of supertrawlers—as would be implied by the Greens and their environmental group friends—but because the fishery has been overfished for years long before the advent of large freezer vessels. The fishery has been overfished for years and it has not been improved by the fact that there have been no fisheries management systems in place and there have been no quotas in place, but fortunately there now will be. That fishery will have the opportunity to recover because there will be fisheries management put in place and there will be quotas put in place. The decision to do that is already having an effect on the amount of effort that is put into that fishery.

So for Senator Whish-Wilson to come in here and misrepresent where the coalition sits in respect of fisheries management of marine parks is quite dishonest because we have a strong view about utilising the science and about believing the science. And this was coming from a person who said, 'We don't care about the science. We just don't want the boat.' I have to say it is quite hypocritical of him to come in here and lecture us about science.

Senator Whish-Wilson: Where is your evidence of that?

Senator COLBECK: Well, you repeated it in this chamber—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. In fact, questions to the minister in question time here this week confirm they are not interested in the science around the small pelagic fishery, because the weight of the science—the credible science—supports the quota that was set in all of those fisheries.

Senator Whish-Wilson: Credible science?

Senator COLBECK: So here they go bashing scientists again. If it does not agree with what they say, they will attack the scientists. That is the process that they run through, and if you do not believe me have a chat in Tasmania to Nigel Forteath, who was hounded out of the state by the Greens because he dared to disagree with Bob Brown. Death threats, phone calls in the middle of the night and he had to take his family out of the state—an absolute disgrace what the Greens did to that man.

Senator Whish-Wilson: Where is your evidence?

Senator COLBECK: I will bring the evidence in here, Senator, and I will table it. I sat down and had conversations with Professor Forteath so I can tell you that very well. In fact, the Greens were censured in this place for what they did to him, so go back and have a look at the Hansard and you will find your own history.

This is a very simple piece of legislation. We know because the government has admitted that these zones that are being proposed by Minister Burke at the moment are not based on science. I have already given an indication as to the zones that were declared off New South Wales. I was in Queensland at the beginning of the year. I went up to have a talk to some of the fishermen in that region about the proposed declaration of the Coral Sea. Unfortunately, they could not meet with me on the day because they were meeting with the department to talk about the proposals for declaring the Coral Sea. One of the questions that they went into the meeting and asked of the department was: can you put on the table for us the science that supports declaring the entire Coral Sea a marine zone? When I met with them at morning tea directly after they had had that conversation with the department, I found the answer was: 'There is none.' The only thing that there was was a campaign by the Pew Foundation and environmental groups here in Australia. That is the basis on which Tony Burke has closed off the Coral Sea.

I go back to the discussion I had a moment ago about our seafood needs. As I said, 25 per cent of the globe's protein comes from seafood—a full quarter. The broader environmental impacts of having to replace that with terrestrially based protein do not bear thinking about. As I said, if you were to replace it with grass-fed protein, you would have to clear the globe's rainforests 23 times over. It just does not add up. The health of our marine environment and the capacity to achieve and maintain a level of protein from wild catch fisheries is absolutely vital. In fact, if you look at the wild catch fishery you will find that it is the most environmentally friendly form of gathering protein of the lot. It is much more environmentally friendly than any form of terrestrial farming. It is the most environmentally friendly because you can take out your quota, based on sustainably set quotas with proper management tools, and the natural environment does the rest for you. It is the most environmentally friendly form, so it is vitally important that we maintain it as part of our overall protein task.

Australia's potential demand for seafood will grow by 850,000 tonnes by 2020. I am not talking out to 2030 or 2040 or 2050 but by 2020—that is, in eight years we will need an extra 850,000 tonnes. The potential fishery in the Coral Sea alone is of that magnitude in two species.

Senator Whish-Wilson: You'd better start protecting it, then.

Senator COLBECK: So that is the answer from the Greens: shut down a potential fishery and import from unsustainable sources. Let us offshore our environmental responsibilities. Let us calm our conscience by offshoring. Let us take it somewhere else where they do not have the fisheries management tools in place.

What the coalition would like to see is marine protected areas based on science, not based on campaigns by environmental groups from the United States, not based on, 'Let's move it away from this Labor seat and put it up here next to this coalition seat.' Let us have marine protected areas based on science. Let us put everybody in the room together. Let us put the science on the table. Let us have the conversation between everyone. Let us not play groups off against each other, which is what the government has done in this particular process, because the groups come in and tell me what has just happened to them. Let us have a genuine consultation. Let us not just have show-and-tell, where the government turns up and says, 'Here's the maps; that's what's going to occur.' Let us have a consultation process where the final maps—the maps were put out 60 days ago or a bit longer and the minister said, 'This is not about the boundaries; this is about whether we do it or not.' That is not a consultation. That is a take it or leave it process.

That is what the coalition is concerned about. The coalition is concerned about the process. We are not contesting the science, as the Greens contend we are. We have said we believe in the science. If something needs to be protected, we should protect it. But we need to look after it all, not just bits of it. Let us not salve our conscience by saying that we have locked up 30 per cent of our marine environment, that we have locked out our fishing industry from all of those areas. Let us not salve our conscience by thinking that we have done our job. Let us look after it all. Let us ensure that we have strong fisheries management.

Senator Whish-Wilson indicated that this is a fisheries management tool. Not even the scientists contend that it is a fisheries management tool. The government does not contend that it is a fisheries management tool. It is not a fisheries management tool. The process around the marine protected areas is about looking after important parts of our environment. One of the issues around that is that fish tend to congregate around formations in the ocean. That is just the nature of things, and that is where the contest comes into place as part of the development of these marine protected areas. That is where the difficulty is.

This process also has not compensated people. There is $100 million sitting on the table for the fishing industry, but what about the downstream businesses and communities? There is absolutely nothing there for them. What about the recreational fishing sector, which is something like a $10 billion a year industry? There is nothing there for them. There is no recognition of the bait shops, the boat sellers and the charter operators, so any argument about proper compensation as part of this process is completely and utterly out of order. There is not proper consultation. The process that was put in place in the south-east put up $220 million, just for the south-east. In this process, we have $100 million for the rest of the country. We have a very simple proposition here: allow this declaration process to be scrutinised by the parliament. That is all we say, and that is what this bill does.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ): The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (10:19): I rise today to speak to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012. The excessive noise from wind farms bill is important and necessary. The issues at stake are of vital importance to all Australians. There are matters of health, matters of proper regulation and matters of substantial increases in taxpayer funding. The excessive noise legislation is not an attack on the wind industry; it is not an attack on renewable energies. This bill is designed to provide appropriate regulation of wind farm noise, delivering some comfort to residents near wind farms. It will help deliver regulatory certainty to the wind industry. It will sort out the dog's breakfast that currently characterises wind farm noise regulation at state and territory levels. It will help ensure that the Commonwealth's renewable energy certificates scheme is supporting wind farm operators who do the right thing by the Australian public and filtering out those who do the wrong thing.

There are some who have stated that this bill has only come into existence because apparently Senator Xenophon and I are obsessed with wind farms. That accusation is half right. I will not speak for Senator Xenophon—I know he is more capable than I am to do that—but I will speak for myself. Am I obsessed? Yes. I am obsessed with the health and wellbeing of ordinary Australians. I am obsessed with good regulation and accountability. I am obsessed with full transparency and with exposing cover-ups. And I am obsessed with the protection of taxpayers' money. This bill is, in essence, about all of these things, but more directly it is about proper regulation and the necessity for compliance.

The following from Senator Rhiannon regarding the need for independent studies into the effects of coal seam gas could have been written for the wind industry. Senator Rhiannon stated:

The government should not take the industry's word for it because at the moment the studies that have been trotted out are from industry.

In her call for a moratorium on coal seam gas, Senator Waters declared that a moratorium must be done:

… until we understand better those risks that we are taking and those long-term impacts that we may have—potentially irreversible long-term impacts.

In the supertrawler debate Senator Waters was determined in her call that the onus of proof must be on the industry and saying that the supertrawlers:

… must be banned until the best possible science has proven that they are not causing the untold damage the community is so concerned about.

There is no call for a moratorium in this bill. There is no call to ban an industry here. What there is is a bill that fulfils the calls by the Greens senators for full accountability by industry—for thorough examination of the risks, and for community concerns and dangers to health to be put ahead of economics. This bill seeks to ensure that an industry that enjoys substantial taxpayer subsidies is properly regulated, transparent and is held just as accountable for its actions as any other industry in this country.

Through the Senate committee inquiry over the last few weeks we have substantiated that this legislation is not onerous on the wind industry relative to noise legislation regulating other Australian industries. In fact, wind farm operators would only be required to meet half the noise limit currently demanded of other industries. The excessive noise limit of other industries is set at a noise above background plus 5dBA compared to the proposed legislation before the wind industry, which is background noise plus10dBA. Ironically, the industries that manufacture wind farm components in Australia, few though they are, are compelled to comply with these noise levels that are lower than for the wind industry itself.

I can guarantee that there are few industries in this country that would not love to operate under a noise standard of background plus 10dBA. In fact, those who suggest the industry noise standards should be fair and even to all should consider that to do so would mean either increasing other industry levels to background plus 10dB(A) or reducing the wind industry's level to background plus 5dBA. But to insist that the wind industry follow the same noise levels as other industry is too much like attacking a sacred cow to many here. While regulating excessive noise, this legislation is not excessive overregulation.

Through the Senate committee of inquiry we have substantiated that other industries, such as the aviation sector, must provide real-time noise information to the Australian public. In the case of airports, anyone can at any time access real-time live-feed information readily from the internet. If you are interested, I would be happy to send you a link so you can check it out for yourself. This ensures transparency and accountability.

During the recent public hearing, Professor Simon Chapman, who, while not an a medical expert and cannot be expected to provide an expert opinion on matters of health relating to excessive noise, made a valuable contribution regarding transparency. When asked:

… do you have an issue with that level of transparency in terms of the proponents of wind farms providing that information publicly?

Professor Chapman stated:

No, transparency is always a good thing—the right to information is a cardinal principle of a democracy, which good decision-making needs in order to take place.

Publicly available data helps displace worries and fears, eradicates the veracity of noise data being contested and supports independent checking and verification of noise data by the public. Unfortunately, despite statements by virtually every witness at the inquiry stating transparency is a good thing and that the provision of data is necessary, the wind industry sees it differently. In fact, the wind industry refuses to release information but then claims noise is not a problem, that it is all in the minds of local residents. They try to dignify this brush-off by calling it 'psychosocial' or a 'placebo effect'.

The best way the wind industry can prove that wind turbine noise is not a problem is by making public their noise reports and making publicly available real-time noise data. Just as Senator Waters suggested in the debate on the supertrawler, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the wind industry and not on the local residents or even on the regulator. Complaints means just that. All industry must comply with regulation whether they be the lepers of Australian industries, such as coal and uranium, or the sacred cows of the renewable industry—wind farms.

The industry must prove they are complying. It is not up to the local community and the taxpayers to prove they are not. The industry's refusal to release noise data does not support their case; it works against it. Why are they hiding the noise data? 'Commercial-in-confidence' is the most common excuse. 'Commercial-in-confidence', 'sovereign risk' and 'peer-reviewed' are expressions that seem to be used more and more—unfortunately, not for transparency but usually to keep something hidden or untouchable.

When I was young the expression 'scientific studies show' ended all debate. The wind industry's reply to requests for data generally ends the same way. 'We are compliant', they say, 'so why do we need the data?' In answer to their stoicism I will say the same thing that I have said since I was given this reply several years ago. If you are compliant you have nothing to fear by supplying the data. If you are compliant then all the more reason for it to be provided.

This industry, the wind industry, is in business for pretty much the same reason as any other business: profit. That is fine. All businesses are encouraged to make profits, to develop and to add to the local community and to the economy. But, while most industries in this country go about making their profits, they do so under regulations which they are required to comply with and which prohibit them from causing harm to the health of the community or the environment. Almost all of these industries are compliant with these regulations, and those that are not are penalised and expected to become compliant or close. But here we have an industry that does not believe it needs to prove its compliance. When asked repeatedly at the hearing whether they would make their data publicly available, the industry representatives could only respond that it would depend on what it was wanted for. When asked why they objected to the excessive noise level of background plus 10dBA, as stated in the bill, their response was that the state noise guidelines were regulation enough. In reply to Senator Xenophon's question on what constitutes excessive noise, Mr Upson from Infigen stated:

Excessive noise, by definition, is a noise above what the state noise limits are. If you are over that limit, then it is excessive. It is simple enough.

I agree that it is simple enough. If you operate below the noise level limits you are compliant; if you do not, you are not. But the problem here is: how do we know if you are compliant if you will not supply the data?

The wind industry, like all industries, protects its interests wherever possible. In order to continue getting substantial public subsidies and to enjoy the rewards of the renewable energy certificate scheme, they need to comply. If they do not comply, their profits and their RECs are in danger. But to allow any industry complete self-regulation is disastrous—and we all know it. Yet here we have one of the most heavily subsidised industries in the country and we cannot get them to agree that verifying their compliance is a necessary thing. We constantly hear criticism of the subsidies given to the vehicle-manufacturing industry, but not a word about subsidies of an industry that are so defensive about complying with a basic noise level. If there is no public scrutiny, there should be no public money. I ask again: what do they have to fear?

Surely the best defence for a multibillion-dollar industry wanting to protect their business is compliance. If the data is compliant, their case is won. Releasing the data will either verify their compliance or show their noncompliance. If it turns out that the wind industry are noncompliant then it is best we find out now and ensure the problem is fixed so that any and all future wind energy facilities are constructed to meet compliance. The data collection methodology could be checked, the data outcomes could be checked and an independent verdict could be achieved. This level of obstruction will inevitably lead to the idea that the wind energy industry are hiding something.

