Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (10:05): I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning border protection.

Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (10:05): Before my time was cut short, I was making an argument to the Senate about what renewable energy was doing to Australia's manufacturing industry. With a combination of carbon tax and renewable energy, the actual use of energy has dropped by 10 per cent. The Labor Party and the Greens have been absolutely and spectacularly successful in stopping carbon, but the downside of that is that they have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector. You all ought to stand up and take a bow because, when you introduced the carbon tax, you said the use of energy would be reduced and the use of carbon would be reduced. That is 100 per cent correct, but you have left a wake of disaster out there behind you: jobs lost, industries closed down and industries leaving Australia and heading for New Zealand, China and so forth where they will still create a carbon footprint. Maybe there is some excuse for the Greens: forgive them, for they know not what they do. But you in the Labor Party should know what you are doing, because you say that you are going to represent the blue-collar workers of Australia. If ever there were a sell-out of the blue-collar workers, it would be a carbon tax and renewable energy.

There is a $600 renewable energy tax and a carbon tax on Holden and Toyota. It is no wonder that they are running up the white flag and heading overseas. Of course, SPC, the last of the canneries in Australia—the last of the Mohicans—is fighting to stay in Australia. This is not all because of the carbon tax—I would be less than honest if I said that—but the carbon tax and renewable energy are playing a huge role. I cannot for the life of me understand what you are doing and why this is a complete sell-out. However, I will address the carbon tax when the bill comes before the house. I want to continue with what I was saying about the RET.

Right now, RET is costing us around $2 billion a year. By 2020, that will have gone up to $5 billion a year. Much of the cost of renewables comes from those subsidised under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme—in particular, residential rooftop solar photovoltaic panels. Solar PV is dealing a heavy blow to industry. While it may be the case that the huge residential uptake of solar PV has seen some householders enjoying lower power bills and generous subsidies, this has come at the cost of everyone else. These subsidies have come from someone; someone has had to pay. In this case, what you have is a massive wealth transfer where business is being forced to subsidise the household sector and where low-earning householders are being forced to subsidise those rich enough to afford solar panels.

In both cases, what it comes down to is network charges. Solar PV owners do not have to pay the cost of building and maintaining electricity networks, which make up half of the typical power bill. However these householders must still draw from the main grid during times of the day when their solar panels are not generating enough electricity, and the rest have to pay. The Energy Supply Association of Australia estimates that solar owners are avoiding network charges of $340 million a year, and rising, while feed-in tariffs schemes are adding $680 million a year, the cost of which is being met predominantly by non-solar households.

In short, because solar PV owners do not have to pay for the poles and wires making up the electricity network, you have consumers who do not have solar panels cross-subsidising those that do. The commercial sector, meanwhile, is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet small-scale targets that have no bearing on their industrial capacity. It is a bit like the last three blokes at the bar being forced to pay the bill for 30 people who were drinking champagne earlier in the night. Despite the small-scale renewable target being scheduled to go down, the cost burden of solar on our communities will only go up as more solar panels are purchased and the price of small-scale technology certificates continue to rise.

The knock-on effect of renewables goes beyond higher electricity bills. Solar and wind are undermining our established utilities and replacing them with less reliable and much more expensive power sources. In the latest national forecasting report, the Australian Energy Market Operator revealed that electricity demand was declining faster than predicted. Its forecast for 2013-14 was 2.4 per cent lower than for the previous year. It stated that increased rooftop PV and systems had offset growth in residential, commercial and light industrial energy. Between 2008 and 2009, and 2012 and 2013, rooftop PV output grew 230 per cent. In the same time frame, total residence and commercial power consumption fell by an average of one per cent a year. Listen to it Greens—one per cent per year! You have done particularly well: you have lowered the electricity output but you have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is a drop that the AEMO has not seen since the NEM commenced.

Much of that comes from continued industrial closures that are seeing demand plummet. With demand continually falling, the current fixed large-scale renewable target of 41,000 gigawatt hours would represent around 26 or 27 per cent of the forecast demand in 2020, rather than 20 per cent. The decrease in demand means that we are on track to spend billions more than necessary to achieve the 20 per cent target. It has been estimated that reducing the current large-scale renewable target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to a real 20 per cent target of no more than 33,000 gigawatt hours would reduce annual costs from $5 billion a year to $3.7 billion by 2020.

Decreasing demand has also destabilised our electricity grid. First, you have the gas-fired power stations that produce cheap and more reliable electricity sitting idle because the RET favours electricity generated by renewables. However, the gas plants need to operate at a certain capacity in order to be economically viable—meaning keeping them open but unused is uneconomical for the operators.