The Senate committee majority report recommends a peace offering that was initiated by Pacific Hydro. It recommends that noise information may be provided to an independent authority. This is the only offering from the majority report. It opposes all of the noise aspects of the bill. While the smallest gesture from the committee's majority goes a little way towards what is needed, it is not enough. It is a gesture in the right direction, but it is still only a gesture. The wind industry needs a regulatory environment that can and will protect members of the public and the environment from noise emissions. That will support and encourage good industry practice and, in doing so, help protect the reputation and investment prospects of this industry.

If the Senate Environment and Communication Legislation Committee were sincere in analysing this bill, committee members would have showed up to the public hearing. If the committee were sincere in wanting to protect an important plank of the federal government's emissions reduction policy, they would welcome the regulatory environment of the wind energy industry being put on a scientific, accountable, and open footing. Emissions reduction should be across the board—reducing greenhouse gas emissions and noise emissions from energy technologies.

During the day of the inquiry, we heard the mantra of the wind turbine manufacturers and wind turbine operators: 'This is a states rights issue. The states are doing a great job. Leave the current arrangements alone.' The reality is that wind does not discriminate on state lines. No two states or territories have the same standard or regulatory compliance and enforcement approach.

The inquiry heard from the Pyrenees local council, which has the Waubra wind farm in its municipality. Despite receiving numerous complaints about noise, the council cannot access noise reports submitted by the wind farm to the state regulator. The state-based regulator will not provide them to the local council or to the public. I understand that the Victorian regulator does not have the internal capacity or technical expertise to scrutinise noise related reports it receives from wind farm operators and to arrive internally at an expert conclusion about their contents. Instead, it is happy to receive affidavits attesting to the reports being true and compliance being achieved.

That is how Victoria's statutory regulator for wind farms, the Department of Planning and Community Development, is dealing with the complex noise and environmental issues arising from the wind energy industry—by affidavit. It gets sent an affidavit from a wind farm operator or one of their consultants that says they are complying, and on that basis the regulator believes them. There is no capacity or willingness to engage, for example, the Environment Protection Authority or any other regulatory government authorities, scientists or health experts. The industry says it is telling the truth and, therefore, the state believes it is telling the truth. Because the regulator will not make the reports public, there is no external checking. During the inquiry, Mr Chris Hall of the Pyrenees Shire Council said:

It was only when Waubra started becoming an issue—with the number of complaints that were received—that the department's attitude towards being willing to take on enforcement responsibility seemed to change quite suddenly. They then wrote to us and other councils and indicated that basically they believed—without providing any legal advice, mind you—that they believed that the shires were the responsible authority for administration enforcement, overriding what they have done on the planning permit. It does not override the enabling legislation—that is legally unenforceable.

This is not regulation. This is not regulatory enforcement and compliance. This is systemic regulatory failure.

When the system that lets the industry do whatever it likes, when it fails to cover up the lack of regulatory enforcement and when the problems become manifest, the response of the regulator is to duck and shove responsibility elsewhere. No wonder the industry likes state based arrangements so much and is repudiating Commonwealth involvement. I encourage all senators to support this bill.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:37): We have just heard Senator Madigan's 'stop the planet; I want to get off'' bill. That is what this is. We have around the world wind power being installed at an unheard-of level. I used to work at Liddell Power Station, which is a 2,000-megawatt coal fired power station and one of the biggest in Australia. To try to get some understanding of what is happening with wind power: in 2012 alone there is around the world 238 gigawatts of wind power installed. That is about 119 Liddell Power Stations—a huge investment in wind power all around the world. If you look at the International Energy Agency website and you go to what is targeted for wind power around the world, you see that it is targeted to pick up 12 per cent of energy needs by 2050. That requires 47 gigawatts of installation of wind power every year for the next 40 years. It is $81 billion a year in investment.

Senator Madigan said that this was a billion-dollar industry. Senator Madigan, it is not a billion-dollar industry; it is a trillion-dollar industry. The industry will have to invest $3.2 trillion through to 2050 to meet that 12 per cent with wind energy. Senator Madigan throws these words around—'The wind energy industry can do whatever it likes' and 'The system allows it to do whatever it likes'—but I did not see Senator Madigan sleeping through any of the evidence, so he has obviously ignored much of it. He obviously has not read the evidence from the Queensland conservative government, who say that they have stringent regulation in place, that they do not want an industry to operate without any regulation and that the regulations that are in place with the state governments around this country are amongst the most stringent regulations anywhere in the world.

I have a little bit of an issue with Senator Madigan's approach on this. I would like to remind the Senate why we need renewable energy. The climate science is in, Senator Madigan. You cannot continue to believe that the climate science is not there and that this is some kind of conspiracy by the wind power industry or some group of bankers in Zurich or somewhere. This is a real problem. It is a problem the world is struggling to deal with, and wind energy is one of the key components to try to deal with the issue of global warming and climate change. I know many senators in this place are sceptics, deniers, conspiracy theorists or just political opportunists on this.

Senator Williams: What about realists?

Senator CAMERON: I will take that interjection by Senator Williams, who said, 'No, we're just realists.' Senator Williams, the realists around the world are people like the World Bank, not some left-wing conspirators trying to create a world government. They are saying that there are significant problems. Let me remind you of the Australian Academy of Science 2010 report. They are being realists. They are the realists on this issue. They put out a report: The science of climate change: questions and answers. Go have a look at it. Have a look at what it says. They try to address the confusion created by contradictory information in the public domain. Obviously, Senator Williams, you have not read it.

I remind senators of the 2011 CSIRO report Climate change: science and solutions for Australia. That report draws on the latest peer reviewed literature contributed by thousands of researchers in Australia and internationally. It provides a synthesis of CSIRO's long history of public funded research over several decades. Obviously, Senator Williams, you have not read that either. It highlights the importance of climate change as a matter of significant environmental concern in Australia and provides the latest information on international climate change science and the responses.

If you want to be a denier, if you want to be a sceptic, if you want to listen to Alan Jones, you will not believe it, you will say the scientists are wrong—the CSIRO has it wrong; the Academy of Science has it wrong. But let me tell you: I would take those bodies before I would listen to Alan Jones any day, because I am concerned about the future for my grandkids and the kids that are being born in Australia today.

They have to have a future, and part of that future is wind farms. Part of that future is renewable energy. It is absolutely important that we deal with this issue on the basis of science and not on what is said by groups that are running around trying to instil fear in local communities. These groups are creating the problems that local communities are feeling because they are out there fearmongering about wind farms.

It is not just the scientists who are worried. The Catholic Church is worried, Senator Madigan. I would ask you to go and have a look at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences report in 2011. I notice that you are smiling. I am not sure if you have read the report, Senator Madigan, but I am sure it would certainly educate you a little bit about what the scientific issues are. The Vatican brought together a number of the world's most eminent scientists on climate change, and their report said that global warming and climate change is a real problem. Icebergs are falling into the sea. Glaciers are retreating. The sea level is rising. You can sigh all you want, Senator Madigan, but I can tell you that I would listen to these bodies before I would listen to the Waubra Foundation, who probably wrote your speech for you.

The report from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences calls on all people and all nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses. Senator Madigan, go down and see your local representative of the Vatican in Australia, talk to them, get a copy of the report. I will send it to you, if you like. But I can tell you that they are equally concerned about this, as are the scientists in Australia.

I remind senators of the Bureau of Meteorology's State of the Climate 2012 report, which provides an updated summary of long-term climate trends. It notes that the long-term warming trend has not changed, with each decade being warmer than previous decade since the 1950s—and it goes on and on. Last week, the World Bank released its contribution to this issue in a report called Turn down the heat. The report provides a snapshot of recent scientific literature and a new analysis on the impacts and risks that could be associated with a four-degree Celsius warming this century. It outlines a range of risks, focusing on developing countries and especially the poor. The report describes a number of meteorological record-breaking events. It goes to England and Wales: wettest autumn on record since 1766; Europe, hottest summer in the last 500 years; England and Wales, May to July, wettest since records began in 1766; Victoria, Australia, heatwaves—many station temperature records; Western Russia, the hottest summer since 1500; Pakistan, rainfall records; the western Amazon, drought and record low levels of rainfall in Rio Negro. I can go on and on, yet we still have people who say that global warming and climate change is not real. I go to those points because, Senator Madigan, I do not believe the issue of wind turbines is the issue with you.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ) (10:44): Senator Cameron, I will remind you to address your comments through the chair.

Senator CAMERON: I apologise, Chair. My view is that Senator Madigan's position is not about wind turbines; it is not a concern about the people who have got a problem. Underlying his position is his fundamental denial that there is a problem with changing climate around the world; I am convinced of that.

This week the International Energy Association in an article for PlanetB magazine discussed how energy efficiency and renewable energy technology will play a vital role in the transition to a secure and sustainable future. Even some of the sceptics' views are changing. Ben Cubby wrote a most interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 July 2012, where he outlined that prominent sceptic scientist, Richard Muller, had changed his position. So things are changing. Surely scientists are starting to deal with the issues and we will hopefully get to a position where most of the senators in this place can believe that there is a problem, that it has to be dealt with and that wind power is an important part of dealing with it.

The bill before us today, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012, which I have described as the 'Stop the planet I want to get off bill', aims to give powers to the regulator to ensure that accredited power stations that are wind farms either in whole or in part do not create excessive noise. I do not have a problem with that position. All I say to you is that we have some of the most strict environmental controls on wind farms anywhere in the world—that is a fact—and the controls are subject to state environmental laws.

In Australia, we currently have 59 wind farms, consisting of 1,345 turbines with 2,480 megawatts of capacity. The evidence given to the committee was that right around the world—I have described how much wind power is installed around the world—it is only in English-speaking countries where there is this so-called wind turbine syndrome and these problems starting to appear. So I do not think that the Waubra Foundation have actually got enough translators to get their message out to the rest of the world—hopefully, they do not, because around the world there is not an issue with wind turbines. There is not a problem of this so-called wind farm syndrome anywhere else in the world, but there is in some areas in Australia—not everywhere where there are wind turbines—and in some areas in Canada and also in some areas in the UK. If you draw the link between the groups that are agitating against wind turbines that link eventually goes back to the climate change sceptics and the climate change deniers.

There are issues there. I do not for a minute deny that there are people who feel genuine concern about wind turbines appearing in their backyards, especially if their neighbour is getting a financial gain from it and they are getting no gain. I do not for a minute underestimate the problems that individuals feel, that they genuinely feel that the wind turbines are making them sick, but there was absolutely no evidence to link either infrasound or the sound of the wind turbines to the various complaints and illnesses that were brought before the committee.

Our conclusion is consistent with every analysis that has been made on this around the world—that we should not simply accept the arguments; that there are problems there. We should take a precautionary approach, which the committee has said we should do. We should continue to do the scientific evaluation that Senator Madigan wants. I think that is appropriate and that is being done. We should continue to ensure that we can make a contribution to renewable energy through more wind turbines.

Senator Madigan spoke about the nocebo effect. We had evidence that the nocebo effect is a well-documented part of medical and scientific literature around the world. The National Health and Medical Research Centre have reviewed some of the literature available and they said that no adverse health effects other than annoyance could be directly correlated with noise from wind turbines. There is limited and contested published evidence that wind farm noise may be associated with annoyance and sleep disturbance in some individuals, but the causes are not clear and that has been considered by the NHMRC.

The committee was provided with recent research that has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the leading health journal Health psychology. That research has not yet been publicly released. The research comprises a controlled double-blind study in which subjects were exposed to infrasound and sham infrasound. Healthy volunteers, when given information about expected physiological effects of infrasound, reported symptoms which aligned with that information, during both exposure to infrasound and sham infrasound. This is a scientific study that is basically saying that if you tell people this is what will happen to you through this infrasound which you cannot hear and you cannot see and you can expect that this might happen to you, people will say, 'Yes, I have now got the symptoms.' People in the scientific study had sham infrasound—there was no infrasound—and they reported the same conditions that they were told to expect. That is called the nocebo effect and it is well known.

I am not saying that, if you are suffering the nocebo effect, you should be ignored, that we should simply walk away and say, 'Well, that is bad luck; it is psychological and not physiological.' The view is that the wind industry have a responsibility to deal with this issue, and so they should. But dealing with it is not stopping the world and getting off, as Senator Madigan would want. It is about understanding the importance of the wind industry and of individuals who feel that they have been affected by the wind industry, ensuring that we continue to have strong state based environmental protections in place and that we continue to research and put regulation on the industry as far as practical, and ensuring that monitoring continues to go on.

After listening to all the evidence, I just feel that, when you weigh up the scientific evidence against the anecdotal evidence that we got, we must go with the scientific evidence but we must also have care and consideration for people who are suffering because of wind turbines. There should be more transparency in the industry, but that should be through an independent auditor because you cannot provide what is being asked without having a real influence on the cost of power. So I recommend and support the recommendations in the report. I think it is the sensible way to go. I reject and do not support the Madigan-Xenophon bill.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (10:58): I rise to also contribute to this debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012. I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate for us to make some comments on what is a genuine area of concern in parts of the community and for us to ensure that those concerns are appropriately reflected in this place and to make clear the inadequacy to date of government responses to those concerns.

All businesses require not just a legal permit to operate but also a social permit. What has occurred over recent years in the wind sector is that aspects of that social permit and social licence to operate have come under threat. They have come under threat because of genuine concerns that many people have about the impact that wind farms are having in their communities, on their lifestyles and on their health.

Those concerns should not be easily dismissed. Those concerns should be dealt with seriously. That is not to say that we should be shutting down the wind industry and not to say that we should not recognise the very important role that wind power has played in helping Australia to grow its renewable energy sector, because there is an important role being played there by the wind power sector within the renewable energy industry. And we want to see continued growth of renewable energy; that is an important part of Australia's energy mix for the future and important especially for how we deal with the issues of tackling climate change and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. But that does not mean that we just ignore or sweep under the carpet community concerns that exist.

In Senator Madigan's well-thought-out remarks—many of them were—he drew some very good comparisons and quoted from some of the Greens senators in this place in those comparisons. They were comparisons in the debates we have had in here—and there have been plenty—around coal seam gas. Or there were more recent debates around the so-called supertrawler. In all of those areas there were emphatic arguments to let science speak, to ensure that we have the best available science undertaken, that we rely on that research and that we act on what that research says. That is what the coalition believes should be the case here as well. We think that it is important to make sure that beyond any doubt the community, the wind industry and the regulators—at a state level in particular, who provide the planning approvals for these developments—all have sound evidence on which to base their decisions.

Indeed, submitters to the inquiry into this legislation made similar views known. Mrs Maria Linke wrote in her submission:

I feel there needs to be independent health studies into rural wind farms, focusing on excessive noise.

…   …   …

However until that happens, I fully support the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012.

Let us reflect on what Mrs Linke is saying there. She supports this bill because of the absence of other action, and it is the absence of other action that I condemn this government for.

There should have been underway by now very thorough and comprehensive reviews into the health effects of wind farms. Why should there have been such views? Because no less than a previous Senate inquiry had asked for them and made it clear that this was the best way forward to deal with the community concerns that exist.

On 23 June 2011 the Senate Community Affairs References Committee presented the Report into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms. Among several recommendations made by this committee—and can I emphasise, by the whole committee, including the Labor senators on that committee; the government senators—was one that says:

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.

It is very clear from this recommendation what the committee sought—very, very clear. But far from treating the Senate committee's recommendation as a matter of priority, the Gillard Labor government took more than 14 months to respond to that inquiry—just to respond to it! It even took more than seven months after this Senate called on the government to act immediately on the Senate committee's recommendations.

The government finally responded on 13 September 2012 to the committee's report of 23 June 2011. The government should surely appreciate that such delays and tardiness in responding only add to the angst and concerns that do exist in parts of the community about the operation and impact of wind farms.

When it did come, the government response was manifestly inadequate. The government claimed to accept the recommendations in principle. However, what we got instead was effectively an NHMRC literature review. I have complete faith that the NHMRC review will be thorough. I am sure they will do a good job of it. But it is not what the Senate had recommended, and it is unlikely that the nature of this review—in fact, it is clear from the evidence already received—will satisfy the concerns of those in the community. It will not provide the Australian based type of research, with the thorough epidemiological and laboratory studies, that is necessary to provide the robust scientific evidence needed to manage this issue well into the future.

Just as senators frequently come into this place and call for us to act on the science, on this we should also act on the science. But we should acknowledge that wind farms have not been in existence in Australia for a century and so there is not a deep reservoir of well-established epidemiological and laboratory research about them. However, the industry has now been about for long enough to ensure that that research is undertaken, and we should commit to making sure that that research is undertaken. It is to the shame of the government that they did not grasp the opportunity more than a year ago to get that research underway about the concerns of the people who have come to see me and those I have gone to see, the people Senators Madigan and Xenophon have heard from and the people like Mrs Linke who made submissions to the Senate inquiry. These people have concerns and have a right to expect that those concerns will be listened to and acted upon.

There is some good research happening in places. There is some progress occurring. As recently as yesterday there was a news story from my home state about a University of Adelaide team that is trying to investigate precisely how turbines produce noise, especially in the low-frequency range. Universities do not start undertaking research in these areas if they do not think there is something to look into. Adelaide university and, in particular, Associate Professor Con Doolan obviously think there is something that needs to be looked at. Professor Doolan commented in the news story:

"We have a fair amount of knowledge around the noise generation mechanisms but, particularly in the low-frequency ranges, we don't know a lot about how they combine together," he said.

"This project is aimed at getting to the bottom of what is creating the noise that can cause disturbance."

The story went on to say that the Adelaide university team:

… will build a small wind turbine in the University's wind tunnel in Adelaide and use advanced techniques to measure aerodynamics and best practice.

"If we can understand what's creating these sounds then we can advise governments about wind farm regulation and policy and make recommendations about the design of wind farms or the turbine blades and industry," Professor Doolan said.

That is exceptionally welcome work from the University of Adelaide, Professor Doolan and his team. We welcome that type of progress because it will only be by providing the robust and sound scientific evidence that we will ensure the social licence to operate for the wind farm industry remains strong and well supported within the communities in which they operate.

The coalition believe that, after all the waiting for the government to act on last year's Senate inquiry, it is now time for the parliament to try to force the government's hand. So it will be our intention during the committee stages of debate on this bill—which I acknowledge are unlikely to be today—to move amendments to cause to have undertaken the type of NHMRC study that we have spoken off and that was recommended by the Community Affairs References Committee last year. There should be a study and a body of research that includes full spectrum acoustic monitoring with epidemiological and laboratory studies. It should be research that ensures the views of industry and the community are heard during its process so that it can seek to address and study the areas of concern. It should look at audible noise, low-frequency noise, infrasound, electromagnetic radiation and vibration arising from or associated with wind farms including wind turbines, transmission lines, substations, telecommunications towers and any other structures associated with industrial wind electricity generation. Importantly, it should ideally be undertaken in a way that has buy-in from both sides of this debate, from the Clean Energy Council and from the Waubra Foundation, so that at the outset there is some acceptance of who is undertaking the research, how it will be undertaken and what it will cover and there is some confidence that the outcomes we get can be used in a sound way to inform future regulation of this sector.

I said before in relation to the need for science and to act on science that we hear this pointed out about coal seam gas or CSG. We have seen actions taken by the Labor government to have thorough research undertaken into the impacts of the coal seam gas industry. We have seen the government set up an independent panel to oversee that research and to provide some certainty around its impacts, especially the impacts on groundwater systems. So there is no reason why the government should not embrace the type of action the coalition is proposing in relation to wind farms.

There is another area in this debate that is analogous to the position of coal seam gas, and that is that the Commonwealth with its research funds, expertise and expert bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council takes a lead role in helping to establish the evidence base. However, we should also acknowledge the Constitution under which we operate and the Federation that we have and respect the fact that state and territory governments are ultimately responsible for the type of planning decisions that relate to projects, be they coal seam gas projects on the one hand or wind farm projects on the other. That is why, whilst we have an understanding of the concerns that Senators Madigan and Xenophon are pursuing in this legislation, we equally think that the types of legislative reforms they are proposing are not the types that this parliament should be legislating for, because they do intrude on the rights of the states to regulate for their communities as they see appropriate.

We think that if you could get the ideal outcome, if you could get the comprehensive evidence base that informed what would be sensible exclusion zones, sensible noise limits, the types of regulations necessary for the wind farm industry, an evidence base that had the confidence of both sides of the debate in this argument, then the pressure and the expectation could be applied to those states to ensure that they enact the types of planning laws that operate on the best available scientific evidence.

We want it done in a way that provides some confidence and certainty for the future for the wind farm industry just as much as it does for the communities in which that industry operates. The wind farm industry has come a long way. Senator Cameron cited some of the statistics in his contribution about the global science of the wind farm sector as well as the number of wind farms operating in Australia—many of which are of course in my home state of South Australia.

Wind-farm and wind-power generation is critical to achieving the 20 per cent renewable energy target set by the Commonwealth. I have expressed in this place previously some concerns that we have not banded or set aside some of that target to ensure that other technologies, the emerging technologies, can definitely benefit from it. I think that is a genuine concern that we need to keep in mind for the future. Nonetheless, the wind farm industry deserves, just as much as the communities in which these concerns have emanated from, to have certainty for the future. There should be certainty for both sectors, certainty that everyone has confidence in the evidence base on which decisions are made and on which regulations are put in place. Everyone should have confidence that no harm is occurring or, if harm is occurring, it is being prevented by the actions taken by industry and government working together.

As I said, noting that we probably will not get to the committee stage today and that this is the last sitting day for the year, I invite the government over the next couple of months before the parliament returns to think long and hard about the type of inquiry this Senate called for more than a year ago and the type of inquiry that we have urged be undertaken—and, if necessary, the coalition will move through the parliament—to provide the type of sensible, sound evidence base for the future that the communities where wind farms are based deserve and the wind farm industry itself deserves as well.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:18): This debate is not about sensible, sound evidence based policy. This debate is not about noise from wind farms. This debate is about an organised campaign by the fossil fuel sector using astroturf organisations running around being anti wind farms and anti renewables. They have added solar to it now, you will be pleased to know, so next year we will probably have the blinding impacts of solar farms out here talked about as a major impact. This debate is about a group of fossil fuel interests around the world organising an anti-renewables campaign and focusing in particular on being anti wind farms.

Just this week, for example, the fake grassroots campaign against wind has been exposed in the United States. It has been funded of course by the Koch brothers, as you would expect, because they always do provide funds for the oil industry, for the coal industry, for the gas industry. The whole tactic has been exposed of what you do to get stuck into renewable energy because the fossil fuel sector knows that renewables are coming on at scale and are challenging the base of the fossil fuel sector. That is what this debate is about. It has got nothing to do with noise from wind farms.

Let me tell you some of the activities that have been revealed with this leaked strategy from the fake grassroots campaign. It is associated of course with the Heartland Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council—and our very own Senator Bernardi is the Australian representative of the American Legislative Exchange Council—whose job it is to bring up template legislation to put into state legislatures around the world to do away with anything that the fossil fuel industry does not want. They are bringing in template legislation around the United States to do away with renewable energy. So no doubt Senator Bernardi will be right across this fake grassroots campaign against wind because the organisation for which he is the Australian representative and spokesperson will be providing him with all that information. Previously, we had here Family First, Senator Fielding, who went off to the Heartland Foundation. They are one of the leading think-tanks of global climate sceptics. This is organised by people who want to delay and not address climate change, and it is the most bogus and disgraceful campaign running around the world.

But they are having extraordinary success. The Baillieu government's decision in Victoria to do in wind in Victoria is completely and utterly a result of this bogus campaign being run by the fossil fuel sector. I am terrified when I hear Senator Birmingham giving the Waubra Foundation equal status with the scientists. Can you believe it—in this place the coalition actually standing there saying that a balanced debate with the Waubra Foundation on one hand and others on the other! It is not a balanced debate.

Senator Birmingham: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. In that regard, if Senator Milne looks back to the comments, she will see that I mentioned the Waubra Foundation and the Clean Energy Council in the same sentence. I never suggested equal billing for either organisation with the scientists who should undertake the research.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Senator Birmingham, as you know, there is no point of order.

Senator MILNE: Let me tell you about the Waubra Foundation. Back in 2009 Waubra hit the news when powerful forces linked to mining interests and Australia's climate sceptic factory, the Institute of Public Affairs, which is in turn linked to the Liberal Party, used what was then the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere as an easy target for their antiwind scare campaign and they established the Waubra Foundation. That Waubra Foundation was set up by Mr Mitchell. He is part of the Landscape Guardians. He also has the investment company Lowell Resources Funds Management Ltd, which lists coal in various forms as the standout investment performer and shares the same PO box in South Melbourne with the Waubra Foundation. It is obvious. If you go to astroturfing and look at the connections, you can see where they come together. You get exactly what you have here—and that is a campaign to do in renewable energy, in particular wind.

Let us get to some of the so-called health impacts. Let us go to the spokespeople for wind turbine syndrome. The qualifications of the spokespeople were exaggerated and were forced to be corrected because there is no serious background research science behind Dr Laurie, the spokesperson for the Waubra Foundation, in terms of acoustics and so on. There are all these allegations about wind turbine sickness and syndrome. There are meant to be 222 separate health diseases and symptoms as a result of wind farms. I will tell you what some of them are. These are the diseases and symptoms experienced by people and animals as a result of wind farms: dental infections, feet sores that would not heal until they moved out of the house, kidney damage, leukaemia, skin and lung cancer, nausea, children losing interest in school and refusing to go to school, spontaneous abortions by horses, chickens laying yokeless eggs, Peacock-mating problems, earthworms abandoning the properties and the sudden death of 400 goats. Now come on!

We have just heard Senator Birmingham telling us that we should be taking this seriously and we should equally weigh up the claims of the Waubra Foundation and so on. The science community is out there saying that this is ridiculous. The scientists concerned have said that wind farm syndrome is actually a psychogenic condition. People are told they are going to be sick and if they do not have a financial interest in the wind farm then suddenly they get sick. Isn't it interesting that where people have a financial interest in the wind farm, whether it is a lease arrangement or a joint venture, those people do not get sick? I find that extraordinary. If you have a financial interest, you do not get sick. If you just do not like looking at it and you have not got any money in it and you might have in the fossil fuel industry then it is a different thing.

We hear Senator Birmingham say he is terribly worried about setbacks for wind farms, but what about coal seam gas? I am going to come to that because he was suggesting that there is some equivalence between wind farms and coal seam gas. Let me tell Senator Birmingham that coal seam gas actually requires a physical intervention which results in gas coming up and fugitive emissions that are going into the atmosphere. Those are methane emissions that are driving climate change. Those are scientific facts; those are evidence based facts. There is no equivalence whatsoever. You cannot look at these two things as if they are somehow equivalent. That is a load of nonsense.

There are thousands of wind turbines in Germany, Denmark and Spain but those people have not got wind turbine syndrome. How is it possible that the Germans, the Danes and the Spaniards do not get sick, but people in North America and Australia get sick? How is that possible? There is a lot to suggest that actually these illnesses are psychosomatic, because a whole lot of the bogus literature that is not peer reviewed is overwhelmingly written in English. It is not until you read about it in English apparently that you get sick, so the Spanish, the Germans and the Danes do not get sick at all.