Second, you have renewables dumping more power in the electricity grid than is required by demand. This is why turbines must be shut down or shut off especially on windy days, because they are generating too much power and they may overload the grid. This can lead to ludicrous situations such as what occurred in Germany this year. On 16 June its wholesale electricity prices fell to minus €100 per megawatt hour. The power generators were paying managers of the grid to take their electricity off in order to keep the grid from overloading. The grid was only able to cope with the maximum of 45 gigawatt hours at a time without becoming unstable. Generators at the time were pumping in 51 gigawatts hours, 29 gigawatt hours of that from solar and wind.

Because it is much more difficult to reduce output from solar and wind generators, the burden of adjustment fell on gas-fired and coal-fired stations, whose output was reduced to only about 10 per cent of capacity. What you have here, again, is renewables reducing the viability of reliable electricity generators.

While the situation in Australia may not be so bad that our power prices are going negative, it is certainly the case that renewables have destabilised power grids across the country. In Western Australia, rooftop solar panels are so popular they are threatening to overload grids in a growing number of country towns. This has forced the state government to ban new solar installations. Renewables are a big problem not only when they generate too much power but also when they generate too little. What you have is coal-fired stations, which remain an order of magnitude cheaper than solar and wind, still having to prop up solar and wind. Because current renewable technologies are unable to store more than a fraction of surplus energy, the gaps in power generated from renewables must be filled by coal. This happens whenever there is too little or no wind or sunlight, meaning that the fossil fuels must always be on standby to avoid power drop-offs. It is estimated that around 1,000 megawatts of standby power from fossil fuels is burned to keep the coal and gas plants available as a baseload. This negates nearly all wind generation in Australia over an entire year. The fact is that, with every new wind turbine and rooftop solar panel, more coal is automatically being burned and more carbon dioxide is being emitted.

So renewables are not helping one bit to lower carbon emissions. There would still be an argument for them if they reduced the cost of electricity. But, as I have already outlined, for industry renewables have been a ball and chain that have sent electricity prices skyward, while those households without solar panels are paying more and more on their power bills to cover those with solar panels. We are now a country living well beyond its means. Our blue-collar workers enjoy some of the highest wages in the world, and that must not change. We should do our best to provide workers with the best we can afford. In that case, the only way we can compensate industry and keep our manufacturing viable is by keeping our energy cheap. Instead, we are throwing away our major competitive advantage in favour of a policy that sends electricity prices soaring while reducing demand via industry closures that are happening left, right and sideways. At the same time, incredibly, the RET is actually pushing up carbon emissions. It is madness perpetrated by the Greens. I would go so far as to call it economic treason. We have betrayed our manufacturers by taking away their natural advantage of cheap, abundant energy and forcing them into the rigmarole of expensive, unreliable renewables.

We must get rid of the RET before it can cripple manufacturing any further. We could lower the target to a 'real 20 per cent' figure, but, as I said before, this would only lower the annual cost of renewables from $5 billion to $3.7 billion by 2020. Better yet, we should halt all new investment in renewables and allow only existing and committed projects to proceed as subsidised. This would lower the annual renewables cost to $1.7 billion by 2020. Our best option would be no compromise at all and abolishing the RET altogether. If renewables are truly as viable as claimed, they should be able to stand on their own two feet after subsidies for all renewables projects have been removed. If instead we choose to continue penalising businesses and households with higher and higher power prices then all we will have done is committed economic treason against our country. The people of Australia deserve better.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (10:18): I rise today to speak on the address-in-reply to the speech by the Governor-General. The speech is designed to outline a new government's plan and vision. It strikes me as slightly ironic when you look at the government's policies before the election. Short as they were, I looked for a positive plan for Australia. Quite frankly, I could not find it. We are speaking today about the government's plan, whereas in truth this is a government that had no plan.

In fact, this government has snuck into office with the barest of policies ever taken by an opposition to an election. They did not treat the Australian people with the respect or courtesy, quite frankly, that they deserved. When you now look at some of the things that are unravelling before you, what is now occurring is the uncovering of the true nature of the government, the underlying DNA is pushing through. The Liberals and Nationals are revealing their true selves. This is not the government that the people voted in—far from it. Far from the harmless, half-baked ideas that were presented to the voters, this government is rolling out a radical agenda to unpick the nation.

We have already seen the threads of that. You see on education the work that they are now doing there. You see the work they are now doing on trade and transparency—both clearly giving you an indication of how this government is going to proceed. They have started already with their broken promises in just three short months in these three areas. On transparency we now have a cloak-and-dagger government. On trade we now have a hapless foreign affairs minister running around Asia. We will talk a little bit more about education shortly, but you can already see that they are finding how to spin a new word on better school funding.