Where is the concern for the coal dust and particulate matter from coalmines that is causing illnesses? That is evidence based and documented. It seems nobody in the coalition is the least bit concerned about the real health impacts that are already occurring as a result of expanded coalmining, coal seam gas and the like. So what we have here is a carefully constructed and orchestrated campaign by astroturf organisations and brought to Australia via the Institute of Public Affairs and the Waubra Foundation. It is obvious to me that this is now a strategy put together by the Landscape Guardians and the IPA. It is all about trying to do over renewable energy.

As I said before, Peter Mitchell has 25 years of history in the fossil fuel industry. He was the founding Chairman of the Moonie Oil Company and a chairman or a director of related companies, including Clyde Petroleum, Avalon Energy, North Flinders Mines, Paringa Mining and Exploration, and so on. So there you go. You have absolute evidence that the person running the campaign against wind is totally associated with the fossil fuel industry.

Like the Landscape Guardians, the Waubra Foundation is highly secretive. There is no information about its funding or its sponsorship. The audited financial statements of the Landscape Guardians contain no expenditure but money seems to be no object to them. They have full-time campaigners, an advertising budget, travelling expenses and a media monitoring service and yet they have no expenditure in terms of their audited financial statements. How is it so? Professor Simon Chapman notes:

Most wind farms around the world and in Australia have no history of complaints, and most of those which do, have seen the local area targeted by external anti-wind farm activists who spread panic and tell frightened locals to report anything they might experience to their doctor. The activist groups even provide symptom menus to assist residents—

in case they had not actually identified the symptoms for themselves. This is an absolutely appalling situation and at the Senate inquiry we had Mr Holmes a Court, who is chairman of the Hepburn wind farm and submitted a leaked running sheet from the Australian Environment Foundation. It was addressed to the guardians detailing the strategy for a protest at Leonards Hill, including the signage to be held up by the crowd of predominantly outsiders. We also know that the Australian Environment Foundation is an astroturf organisation. Again, it is funded by vested interests. It is designed to look like, of course, the Australian Conservation Foundation and that has been a long-term subject of concern. The Environment Foundation's Executive Director, Max Rheese, is the executive director of another anti-renewables group, the Australian Climate Science Coalition, one of over 100 climate sceptic astroturfers. Who funds them? There is some evidence to suggest it could be Exxon. I would be very interested to know if in fact they come clean about whether it is Exxon.

As to the actual particulars of the legislation, one of the most ridiculous parts of this legislation is—and listen to this—the bill would empower the Clean Energy Regulator to suspend accreditation of a power station if they believe the power station is being operated in contravention of 'a law written or unwritten'. The Australian Energy Regulator shutting down a power station on the basis of an 'unwritten' law—what does that mean? The law of whom or of what? This is a silly idea and it is a nonsense.

As to the suggestion in terms of the decibel standards, actually the Australian states already regulate wind farms to a tougher standard than is being proposed by Senator Madigan in this bill. Whether Senator Madigan and Senator Xenophon are aware of the extent of astroturfing, the links of all these organisations to the fossil fuel sector and the broader campaign against renewables that is being run and is showing up as an anti-wind farm campaign, I have no idea of the extent to which they know that, understand that or whatever. But there is absolutely no science base to the allegations that are being made. As Professor Simon Chapman has noted, what we have now is a psychogenic condition—and if a condition needs to be treated it is that. I have said to the wind farm operators that if they want to end wind farm syndrome in Australia all they have to do is develop a business model that enables communities to financially benefit from wind farms. Then they will find that even these astroturfers cannot stir up a level of concern because people have actually got a financial interest in the wind farms and will look at them in a far more balanced way.

We have got a serious crisis here. We have the world meeting in Doha right now with the globe on track for three to four degrees of warming. Today in Victoria we have a heatwave expected and in Western Australia storms are expected. Look all around the world. The World Meteorological Organization released overnight the latest impacts of global warming—and make no mistake: the people running the anti-wind farm campaign and anti-renewables renewables campaign do not want the world to act on climate change and they want to derail renewable energy. This leaked memo out of the United States shows that this is a fake campaign being run by those vested interests. The tactics they are suggesting are to partner with think tanks across the political spectrum such as the Brookings Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute and, as I said, no doubt the IPA are up to their necks in it as well; to encourage critical thinking for members and the public about renewables; to recruit volunteers without establishing a formal national organisation and using them as people to lobby lawmakers; to get out strong public relations; and to collaborate with like-minded groups such as Tea Party activists and the like—and, of course, that is exactly what is happening here in Australia.

So I think the Senate needs to recognise (a) this bill has no merit—and I would be interested to know whether the coalition thinks the Energy Regulator should be able to shut down a power generator on the basis of laws 'written or unwritten'—and (b) we have a bill which the committee found comprehensively ought not to be passed. Obviously, the committee rejected the voodoo science that has been put forward in many of these cases, with 222 separate health diseases and symptoms, supposedly experienced by people as a result of wind farms, for which there is no substance. But the bigger issue here is this. If we are to actually try to constrain global warming to less than two degrees, we have to get to 100 per cent renewables as quickly as possible. We need appropriate planning laws, and there is no doubt about that, and what we do not need is astroturf organisations which are driving fear into communities and actually bringing in people from outside in order to frighten communities as they try to knock over wind farms because they interfere with the vested interests of the fossil fuel sector. That is what we are getting into here and I am not surprised. When you have got the IPA linked to Heartland and other organisations in the US, Senator Bernardi as spokesperson for the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Liberal Party's connections to the Institute of Public Affairs, no wonder we have got all of this happening in Australia.

It is part of climate scepticism, climate denial or reality of climate change and a deliberate strategy to do over renewable energy. I do not think the Senate should have any part of it. Before the Waubra Foundation expects anyone to take them seriously, they should come out with their financial statements and make it plain as to where they get their funding. Until we get an idea of where they get their funding, I am going to stand by the claim that I am making that they are an astroturf organisation for the fossil fuel sector who are meddling in public debate in Australia.

I do credit them with success with the Baillieu government in Victoria. The sooner that the Baillieu government gets over it and recognises that they are doing in the prospect of wind energy in Victoria, which is being picked up elsewhere in the country—I think that Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan are part of a campaign against wind energy and renewables in Australia. That is a very bad thing in terms of responding to the climate crisis and responding to the very real health impacts. If you want to get to health impacts, let us deal with the health impacts of particulate matter and coals, for example, and of methane from coal seam gas emissions rather than these astroturf organisations' claims, which I believe are voodoo science.

Senator Ian Macdonald: That's 55 times you've mentioned astroturf.

Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:38): It is disappointing for me to hear in this place from Senator Milne, the leader of a party which is part of government, a disappointing, insulting and dismissive presentation. I am deeply disappointed by it, but at least I have learnt now just from the last few seconds what astroturfing is all about. I had absolutely no idea and I am sure that, in his contribution, Senator Macdonald is going to tell us more about it.

I do congratulate Senators Madigan and Xenophon for the work they are doing. I cannot understand why Senator Milne would be attacking particularly Senator Xenophon, who seems to support her in so many areas, but I am sure he will speak to that. I want to recognise the late senator Judith Adams, who was very passionate in this area, and now past senator Steve Fielding, who were both participants in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry chaired competently by Senator Siewert, from the Greens.

For somebody who, in Senator Milne's case, speaks of the fact that she has such an interest in rural Australia, it is so disappointing that she would be so derisory and so dismissive of people in rural Australia who themselves believe there are health effects. What is equally disappointing is that the collegiality of this Senate is in the fact that we participate in Senate hearings, where we listen and learn and ask and form views, but at the hearing that was held only last Wednesday week Senator Milne was not a participant, and much of the nonsense that we have just heard from her would in fact have been answered had she been a participant—comments like, 'Those who earn an income from wind farms don't get sick whereas those who don't earn one do.' I point Senator Milne to the evidence of a Mr David Mortimer, himself a retired naval engineer, whose area of specialty, strangely enough, was the movement of sound and electromagnetic waves through different media, including air, ground and water. He and his family are recipients, are hosts and do earn an income, and he, for one, has come out and said recently, 'Yes, we are suffering ill effects.'

That is the disappointment of Senator Milne, because she is an intelligent person. Why she would expose herself to ridicule with a statement like that is beyond me. I am very pleased that she did not link me to any of these astroturf and other organisations, because I have no links to any of them. What I can say is that in my time as Chief Executive Officer of the Rottnest Island Authority, off the coast from Fremantle, we were the hosts of the first wind turbines in Western Australia, and it was from that work that the Albany and the Esperance wind farms were developed. When it comes to solar energy, Senator Milne, in case you are listening, I am proud to say that my organisation was in fact the developer of no less than six applications of solar energy, including solar hot water systems, solar based remote lighting, solar based navigation markers and, interestingly, solar based electric fencing for the small marsupials such as the quokka, from which the island derives its name, and I believe the world's first ever solar powered remote composting toilet.

So I will not stand in this place and listen to ridicule from Senator Milne or anybody else about my interest in renewables. We all know that in Western Australia, in Cockburn Sound, there is some tremendous work going on with the use of wave energy for generating power. I, for one, am very interested in it. Our former colleague in the other place Wilson Tuckey was always a great advocate for the value of tidal power from the north of our state, where we have 10-metre tides twice daily. So do not come in here, through you, Mr Deputy President, Senator Milne and start criticising me for the concern I have.

There are two elements that are of concern to me in this issue. First of all, I want to be satisfied that there are no adverse health impacts from any technology that is introduced into this country. Second, I want to see technology that is commercially viable and realistic, or has the capacity to be. I make the point as an arch federalist and of course as a Western Australian that I have no interest at all in the federal government removing from the states and territories their inherent constitutional right to govern whatever it is they do under the Constitution. But, equally, I say to you that as a senator of this Australian parliament I do have an obligation to ensure that there are not adverse health effects over which we can have some control. I do not want to see the expenditure of vast sums of taxpayers' money on development of any sort, including wind turbines or wind farms, if indeed they are not shown to be commercially viable. That has been the motive that has caused me to pick up the work of the late Senator Adams and in fact to participate with Senators Xenophon and Madigan, by telephone with Senator Birmingham and with the chairman of the committee, Senator Cameron, in the hearings recently.

If there are such concerns from the wind farm developers about noise, why do they not do two things? Firstly, why do they not make publicly available the information that they receive on audible noise? Secondly, why do they continually refuse to evaluate low-frequency infrasound and other effects that may be having an adverse health effect.

As we know, and as I brought out recently in the hearing in Canberra, we have real-time aircraft noise monitors over all of the major airports in Australia and by going on to a website called WebTrak anybody listening, anybody in this chamber, can watch it now—as indeed the chairman, Senator Cameron, did while I was asking my questions the other day. He and the secretary went on to the WebTrak site for Sydney airport. He interrupted me to say: 'Yes, what he says is right. I am watching in real time noise over Sydney airport.' I say if we can do that for every airport in Australia, why can we not do it for the wind farms or those in the vicinity of them?

I also asked the question, and I have not yet had adequate answers: why is it that the contracts that the wind farm developers demand of the hosts have these particular clauses? One of them is:

The operator will generate sound pressure levels of a maximum of 50 decibels auditory and the operator consents to the proposed operation of a wind farm—

listen to this, Mr Deputy President—

despite its non-compliance with noise guidelines sound pressure levels set out in a clause of the deed.

I am reading from a contract that wind farm developers require land owners to sign. Furthermore, the organisation uses a contract to include a clause that shifts liability for health effects due to noise from the developer to the landholder. It says:

The landholder releases the developer from any liability for loss, damage or injury occurring in the premises or on the land arising from the tenant's breach of the Environment Protection Act 1970 due to noise emitted from wind turbine generators.

Well, if Senator Milne does not have any concern about those clauses in those contracts, I certainly do. Remember these contracts tie people up for 50 years. Neighbours are being asked to sign them to say that for a 50-year or more period they will not complain. I asked the question, and I have asked it of the developers themselves: what are you trying to hide?

We had evidence on the day—and it was a shame Senator Milne was not there because she would have heard it—from Professor Hansen, who has received Australian Research Council funding to have a look at some of these aspects of ill health. The wind farm developers will not release their data to him to undertake independent research. I ask: why not? If I had confidence in my technology, firstly, I would be out there very proudly saying it; secondly, I would not be tying people up to confidentiality agreements that prevent them from actually stating if they do believe they have adverse health effects; and, thirdly, I certainly would not be denying scientists access to review these circumstances.

It is this that brings me to the conclusion that for the first time ever—whether it is in English or Dutch or Danish or Norwegian or Swahili, I do not care—I want to seek independent research undertaken into issues associated with the question of adverse health effects of people affected by wind turbines. Senator Milne, I am not paid by anybody, I am not in anybody's pocket and I do not know what or who astroturf organisations are. What I want to see is a proper literature review, and I have questions and I have raised concerns over the independence of those who undertook the so-called rapid review by NHMRC. I asked questions recently in the hearing about that. The very term 'rapid review' of itself was a most unfortunate term. I urge yet again NHMRC to remove from their website the outcome of that rapid review, because simply there is a question as to its adequacy and its validity.

What the coalition wants to see, as I heard my colleague Senator Birmingham spell out, is an independent undertaking by credible scientists who can have full access to all noise data, who can undertake epidemiological studies, who undertake adequate funding to do the research and the laboratory studies, who can actually go to industry and go to the communities totally independent of bias—be it my side, be it Senator Xenophon's and Senator Madigan's side, or indeed Senator Milne's side—and undertake this work. I want to see studies undertaken of audible noise, low-frequency noise, infrasound, electromagnetic radiation and vibrations associated with all aspects of the technology.

This is the effect that is happening in rural communities around Australia and Western Australia at the moment. This is what amazes me. Perhaps Senator Milne does not get out into rural Australia; I know Senator Siewert does. We have communities in Western Australia, and the absolute cornerstones of communities in Western Australia and around rural Australia are the Country Women's Association and bush fire brigades. Those two are the absolute foundations. We have circumstances in our rural communities now—I am sorry I am keeping Senator Collins awake—where there are people who are not attending CWA meetings because of anger and discord. There are people who are not turning out at rural fires because of their concerns and because of the community discord.

I certainly am interested in the legislation that has come forward. At this stage there are deficiencies in it, but I am very, very hopeful that the coalition may in fact be able to contribute actively and sensibly to resolving this question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Time for the debate has lapsed.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:53): I present the 16th report of 2012 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 16 OF 2012

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 at 6.22 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2013 (see appendices 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Australian Education Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 March 2013 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the Biosecurity Bill 2012 and the Inspector-General of Biosecurity Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2013 (see appendices 4 and 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 March 2013 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 March 2013 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(f) the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Retaining Federal Approval Powers) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 February 2013 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(g) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 March 2013 (see appendix 9 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(h) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012, be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 March 2013 (see appendices 10 and 11 for statements of reasons for referral);

(i) the provisions of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 March 2013 (see appendix 12 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(j) the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2013 (see appendix 13 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(k) the provisions of the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 March 2013 (see appendix 14 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012

Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012

Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012

Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2012

International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2012

Migration Amendment (Special Protection Scheme for Afghan Coalition Employees) Bill 2012.

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures) Bill 2012

Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012

Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) Bill 2012

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support Bonus) Bill 2012

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reducing Illegal Early Release and Other Measures) Bill 2012

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Unlawful Payments from Regulated Superannuation Funds) Bill 2012

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012

Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 6) Bill 2012

Water Amendment (Save the Murray-Darling Basin) Bill 2012.

The committee recommends accordingly.

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Live Imports of Primates for Research) Bill 2012.

(Anne McEwen)

Chair

31 October 2012

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Significant industry and other stakeholder concerns regarding the efficacy of the Bill and associated costs

Possible submissions or evidence from:

CropLife

WWF

Bayer CropScience

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

RRAT

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2013

Possible reporting date:

27 February 2013

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Allow time for scrutiny of bills provisions

Possible submissions or evidence from:

WWF

CropLife

Bayer

Pfizer

National Toxics Network

Unions

NFF

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Late January 2013

Possible reporting date:

27 February 2013

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Education Act

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The bill to be examined against national reform agenda and Council of Australian Government objectives.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

States and Territories

Non-government sector authorities

Teacher associations

Parent Group representatives

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January/February 2013

Possible reporting date:

March 2013

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Biosecurity Bill

Inspector-General Biosecurity Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Industry concerns regarding risk assessment process and consideration of new science in reviewing existing arrangements

Possible submissions or evidence from:

NFF

AusVeg

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

RRAT

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2013

Possible reporting date:

20 March 2013

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Biosecurity Bill 2012 and Inspector-General Biosecurity Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Scrutiny of the legislative proposals to manage biosecurity risks.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Primary Industry Representatives; Retailers; Customs Brokers; Shipping Interests; Environment NGOs; Business representatives.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

27 February 2013

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The bill introduces a range of new offences which need to be thoroughly examined.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Law Council of Australia

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

Australian Federal Police

Australian Crime Commission

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

To be determined by the committee

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Customs Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill

Reasons for referral principal issues for consideration:

The bill introduces a new offence of importing restricted goods which needs to be thoroughly examined.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

Australian Federal Police

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

To be determined by the committee

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 8

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Retaining Federal Approval Powers) Bill 2012

Reasons for referral principal issues for consideration:

Referral of this Bill will provide an important opportunity for the Australian community and relevant experts and industry representatives to input on the Bill's provisions.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Environmental and biodiversity scientists

Heritage experts

Environmental and planning legal experts

Community members involved in the protection of EPBC protected matters

State and federal government environmental regulators

Relevant industry bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Late January/ early February 2013.

Possible reporting date:

25 February 2013

(signed)

Senator Siewert

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 9

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

For detailed consideration of the provisions of the Bill including:

Whether the penalties will act as a sufficient deterrent;

The duties and obligations of the officers of registered organisations; and

The regulatory regime governing registered organisations.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Registered Organisations

State Governments

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Interested parties

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

12 March 2013

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 10

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To fully examine and consult to ensure intended policy outcomes are given effect to by the legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

People with disability, their families and carers

Disability and carer sector peak bodies, advocacy groups, support groups, workers

Disability service organisations

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

Department of Treasury

Department of Finance and Public Administration

Australian Government Actuary

State and Territory Governments

Productivity Commission

Other interested parties from legal, insurance and community sectors

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January / February 2013

Possible reporting date:

25 February 2013

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 11

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Examination of the Bill, including provisions relating to:

The goal-based planning process and support for NDIS participants to manage their individual plans and funding;

The process and mechanisms for reviewing decisions of the NDIS Launch Transition Agency; and

The interface between the NDIS and other service systems, and support for people in transitioning between service systems.

Possible submissions or evidence from :

National Disability Peak bodies funded through FaHCSIA's National Secretariat Program, and the National Disability & Carer Alliance;

Graeme Innes, Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January/February 2013

Possible reporting date:

end February 2013 (25 FEB)

(signed)

Senator McEwen

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 12

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Native Title Amendment Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Consideration of the measures proposed and implications for the Native Title system in Australia.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Attorney-General Department

Law Council of Australia

National Native Title Tribunal

Aboriginal Legal Centres 3 State and Territory Government

Legal Practitioners engaged in Native Title

Pastoral bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

To be determined by the committee

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 13

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2012

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To compare the provisions of the bill with the Public Service Amendment Bill 2012.

Possible submissions or evidence from :

Department of Parliamentary Services

Public Service Commissioner, Parliamentary Services Commissioner

Presiding officers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

To be determined by the committee

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 14

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Consider the implications for the health system of Australia.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Private Healthcare Australia

Australian Private Hospitals Association

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

To be determined by the committee

(signed)

Senator Fifield

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Senator McEWEN: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:54): I move:

That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (11:57): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2013:

The impact of recent proposed federal court fee increases on access to justice in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the impact of federal court fee increases on low income and ordinary Australians and operators of small business;

(b) whether recent and proposed fee increases are reasonable, based on evidence and consistent with other justice policy matters;

(c) how increases in court fees, and other reform to the courts and justice system, can act as a barrier to accessing justice;

(d) the extent to which court fee increases may impact on services provided by legal assistance services, i.e. legal aid commissions, ATSILS, FVPLS and CLCs; and

(e) other relevant matters.

Question negatived.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (12:02): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2013:

The role, adequacy and effectiveness of government regulation of uranium oxide transport, including:

(a) the mitigation of public radiation exposure from uranium oxide transport;

(b) the evaluation of the frequency and severity of transport and handling accidents including the 27 December 2011 train derailment resulting in toxic copper concentrate flowing into the Edith River;

(c) the process of issuing and auditing compliance with radiation transport management plans;

(d) the resourcing and conduct of transport related aspects of nuclear actions referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

(e) the preparedness and resourcing of regional emergency contingency planning, education and training services;

(f) the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency codes, including the Code of Practice for Safe Transport of Radioactive Material;

(g) the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office regulation of the transportation of nuclear material and issuance and auditing of compliance with transport permits; and

(h) other relevant related matters.

Question negatived.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (12:03): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2013:

Progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the 1999 Joint Expert Technical Advisory Committee on Antibiotic Resistance, including:

(a) examination of steps taken, their timeliness and effectiveness;

(b) where and why failures have occurred;

(c) implications of antimicrobial resistance on public health and the environment;

(d) implications for ensuring transparency, accountability and effectiveness in future management of antimicrobial resistance; and

(e) any other related matter.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:06): On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Publications, Senator Brown, I present the 22nd report of the Publications Committee.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:07): On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Senator Furner, I present a volume of correspondence relating to the scrutiny of delegated legislation for the period January to June 2012.

Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:07): Pursuant to order, I present the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee, The adequacy of the allowance payment system for jobseekers and others, the appropriateness of the allowance payment system as a support into work and the impact of the changing nature of the labour market, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BACK: I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I do wish to speak to the report, but I seek your guidance—I want to make sure that there is adequate time for others to contribute.

The PRESIDENT: We have got until 12:45, so there is time.

Senator BACK: Thank you, Mr President. I thank the secretariat, those who participated in the series of hearings that we did have and those who made submissions, of which there were 78. We heard from witnesses in Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney, and we considered a number of reports prepared by charities and the not-for-profit sector, academics, government, professional bodies and, most importantly, those who are deeply affected by the legislation.

The committee made seven recommendations that I commend to the Senate. If implemented by government, they would improve the allowance payment system, not least by further encouraging those on Newstart to get work if and when they can even if it is temporary work as a first step to longer-term employment. The recommendations relate firstly to increasing the resources available to jobseekers during the first few weeks and months of unemployment. The committee heard evidence of many instances where the length of time from a person losing their employment to when they get back into meaningful employment or its opportunity is critical to their own wellbeing, to the maintenance of their skills and, most importantly, in their presentation to potential employers of their capacity to get back into the workplace.

The second recommendation relates to improving the cooperation between government agencies to appropriately target training and support for mature aged workers. Whilst time does not permit me to go into all of the elements, I do commend the report. I particularly commend the secretariat for the work they have done in preparing a wealth of background information which is well worth reading. There are summaries of reviews that have been undertaken, including the Henry review into this area. I would commend people to read this in some detail. Mature aged workers at the moment fall into a void because very often at the time they lose a job, whether it is due to redundancy or whatever, they actually have sufficient cash and assets, as an older person, to put them above the limit that would immediately allow them access to the sources and resources available. All of us would know that, when an older person does lose their employment, the days, weeks and months between them losing employment and becoming re-employed will dictate their capacity and their ability to get back into the meaningful workplace.

The third recommendation is to develop programs to assist former carers back into the workforce. I particularly commend a witness here in Canberra—a person who was trade skilled and a great contributor to his community—who ceased work to care for aged relatives. Some years later, when his mother passed away, he found great difficulty in getting back into meaningful employment through the processes. The committee actually asked him whether he would go away and give us a template for the best mechanism and process by which a person finding themselves as a carer whose relative or the person for whom they were caring has now passed away, can find their way meaningfully back through the system and towards employment. I recommend that to those who are interested.

The fourth recommendation relates to increasing the income-free threshold for long-term Newstart allowance recipients to enhance incentives to work, and I know there are others who may speak to that. I do nevertheless commend that there needs to be an increase in the income-free threshold to encourage people to actually get back into work.

The next recommendation relates to increasing the working credit for Newstart recipients to the equivalent of three months work at the minimum wage to again create the incentive for those who have lost employment or who are not in employment to actually move in that direction.

Next is reforming governmental processes to enable departing Newstart recipients to remain on departmental systems for one year after they cease receiving payment. We found instances where a person would be receiving payments, they would be in the system and they would then have the offer of employment, but a fear of them falling out of the system may have led them to a decision to not seek that employment, however short term; however temporary. We recommend that the circumstance should be there that a person could actually remain on the books, in a sense, without being a recipient, so that, in the event of them losing that source of employment, they can get back into the system without an unnecessary delay.

The last recommendation is assessing the viability of creating an online calculator to enable allowance recipients to calculate the costs and benefits of work and the impact of work on allowances. I want to acknowledge the effort made by the combined departments in evidence presented to us in Sydney. I thought it was a very collaborative and collegial approach to the questions that we put to them. What came out of it for the committee was an absolute plethora of entitlements that might be due to some people but not to others; of circumstances in which there may be an opportunity which is either denied to them or they do not know about. Of course, I am sure there is also a movement in the staff of Centrelink and in the other agencies, and I think it lends itself to some form of database with online access so that people can participate.

The predominant theme in the evidence to the committee went to the adequacy of allowance payments and, in particular, the Newstart allowance. We received information from those who put in written submissions and from other witnesses about how difficult it was for them to eke out an existence and to gain secure paid employment whilst living on Newstart. We certainly could relate to that. But I would say from my position that there are all sorts of reasons for increases in the cost of living—the carbon tax being one and other expenses which are not brought into account in the consumer price index. I would make the point that the CPI itself is not an adequate indicator in determining the adequacy of these payments for these people. The committee agreed on the whole with the argument that the Newstart allowance does not allow people to live at an acceptable level in the long term. But, of course, it is important to remember that the allowance is not intended to be a long-term solution to unemployment. We hope that Newstart will be a prop so that people who have lost employment or who have not yet gained it will be able to use it on their way back into gainful employment.

We do know that there has been waste and there has been a lack of spending, and that has now come home to roost. We now know that the interest burden alone on the debt in Australia is some $20 million a day, or $600 million a month. It was interesting that an earlier hearing considered the question of moving people from the parental leave back to Newstart, and that was to save the government $700 million over four years. In fact, that $700 million is the equivalent of about one month's interest on the national debt at the moment. It is when we do run up debts of this level that we see the end result.

The committee was concerned to learn that 42 per cent of recipients who commenced Newstart each year do not transition quickly back into the workforce. We believe that the allowance payment system could better encourage a rapid return to employment. The committee focused on how policy makers might make best use of the resources available for job seekers to speed up their movement from Newstart back into employment. The committee also made recommendations that resources be boosted to assist job-seeking for those in what is known as stream 1—most of whom are likely to be relatively newly unemployed people—so that their term of unemployment can be minimised.

This has not been an easy hearing for the committee. I commend my colleagues and I commend the secretariat. I also commend the report and its recommendations both to the Senate and to the wider community as being a bipartisan attempt to come to a resolution on this very difficult and long-term issue in Australia.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:18): I would also like to contribute to the debate on the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report entitled The adequacy of the allowance payment system for jobseekers and others, the appropriateness of the allowance payment system as a support into work and the impact of the changing nature of the labour market.I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate as it was the Greens that referred this very important issue to committee inquiry.

The Greens have submitted additional comments because, while we welcome the primary finding of the majority report, which is that the current rates of Newstart and other allowances are inadequate—let me say that again: the committee found that the current rates of Newstart allowance are inadequate—and we support that finding, the overwhelming evidence that the committee received was in fact that Newstart is inadequate. Where we have concerns is that the committee did not then go on to make the most obvious recommendation, which of course the Greens have done, which is: Newstart needs to be increased. Newstart needs to be increased by at least $50 a week because it is inadequate. We also go on to recommend the need to address the issue around indexation because we know that is separate as well, and we document that in our committee report findings. We also recommend that, with the increase in payment, there should also be proportional increases across the other payment allowances.

The reason that we needed to give additional comments is that the committee in their majority report failed to make that increase. In fact, they say that they are not able to make that recommendation. They go on to say how we cannot afford it because of other wastages of money, which Senator Back has just articulated. The committee's majority report says that there are two possible solutions: either Newstart allowance should be increased to raise the standard of living available to recipients, or more careful thought needs to be applied to how best to ensure that people spend as little time as possible on welfare between jobs.

The committee were not forced to take that approach. What they should have more carefully looked at was: what impact does a low rate of Newstart have on people in driving them into poverty, what impact does that poverty have on them and what cost does that poverty have on society? We document that in our additional comments to highlight the need to address an increase in Newstart. It is quite obvious that Newstart is inadequate and that it needs to be increased. I am really disappointed that the majority of the committee did not take the step to make that recommendation. The Greens have of course taken that step and made that recommendation.

Another issue that the Greens address in our comments is around the inadequacy of some of the joint agency submissions. We raise two points in particular in our additional comments. We believe that they run two particular arguments to dull the overwhelming evidence from the community and from the experts that Newstart payments are inadequate. One of the arguments they run is that measuring 'adequacy' is a subjective measure and so it is difficult to measure. My question is: what is so difficult to measure about Newstart being $130 below the poverty line or only 45 per cent of the minimum wage? It does not seem to too hard to me.

On top of that, of course, there are a lot of international frameworks around, guiding measurements of this sort. So it should not be too hard now because of the frameworks that we have. It is a pretty poor argument that we cannot raise Newstart because it is a bit of a subjective measure.

The other line that they continue is trying to mess with the fact that other allowances on top of Newstart mean that families can earn almost as much as the minimum wage or more than it. Of course, that line was run very early on and the media picked it up because the government were trying to make it look as if was not too bad being on Newstart if you get these other payments—but they were measuring it against the minimum wage for a single. If you are a family on the minimum wage, you are also entitled to those same allowances such as family tax benefit. This is done to disguise the fact that Newstart is too low. I am really disappointed that the agencies that are supposed to be looking after the welfare of the most disadvantaged Australians feel it is necessary to muddy the waters to try and confuse people about the inadequacies of Newstart—and so we address those issues in our submission.

The other issue that we raise is that we think that the committee did a good job in addressing issues around older workers. We had some very strong evidence around that, including the contribution that, if only three per cent of older workers were able to gain employment and get over discrimination against the aged in our workforce, they would make a very significant contribution to our economy. The report, as Senator Back just touched on, addressed the issues around carers going back into the workforce. However, I do not think the committee really adequately got to grips with the issues around partial disability, with one in 10 people on long-term unemployment being Indigenous, one in 15 being a sole parent—and we are about to see a whole lot of sole parents dumped onto Newstart—and the fact that one in two have not completed year 12.

The department and the government like to use these confusing figures saying that nearly 60 per cent of those going onto Newstart come off within a year. As Senator Back said, 42 per cent are actually on Newstart longer than a year, and 62 per cent of people that are on Newstart have been there long term, trying to survive on an inadequate payment. The majority committee report addresses this bit with quite a piecemeal approach. With issues around better employment service support, they make some recommendations but they are not comprehensive.

The Greens believe that there was certainly enough evidence given to the committee to point out that we need to be having an independent review of the functioning of Job Services Australia. There is enough evidence to show that major cohorts are missing out and that we need to better support people trying to find work. We need to be addressing their barriers to employment, even it is a single barrier—though many of them face multiple barriers to work. So we also need to be improving our employment support to those most disadvantaged job seekers.

We have identified the inadequacies of Newstart and we are about to dump tens of thousands—in the first instance, 84,000—single parents and their families on to an inadequate payment that is clearly documented as inadequate. On 1 January we dump 84,000 single parents and their children onto a clearly documented inadequate Newstart payment. I had an email just this morning from one of those single mothers. I would like to read it out:

I am absolutely in shock that my parenting payment is about to be reduced by around $200 a fortnight. I had a Centrelink employee ask me if I needed to talk to counsellor. I need to have the $200. I am in a legally binding lease. I have payments for my car, internet for my son and all the other expenses in life. I have been given two months' notice of the changes. I do the right thing. I work double what Centrelink requires but I cannot find fulltime work. It would be like tapping the highly paid Centrelink employer on the shoulder and saying, 'Oh by the way, at Christmas we are halving your wage.' It is outrageous. There are going to be a lot of homeless people and children. Somebody please help us with no voice.

That is the human face of what is about to happen on 1 January.

What this report clearly articulates is that we need to be changing direction. We need not to be dumping these single parents onto Newstart. We need to be increasing Newstart. We need to be indexing it better and supporting those workers who have faced multiple barriers to employment. They are the most disadvantaged workers. They need better employment support to enable them to find meaningful work, not just cycling people in and out of casual work. That is the other thing the department could not tell us about. They do not even have the data systems to track whether people are cycling in and out of work and how many times. Of that 60 per cent who find work, we do not know how many return to unemployment within a short period of time. We have to do this better, Australia. This report clearly articulates that.

Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (12:28): Senator Siewert's passion on these issues is there for all to see. I certainly commend her advocacy in these areas. I know she is very genuine and takes a very active and constructive role in the committee's deliberations.

I would like to commend the report that Senator Back has tabled today and thank him for his chairmanship of that committee. As always, we have striven to reach consensus, and in the bulk of the report we have achieved consensus. It is a report which Labor senators absolutely endorse, even though we have included some extra comments and recommendations because we believe there are issues not dealt with comprehensively enough in the report. We do support all the recommendations that are in the report.

Whilst the recommendations in the committee's report go some way to addressing the immediate concerns of Labor senators, it is plain that the Newstart allowance is too low, particularly for single recipients. For this reason, Newstart allowance single should be increased, taking into account other potential increases consequential to recommendations made in the committee's report.

Labor senators believe that indexing arrangements for Newstart need to be reviewed and that consideration be given to whether, like pensions, the payment should not decrease in real terms.

Labor senators note that recommendations 4, 5 and 6 in the committee's report are targeted at increasing incentives for Newstart recipients to engage with the workforce as they transition away from the payment. These recommendations are a good beginning. However, Labor senators believe that it is more appropriate that the income-free threshold for Newstart allowance recipients should be increased to the equivalent of eight hours per fortnight at the minimum wage. That, in effect, is half a shift per week before people lose payments. We believe that is a good incentive to get people into the workforce. Hopefully, half a shift a week will then lead to more hours, more days and will build confidence in an experience and skill base that people require in the workforce before people start to lose payments. We recommend that.

We also note and refer to Senator Back's comments about the enormous complexity that the committee was confronted with on how different payments intersect with different circumstances that people are in. It was very difficult to get our head around many of those issues. While I have the greatest respect for Senate committees, we effectively write reports based on evidence presented to us. Unfortunately, in this instance we neither had the time nor the ability to actually drive down and do any investigative work ourselves to look at some of the ways that the policy might need to be changed to deal with some of the enormous complexity.

It has been 12 years since the last significant review of the payment system. In the last 12 years the nature of work has changed quite dramatically. We believe that 12 years on from the last review, the McClure review, it is timely to conduct another comprehensive review with a particular focus on allowance payments. The SenateEducation, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee had neither the capacity nor the time to do that. Such a review should consider indexing arrangements; adequate payment rates; participation requirements; incentives and support to work; supplements such as rent assistance; job support services, including the Job Services Australia incentives framework for providers; and the changing nature of the labour market.

The review should also consider how tailored assistance can be better provided to people who face particular barriers to employment—for example, young people, sole parents, people with a partial capacity to work and people who have been unemployed for more than a year. Newstart is designed to transition people from unemployment into work. Unfortunately, because of a whole range of reasons, Newstart allowance is the only support for a significant number of people in our community. So let me again say that, as far as Labor senators are concerned, the payment is too low. Labor senators have recommended, in addition to the good recommendations in the bulk of the report, which we agree with, that the government increase Newstart allowance single, taking into account the relationship with the base rate and other payment design changes already recommended by the committee.

Labor senators also recommend that the government review the indexing arrangements for Newstart allowance and other allowance payments. We also recommend that the government increase the income-free threshold for Newstart allowance recipients to the equivalent of eight hours work per fortnight at the minimum wage. Labor senators recommend that the government commission a comprehensive review of Newstart allowance and other allowance payments.

Let me thank the secretariat. They always produce reports of the finest quality for us. This report is no exception. I know that a power of work went into getting a report that the whole committee signed onto. Again, I want to thank not only Senator Back but also the secretariat for achieving a unanimous report. I recommend the report to the Senate and I recommend the additional comments and the additional recommendations of Labor senators. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:35): I present the report of the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests on the code of conduct inquiry, together with submissions received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KROGER: In accordance with the Senate resolution of 17 March 1994 on the declaration of senators’ interests, I present declarations of interests and notifications of alterations of interests in the Register of Senators’ Interests lodged between 27 June and 27 November 2012.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:36): I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today in introducing this Bill, I am seeking a commitment from this Parliament to restore the Murray-Darling Basin to health.

Murray-Darling Basin reform has relied on a number of steps being taken; the National Water Initiative; the development of the water market; the Water Act; the soon to be presented Murray-Darling Basin Plan; with the final step of Parliament to use this Bill to maximise environmental outcomes in the Plan.

For over a century the Murray-Darling Basin has not been managed with a Basin-wide Plan. This has resulted in environmental degradation, a lack of resilience and an ongoing layer of uncertainty for communities.

The Basin Plan, to be made later this year, will restore the health of our rivers, support strong regional communities and ensure sustainable food production.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is proposing a plan which starts at a benchmark of 2750 gigalitres of environmental water. The proposed Plan includes an adjustment mechanism which will allow the SDL to move up if environmental outcomes can be delivered with less water and move down if constraints are removed and additional water is acquired in a way which is not detrimental to Communities.

This legislation allows the Commonwealth to use that mechanism. It will provide funding to projects that improve environmental outcomes over and above that in the proposed 2750 gigalitre benchmark.

We will fund removing constraints in the system and we will also fund projects such as on farm infrastructure required to acquire up to an additional 450 gigalitres of water beyond the benchmark in the Plan. This will give us an even better outcome for the Basin.

The additional environmental water made possible by this Bill doesn't only work to achieve better outcomes for the Coorong and Lower Lakes. There are environmental assets, Ramsar listed wetlands, River Red Gum forests, National Parks and homes for Australian wildlife throughout the Basin that will benefit because of this Bill.

Importantly, the plan being proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority stipulates that additional water beyond the benchmark should only be acquired through methods that deliver additional water for the environment without negative social and economic consequences such as infrastructure.

By way of example, the benefits of modernising on-farm irrigation infrastructure are already well established.

The Government agrees with this approach and this Bill is framed in these terms.

A secure funding stream extending a decade into the future is required since recovering water is a long-term endeavour.

Accordingly, this Bill amends the Water Act 2007 to provide a secure funding stream to enable up to an additional 450 gigalitres of water to be recovered.

It complements the Water Amendment (Long-term average sustainable diversion limit adjustment) Bill 2012 introduced into this House on the 20th of September this year.

Through the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program, this Government is already recovering water for the environment through upgrading on-farm and off-farm irrigation infrastructure.

The majority of the proposed funding will be directed towards achieving further improvements in irrigation efficiency.

The Bill also secures funding to enable the increased environmental water to be delivered to wetlands in an efficient and effective manner by addressing existing constraints that limit higher water flows.

Such constraints include outflows from storage dams, low lying infrastructure, and the need to provide for flood easements or agreements with landholders.

All Basin Governments will be fully involved in the development of projects that would underpin Sustainable Diversion Limit adjustments, including initiatives to remove constraints.

Projects to be funded through this special account will be considered alongside projects that allow an increase the SDL by using environmental water more efficiently, so that Governments have a complete picture of what the final SDL will be in all catchments.

Potential enhanced environmental benefits from the provision of an additional 450GL of water and the removal of physical constraints are many. They include:

salinity in the Coorong and Lower Lakes can be further reduced so that do not exceed levels which are lethal to insects, fish and plants that form important parts of the food-chain;

water levels in the Lower Lakes can be kept above 0.4 metres for 95% of the time helping to maintain flows to the Coorong, prevent acidification, and prevent acid drainage and riverbank collapse below Lock 1;

The maximum average daily salinity in the Coorong south lagoon can be less than 100 grams per litre for 98% of years and is less than 120 grams per litre at all times in the model period.

the maximum average daily salinity in the Coorong north lagoon can be less than 50 grams per litre for 98% of years,

maintaining the Murray Mouth at greater depths reducing the risk of dredging being needed to keep it open

two million tonnes of salt can be exported from the Basin each year as a long term average;

barrage flows to the Coorong can be increased, supporting more years where critical fish migrations can occur for estuarine fish;

there will be opportunities to actively water an additional 35,000 ha of floodplain in SA, NSW and Victoria, improving the health of forests and fish and bird habitat, improving the connection to the river, and replenishing groundwater; and

enhanced instream outcomes and improved connections with low level floodplain and habitats adjacent to rivers in the Southern Basin can be achieved.

After a century of getting it wrong, this Bill combined with the soon to be finalised Murray-Darling Basin Plan, says that this Parliament will not fail the Basin. The system will return to health and the communities and environment which are nourished by these mighty rivers will have a strong, resilient future.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to 5 February 2013, in accordance with standing order 111.

Senator EDWARDS (South Australia) (13:13): I resume talking about the draft voluntary code of conduct proposed for the Australian wheat industry. The draft code is flawed in that it is not binding, it is not independent, it does not have a sustainable source of funding via the arbitration act and it may further circumvent the ACCC. In short, the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 as proposed fails to achieve its competition objectives, hence the reason we now have amendments on the floor, because even the Greens know that any real oversight will only happen if the code is mandatory.

That code should broadly contain, firstly, the adequate provision of grain stock information to enable efficient operation of the market; and, secondly, an enforceable mechanism to ensure fair access to port facilities for non-handling exporters. That means the people who sought to come into this business to compete and to provide an international marketplace, are not prejudiced because they do not own the infrastructure, ports or the up-country rail hubs that have in the past led to a closed market. Thirdly, the code should contain an effective mechanism to provide confidence in cargo integrity, especially in relation to the Australian wheat variety classification system.

The final report of the South Australian Select Committee on the Grain Handling Industry called for the federal government to:

… ensure the benefits of deregulation are fully realised within a competitive and innovative framework that provides the basis for a viable and successful industry.

It is my contention that, unless we ensure that at least those three aforementioned elements are contained within the reform, all of the findings of this inquiry conducted recently, and the many others I have been involved in, will be ignored.

To ensure this actually occurs, the federal government should establish an independent body to maintain this deregulation momentum. I cannot stress enough the importance of the minister appointing a truly representative panel to the proposed advisory body, which is flagged in the amendments to this bill before us. The board should have representatives comprised of grain grower representative bodies, non-bulk handling traders and bulk handlers—and they should all be in equal numbers. This would prevent one interest group from dominating the final code agreement to the detriment of one of the other stakeholders in this very important Australian industry.

The importance of this industry cannot be understated. Not only is wheat growing part of this country's DNA, but also, if demand rises, as everybody expects it will during the much-lauded Asian century, it should be set now to succeed and be the success story for decades to come that it deserves to be. We must get this right now and with the appropriate oversight framework in place—the kind of oversight that the majority of wheat growers of this nation are expecting from the minister. I urge the minister to listen to them. Many of us from this side of the chamber will be working to ensure that the reform required is implemented.

I will be supporting an amended bill. Senator Xenophon, I have some sympathy with a number of your proposed amendments and I will look to talk those through in the committee stage of this bill. I would underline the fact that the minister has a great responsibility to ensure that the proposed advisory body has—if we adopt the amendments to this bill—a mandatory code of conduct so that it functions properly and so that we may look forward to a fair and prosperous wheat industry from this day forward.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:18): There have been a lot of discussions about the deregulation of the wheat industry, and it is a great tragedy that we have reached this stage without significant and sufficient safeguards in place for producers. The last thing anyone wants to see is the wheat industry turn out like the supermarket industry: controlled by monopolies and with the growers under pressure.

There have been several inquiries in the past to determine how best to deregulate the wheat industry in Australia and what the best arrangements are. Most recently, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee conducted an inquiry into the operation of grain networks in Australia. That was a very worthwhile inquiry, which I was a part of. The information provided to the committee exposed significant flaws in the grain export networks that must be addressed before complete deregulation can go ahead. Essentially, natural monopolies exist in every state. These companies control grain handling and export from purchasing and storing, to movement, to shipping. That is simply not good enough.

The committee inquiry recommended that Wheat Exports Australia needed a continuing and expanded role in the industry, acting as a combination of ombudsman, accreditor and quality assurance. The committee also recommended that a mechanism to publicise wheat stockpile information should be available to all participants in the bulk export industry, and that the upcoming inquiry into this bill should consider this further. I also made several more recommendations in my additional comments to that report. These recommendations included the establishment of an oversight body for the industry, as well as a mandatory code of conduct relating to the publication of grain storage information, assessment and grading of grain, and access to port and rail transport facilities. My further recommendations related to reviews and investigations that needed to be undertaken by the ACCC or other bodies in relation to specific practices on the part of some bulk grain handlers.

The inquiry into this bill, the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012, by the rural and regional affairs and transport committee also recommended that the government assist the industry in developing measures relating to the publication of information on wheat stock information. There is a clear and compelling narrative running through these recommendations. In the first instance, a lack of clear and complete information on grain stocks that is available to the entire industry is severely disadvantaging producers. This information asymmetry is simply unacceptable. These producers cannot determine when and where they might get the best prices for their product. In fact, this lack of information could be putting the whole industry at risk. In the case of a drought or a crop shortage, the government and other organisations do not have the necessary complete picture of what grain is being held where. The implications of this are obvious.

The other major concern is that there is no oversight of the industry to enforce a code of conduct or to deal with disputes or competition issues. To this end, I will be moving several amendments to strengthen this bill. I note Senator Edwards' sympathy for them; I hope I can have more than Senator Edwards' sympathy. I am grateful for his comments in relation to that, but I hope I can actually have his vote on some of these amendments, particularly on the review mechanism. There must be a review mechanism. I would urge my colleagues in the Australian Greens to consider a review mechanism in relation to this bill, because the implications of this bill are huge for the industry. We need to get it right. If this bill does go ahead in its current form there will be a lack of sufficient safeguards for the industry.

These amendments are designed to build on the agreement with the government reached by the Greens. However, they will go further and insert certain requirements in relation to the structure of the Wheat Industry Advisory Board, the code of conduct—it must be mandatory—and the outline of the act. I will be expanding on these amendments in the committee stage.

Finally, I would like to thank the representatives of Grain Producers Australia, and in particular Pete Mailler and Darren Arney. They have been strong, tireless and articulate advocates for their members. I thank them for the advice and guidance they have given me on this issue.

I want to make it clear that without some form of amendment to strengthen this bill I cannot and will not be supporting this bill. It does not offer enough support and protection for our producers, and I believe it will lead to further market concentration, a severe lack of competition in the market and it will disadvantage our grain producers.

Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (13:23): I rise to speak on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012, which is before the Senate today. I was one of those who worked with the former member for O'Connor, Wilson Tuckey, and the late Senator Judith Adams towards ending the single-desk marketing system. According to all accounts, deregulation has brought great benefits to the West Australian wheat growers, whose properties are generally larger than those in the eastern states and whose wheat is largely exported. The experience so far in WA has been that deregulation and open marketing has brought great financial benefits to WA growers.

According to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the gross value of the Australian wheat crop during the period 2011-12 increased by seven per cent to $7.5 billion. In my home state of WA, again according to the ABS, the value of the wheat crop doubled to $2.8 billion in 2011-12 over the previous year. This period followed the abolition of the single-desk marketing operation in 2008 and surely demonstrates that the strong support by the WA farming organisations in WA for deregulation was proved to have been well worthwhile and in the interests of the Western Australian industry.

The single desk was a monopoly marketing body for wheat overseen by the Australian Wheat Board—AWB. By this process, returns from growers for the sale of wheat, both domestically and internationally, were pooled together on a national scale, the prices were averaged by the Australian Wheat Board and farmers were paid that average price for their wheat. As I mentioned, this covered both domestic and international sales until 1989, after which it focused exclusively on exports before being limited in scope again to bulk exports in its final year of operation.

However, over the years the winds of change for a different wheat marketing system gathered momentum. There was a National Competition Policy review of the Wheat Marketing Act in 1989 which ultimately found no clear benefit to Australian growers from the single-desk arrangements then in place for the export of wheat. Importantly, increasing dissatisfaction with the operation of the single desk mounted, especially in Western Australia. As I have said, farmers in WA have experienced improved financial returns since deregulation was introduced with the abolition of the single desk. Those improved financial returns have in fact been quite substantial. It is therefore unsurprising that WA growers have been very vocal in support of the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012, which, if passed, will complete wheat marketing deregulation following the process set out by the Productivity Commission in an orderly way, albeit with a slight delay from the recommendations of the Productivity Commission.

I acknowledge, as home to the largest grain producers, who are staunch supporters of deregulation, WA and its growers do stand to benefit most by the enactment of this legislation. While not always united in their views in the past, WA's largest and second-largest farm lobby groups, the WA Farmers Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, respectively, are now united in their support for the process which will lead to the full deregulation of wheat marketing that will follow the passage of this bill.

Farmers in WA have been pleased with the significant increase in sales and the broadening of the market which deregulation has brought so far. Similarly, the Co-operative Bulk Handling Group, one of Australia's leading grain bodies based in Western Australia, with more than 4,500 grain grower members, also supports this bill. Simply put, WA wheat growers not only are pleased with the deregulated environment in which they work now but also have overwhelmingly benefited from it and wish to see that situation maintained and continued.

I do recognise in saying that that some growers in the eastern states have a different view to those in WA about how wheat is marketed. This is a reflection of the fact that the circumstances and form of the wheat industry differ from state to state. While Western Australian farmers have large acreages and their wheat is mostly exported, by contrast most farms in the eastern states are smaller in acreage and the wheat is largely sold domestically.

I believe it is high time these differences in the form of the wheat industry across Australia were recognised and it was accepted that a 'one size fits all' approach to marketing wheat is just not appropriate. Because of these differences, I believe the growers in each state should have the right to decide their own marketing arrangements and should have local control over how that is done. In other words, I believe wheat marketing should be devolved to the states to organise and run. There are many precedents for this: in the past, the states had marketing boards for products such as eggs, potatoes, rice and so on. There is not a national iron ore or coal marketing board dictating to Western Australia or Queensland the terms and conditions under which iron ore and coal are marketed respectively. Instead, the sale of these commodities is left to the WA and Queensland governments to arrange themselves.

Similarly, I do not believe that the federal government should have an overall role in legislating for the marketing of wheat given the differences between the states, and the facts are that most wheat produced, as I said already, in the eastern states is sold on the domestic market whereas the grain produced in WA is exported to world markets. As I have also said, this legislation will enable the completion of the process of deregulation of wheat marketing by following the steps recommended by the Productivity Commission, albeit with a slightly delayed time frame of about a year for each of the steps.

Australia is a large island continent, and, as I have said, it has to be acknowledged that there are significant differences across the country and one size does not fit all. This legislation embodies the preferred outcome of the majority of the WA wheat industry participants, as expressed by the WA Farmers Federation, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and Cooperative Bulk Handling. In addition, the WA Liberal Party has supported this legislation and has been consistent with its support for market deregulation. As a Liberal senator for Western Australia, I support the objectives of this legislation.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (13:32): I rise to support the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012, which will bring to fruition in Australia a truly deregulated wheat export marketing regime—a bill that brings to completion a process that was commenced by the Howard government. I support the path to full deregulation of Australia's wheat export marketing arrangements in the time frame first prescribed in the Productivity Commission's inquiry into wheat export marketing arrangements and now contained—with some minor adjustments—in this bill. I believe strongly that the evidence points to the fact that Australia's wheat export marketing arrangements are sufficiently matured and competitive to allow for the abolition of both Wheat Exports Australia and the wheat export charge—a charge, it must be remembered, that is levied on farmers and their families. This charge hits WA farmers and their families the hardest because, of all the wheat produced in Western Australia, around 90 per cent is exported. It is also worth noting that wheat growers in WA are the nation's largest, with over 75 per cent of them amongst the largest 50 per cent of wheat growers nationally. I have travelled around parts of regional Western Australia, talking with farmers at public meetings and one-on-one in places like Katanning, Wagin, Bruce Rock, Quairading and Gnowangerup—amongst others. In WA, these remain challenging times for wheat growers. It is important to remember that this debate is not occurring in a vacuum; we are talking about people's livelihoods and the viability of regional communities.

Some in this debate have said that the wheat export charge is a small thing and continuing to levy it will make little difference. However, I contend that removing the charge sends a powerful signal that we in this place understand that farming is often a difficult task. By removing the charge, we explicitly acknowledge this fact. We are showing that we understand that the last thing growers need is another government impost on their activities, especially for those growers who may not be experiencing the harvest they had hoped for.

It is also my considered judgement, a judgement formed after years in both the insurance and telecommunications industries dealing with competition related issues, that matters such as port access arrangements, transparency regarding stock information and quality standards for wheat exports can be appropriately overseen by existing competition law, by a code of conduct and by the industry themselves. I believe that a core component of maintaining Australia's international competitiveness is to embrace free and open markets, to abandon regulation and red-tape when the opportunity arises and at every step to reduce the tax burden on Australian businesses and families—especially on its agricultural businesses and farming families.

After careful consideration, robust debate and many discussions with wheat growers and their representatives, I can find no defensible justification for not actively supporting the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012. At its core, this bill is an economic one as much as it is an agricultural one. As a coalition senator, I believe that I have a responsibility to stand up for those policies that I consider will lead to smaller government, removing unnecessary bureaucracy and reducing taxes and charges. I do not believe that the path that was agreed to many years ago should be delayed or deviated from.

Long before I came to this place, I did not believe the proposition that Australia's single-desk wheat export regime was a successful mechanism to extract a premium wheat price in global markets for the benefit of Australia's wheat exporters. The very idea runs against every economic and political principle I hold dear. Every monopoly should be treated with suspicion, and I do not believe that there should be any sacred cows in Australia's economic landscape, no matter how cherished the institution or longstanding its contribution to our economic prosperity. The Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 is a simple one: it will transition Australia's wheat export marketing arrangements to a truly, fully deregulated market—a process that was first begun in 2008.

The story is well known but worth briefly recapping: in 2008, Australia's single-desk wheat export marketing arrangements were abolished and a system for regulating the export of bulk wheat through the accreditation of bulk wheat exporters under the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme was established and administered by the body Wheat Exports Australia.

The new regime was to be funded by the wheat export charge. These were always intended to be transitional arrangements—transitional arrangements which were found by the Productivity Commission in 2010 to be unnecessary for a maturing wheat export market. The editorial of the Australian Financial Reviewof 3 October 2012 was correct in identifying that an accreditation system had some uses in transition to a free market but there was no reason to put off full deregulation.

I agree this bill will bring the bulk wheat export market into line with other agricultural commodity markets. It will promote further competition in the wheat industry and will be a driver for increased productivity and profitability. It will mean more buyers of wheat will be competing for wheat, ensuring growers can attract and get prices that reflect the true market value of their product. We can have every confidence that it will drive further market innovation and improve the services that marketers provide to secure wheat supplies. Importantly, it will remove costs for industry.

I support the bill because it will bring significant economic benefits to WA wheat farmers, their families and their communities. I support the bill because, uniquely, it has the united endorsement of WA farming organisations: the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, the WA Farmers Federation and the Co-operative Bulk Handling Group. Given the enormous sensitivity this issue has traditionally invoked amongst WA's agricultural community, a common position is remarkable.

Western Australia's wheat growers support the bill because they believe in themselves and in their product and have confidence that they are best able to make decisions about their own future. In the words of the PGA, the wheat industry has made 'remarkable progress' since 2008. Of course there are challenges, but the PGA's firm view is that these can be addressed using current means without further direct government interference. The PGA has said, 'Abolishing the scheme will ensure that the benefits to industry provided by accreditation during the transition to full deregulation are not undermined in the longer term by the direct and indirect costs of continuing with a scheme that has served its purpose.' The PGA identified these costs as being 'the WEC and the administrative and regulatory burden of accreditation, as well as the necessary regulation on efficiency and competition in the wheat industry'. This attitude was echoed by WA's CBH Group when it said:

… there is no need to continue with any partial regulation of wheat exports …

…   …   …

The CBH Group incurred costs in excess of $1.2million … These costs are ultimately borne by Western Australian growers with no net benefit to them.

…   …   …

The CBH Group supports the view that the role of Government is to provide necessary services and safeguards to support industry without distorting the economic environment.

…   …   …

It is now time to allow Australia’s wheat export industry the flexibility to take advantage of the opportunities that await it, free from any additional layers of regulation.

I should also note for the record that both the PGA and the CBH Group have advised me that, although they do not believe the mandatory industry code proposed in amendments to the bill are necessary, they are nonetheless satisfied that the amendments put forward by the Greens will not disadvantage WA growers. The CBH Group advises, 'This outcome remains favourable for WA growers and the industry more generally.' The WA Farmers Federation has also added its voice, saying: 'WA Farmers position in respect to the deregulation issue is that we do not see value for growers in WEA and hence agree with the proposed wind up and call on all WA federal politicians to support the proposed Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012. However, great caution should be exercised over other amendments that specifically seek to address stocks information and quality issues. These will have a disproportionately adverse on WA growers. In practice, they would be unworkable and add costs to growers.'

The bill is also strongly supported by the Premier of Western Australia, the WA Liberal Party's state council and the many, many people living and working across WA's farming communities. The view of many West Australians has been best expressed by the West Australian newspaper. It said, 'Wheat Exports Australia is the last vestige of centralised marketing bureaucracies in Australia' and pointed to the fact that 'Pointless delay will cost wheat growers money and traps the industry in an early-20th-century mindset of protectionism and closed-shop marketing.'

This bill deserves the support of the Senate because the facts speak for themselves. The facts are most accurately presented in the ACIL Tasman report Continuing the reforms of the Australian export wheat market: why the WEMA Amendment Bill 2012 should be passed into law. It was released in July this year. The ACIL Tasman report makes the case that significant investment has occurred in Australia's wheat export market both as a result of the 2008 reforms and, more importantly, in anticipation of their conclusion in 2014. The report makes it clear. It states: 'Since 2008 a number of large mergers have occurred together with significant levels of infrastructure investment, to unlock scale and scope economies in bulk handling, marketing and grain transport. Grain is now exported to more countries than was previously the case under the single desk operator. Growers have been the main beneficiaries of these reforms through improved services and more competition for their grain. Export dependent WA grain growers in particular have in recent seasons experienced improved prices for their wheat exports when compared with Australian east coast growers. These recommendations, which have little if any apparent industry support in WA, Australia's largest wheat export state, will, if implemented, be a significant departure from the industry's current and generally accepted course and would reverse many of the reforms already implemented.'

I am conscious that as a result of the government's guillotine there are restricted times available to us. I will not go through the entirety of my speech—as much as I would like to—out of courtesy for those other coalition senators who I know have a different point of view, and I do believe that their view should be recorded in this debate. Out of respect for their positions, I will keep my last remaining comments brief.

This place, in deliberating on this issue should not be ignorant to the sovereign risk and disincentive to invest that arises from delaying—even stalling—the passage of these final deregulation initiatives.

Deviation and delay from our publicly stated intentions acts as a powerful disincentive to invest and diminishes the confidence of exporters and international buyers in our wheat export arrangements. This point was echoed and has been made very clear by CBH Group and GrainCorp in their presentations to the Senate inquiry. The clear intention of Wheat Exports Australia was always to act as a transition mechanism. Its role is to merely accredit exporters to give growers confidence that new exporters were 'fit and proper' and would reduce the business risk to wheat growers. This legislation is supported by a long and impressive list of organisations and people, many of whom I have referred to in the course of my contribution and many of whom, I might say, I trust.

Having weighed the evidence, I have concluded there is no rational reason to delay the abolition of Wheat Exports Australia and the wheat export charge. The national interest and the interest of wheat growers and exporters across Australia is best served by supporting this legislation. I am aware that others in my party have reached a different conclusion, giving weight to other considerations and evidence. I respect the difference of view. However, in preparing for this debate, I have been deeply conscious of my responsibilities to Western Australia—to the united position of WA's farming groups, the position of the WA Liberal Party and, most significantly, the regional people of WA, who have taken time to share their strong opinion with regard to this important and meaningful step in our agricultural policies.

I celebrate the fact that my own political party, unlike the one opposite, permits me to faithfully represent my constituents in this place. In explaining my decision to the Senate to support this bill, I return to the words of my first speech, which I made in this place six months ago:

I regard the Senate as the first child of Federation and the most significant of our democratic institutions, and I challenge the view that its creation was a compromise. In prescribing how Australia's representative government would operate, our founding fathers took a deliberate and conscious step—our democratic style would consist of two separate and distinct mandates: one representing the people as a whole and one representing the people voting by their states. In every deliberation I will sanctify this historic fact.

In supporting this bill, I have chosen to remain faithful to that promise to stand up for WA and its wheat growers, their families and communities, and to be an active champion for the benefits of free enterprise and competition in our country.

Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:47): I acknowledge that a lot of people want to speak in this debate on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012, so I will try to limit my remarks to around five minutes. If there is one good thing that comes out of this, it will be that the Senate is actually going to operate as a Senate and that the people from the different states who have different views will express those views—and that is how the Senate is supposed to work.

I concur with the remarks that there is a circumstance in Western Australia that is more evident towards a larger grower. I do not understand why—and I am agreeing here with Senator Eggleston—we would be moving in a direction to change the outcome with this legislation beyond Western Australia. We are changing it for the whole nation. The reality on the eastern coast—and I am there and I have grown wheat; I have a grain place—is that we are getting ripped off.

If people want to talk about access to markets, let us make sure that we bring into the chamber right now legislation for the ACCC, because it has had no chance against the regional based monopolies which have taken the place of a regulator. We acknowledge that the single desk was a regulated monopoly, but it was regulated. It worked on behalf of the best return to the growers. What it has been replaced with is regionally based monopolies for which we are definitely at a strategic disadvantage, and that is reflected in the price that we get for our product. But no-one seems to be suggesting changes to the ACCC, to bring in laws so that we can get fairness for these people and a better price—a price that is a better reflection on the market price. The multinational monopolies now dominate so many sections of regional New South Wales and regional Queensland. The latest one is Archer Daniels looking to buy GrainCorp, in which case we will be completely and utterly over a barrel and exploited. All of a sudden the bells are starting to ring.

In the east, we are in a different circumstance. I concur with Senator Eggleston that maybe the time has come to have a different regulations on this for the different states. If growers in Western Australia are certain that their situation works for them, then we are absolutely certain that it does not work for us. Western Australia has an advantage because it is the cooperative bulk handler. It is a monopoly owned by the growers; it is owned by individuals. We do not have a cooperative bulk handler. We have Viterra. We are going to have Archer Daniels. We have Cargill. They are doing what monopolies do. Once they dominate the marketplace, they work to exploit the people who supply them the product to try and get the best return for them, not for the grower.

It is incumbent upon this parliament, if we believe that all controls should be removed and we acknowledge that farmers are being exploited, that we move towards a broader and more instructive process in the ACCC so that fairness can be brought back to the farm gate. With access arrangements and quality arrangements, it is a one-size-fits-all approach. I think we all agree on this now: the one-size-fits-all approach across the nation is just not working.

I heard mention of the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission study went over one year. That is hardly the time frame required to get a proper assessment when there are variant seasons from droughts to bumper seasons and everything in between. You cannot do an assessment on the wheat industry on an examination of one year. The process that we ask for, especially in the National Party, is not a position that is driven by philosophy.

It is driven by experience. It is driven by pragmatism. It is driven by a desire to deal with an issue which is completely and abundantly apparent to us now—that there is exploitation in the new arrangements that have come as we predicted to the people predominantly in the eastern states.

We are not supporting this, because the issue has not been resolved. We will not walk away from people that are being exploited on the premise of a philosophy when the reality for them is clear and apparent. I acknowledge that they are the small growers but we, especially in the National Party, look out for those small growers because, if we do not look after them, then who on earth will?

Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:53): I rise to make some comments regarding this Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012. Like Senator Joyce in front of me, I am a wheat farmer. While I am a senator for New South Wales, I am also a wheat farmer. Senator Joyce and I have some skin in the game in this. Senator Joyce could not have been more right when he talked about those with a philosophical view. I completely understand that and acknowledge absolutely the right of my colleagues to have a philosophical view on this. They do not have the practical experience of being on the ground, day in and day out, knowing how this affects wheat growers and rural communities across the country.

I have not changed my position one bit from 2008 when I thought that getting rid of the single desk for wheat was singularly one of the most stupid things a government has ever done in this nation. I stand by that now and I have seen nothing in the last four years to change my view on that. Interestingly, at the time when we looked into the legislation that was going to get rid of the single desk for wheat through the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, the committee as a whole had serious concerns about the fact that if we removed the single desk we would end up with regional monopolies. Remember, colleagues, this was 2008. Indeed, in the dissenting report put forward by me, Senator Joyce and Senator Scullion, we said:

The draft bills as proposed clearly do not satisfy the requirements necessary to ensure a wheat marketing system that would deliver the best outcomes for wheat growers. More dangerously, the draft bills lack sufficient safeguards to prevent regional monopolies from arising.

Madam Acting Deputy President, it is a really sad thing to say I told you so in this place, but we told you so.

Four years ago we could see exactly what was going to happen, that we would end up with regional monopolies in place of a single monopoly that served wheat growers very well, replaced with regional monopolies whose instincts at heart are to serve their own interests. I excuse CBH from that in that they do operate on the notion of returning to growers. I do see that they are different and, indeed, as Senator Joyce said earlier, perhaps there is a case for having different arrangements in different places across the nation.

What we had with the cessation of the single desk for wheat was for the Wheat Export Authority to put in place transitional arrangements—I do acknowledge they were transitional arrangements—to a fully deregulated system. What that Wheat Export Authority has done is accredit wheat growers and also put in place some requirements on the bulk handlers for continuous disclosure to oversight what those bulk handlers were doing and, of course, the access undertakings for those bulk handlers who also had port operations.

What we now see from the government is complete dismantling of the Wheat Export Authority as well. On this side of the chamber, we recognise that the industry has said, 'We are not yet ready to transition to complete deregulation, because there are a number of industry good functions that need to be performed since the cessation of the single desk.' It has become increasingly apparent that these industry good functions need to be performed to ensure the optimum running of the wheat industry, particularly for those wheat growers. It has become increasingly clear that the most appropriate way to deal with that is, as we have reflected in the coalition amendment, through continuing the Wheat Export Authority and then appropriately reconfiguring it to be able to provide the proper processes for those industry good functions to be performed. It is sensible; it is a no brainer. We already have an industry body that is funded by growers at a 22c a tonne levy that is already in place that could easily be reconfigured to do those industry good functions that the industry itself wants to see performed.

Colleagues, we had a Senate inquiry into this and it was abundantly clear that the great majority—again notwithstanding some industry voices in Western Australia—saw that as the appropriate mechanism to provide these functions: primarily access to stocks information and equal and fair opportunity access to ports and quality assurance. Those are very simple, practical, sensible things that the industry and those of us actually out there on the ground understand need to be addressed, so much so that the majority of the state organisations came before the Senate committee to put their collective voice about the fact that the WEA should not be disbanded until these issues were addressed and resolved.

I will just place on the record that AgForce Queensland, Grain Producers South Australia, New South Wales Farmers and the Victorian Farmers Federation all joined forces to reject the bill. They believed that rules were needed if Australian grain was to retain a premium on the world market, if fair access to port terminal services was to be maintained and if the market supply chain was going to be transparent. How sensible and practical is that? Grain Producers South Australia chairman Garry Hansen said:

As the major grain farmer representatives organisations on the East Coast and in Southern Australia, we are united in our opposition of the Government's Wheat Export Marketing Bill.

… we join together to support an evolution of the existing regulation to better facilitate competition for our members' grain.

New South Wales Farmers Grains Chairman, Mark Hoskinson, said:

We are concerned that the removal of specialised wheat regulation in the present market will see the influence held by the three major bulk handlers inhibit competition. This would ultimately be to the detriment of the grain farmers our four organisations represent …

Debate interrupted.