Given they have broken promises in these areas, let's take the fair way. We must assume that other dormant, silent plans exist for this government in other portfolios. The empty rhetoric and hollow words that have been made in the address-in-reply, in the Governor-General's speech, may have gotten the government through that day. They may have been able to then outline their so-called 'plan', but in truth it is going to be a rod for their own back. You can see it very early in their speech:

My government has a clear and comprehensive plan …

We have not seen that yet.

It will be a purposeful government.

Purposeful in terms of wrecking the economy, yes.

Every day it will work in a way that is careful, collegial, consultative and straightforward, …

Can I be a little wry and say we have not seen much of that yet but I shall not hold my breath either.

You then turn to the commitments that have been made. First is the commitment to make Australia 'open for business'. It was a promise repeated often by Mr Abbott in opposition. We now have him again over the weekend on a range of radio stations. The first time, he comes out to defend Mr Hockey—nonetheless a little belated, but he obviously saw the need to rescue a drowning rat. He was trying to convince, I think, not only the public but himself too. He was really saying 'I think I can, I think I can, I think I can' when he used the phrase: 'We're open for business. We're open for business. We really, really are open for business.' I think the public can see through that. I think his actions speak far louder than his words on this issue between Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott.

The Nationals I would always call the doormats to the Liberals. In this instance they have proved me at least wrong on one issue. They have run an effective rearguard action on the Treasurer on foreign investment, and it seems as though they were victorious on this account. I think it is an empiric victory. Nonetheless, two weeks ago we had the indignity of the Prime Minister trying to influence the FIRB decision on Warrnambool Cheese by going on radio and giving a preference to particular domestic companies. Straight out of the blocks on Tuesday the Treasurer signed off on a completely different arrangement.

That was nothing, nothing, compared to the GrainCorp decision. I recognise there are many different views on this when it comes to the GrainCorp decision. I heard many of them in the previous government.

I understand there are different opinions in the community about this. I listened carefully to the now Treasurer's promise at the election. Mr Hockey promised that Australia would be open for business. Liberal Senator Dean Smith certainly agreed. In the chamber a few weeks ago he said—so this is the Liberal view:

The debate about foreign investment should not be used as a Trojan horse by those seeking to reverse the strong and obvious benefits that have resulted from the deregulation of wheat export marketing in our country.

The previous government thought that that debate had ended at that point, with the deregulation of the wheat industry and the removal of the WEA.

Mr Hockey got rolled on foreign investment—that much is plain to see. Whether you agree with the decision or oppose it, it is not what is currently before us. What is truly before us is how the government now acts in the national interest. It needs to act in the national interest and make decisions based on the national interest, not based on the National Party's interests. The business community, the agribusiness community and the public want consistency and certainty. This new government spent an entire election campaign—and probably a little bit longer, given the amount of rhetoric during the last couple of years—crowing about the need for business certainty. With the actions of the Treasurer on foreign investment that certainty had been ripped from the marketplace. Well, now we see it. What they have now done is ensure that that uncertainty will continue. You have already seen the repercussions of that uncertainty in the marketplace for GrainCorp now.

I turn to the next biggest issue than has confronted this government: education. Education reform is vital to this country. It is one of the things that I have been very passionate about. The Liberals and Nationals gave an ironclad promise. Mr Christopher Pyne's own website, Pyne online, stated the Liberals election policy in clear, stark terms. I quote:

Tony Abbott and the Coalition have confirmed that they will commit the same amount of federal school funding as the Government over the forward estimates. Every single school in Australia will receive, dollar for dollar, the same federal funding over the next four years whether there is a Liberal or Labor Government after September 7.

I will repeat the key line:

Every single school in Australia will receive, dollar for dollar, the same federal funding over the next four years …

Yesterday the Prime Minister told the public:

We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made, or the promise that some people might have liked us to make.

Mr Abbott has effectively told the Australian people: 'It's not me; it's you. That's the problem.' He has told the public that, if they make the mistake of taking the government at its word, it is their own fault. How extraordinary! (Quorum formed) As I was saying, Mr Abbott told the public that, if they made the mistake of taking this government at its word, it is their own fault—quite an extraordinary thing to say. It is like a shonky used car salesman who blames the customer for being upset after they bought an absolute lemon. Mr Abbott is pulling funding out of schools across the country. That is the clear fact. His own conservative colleague the New South Wales education minister has called the backflip 'immoral'. Our schools deserve better, our kids deserve better and the voters deserve better than this shonky deal that this government is trying to proffer.

The rank hypocrisy of those born-to-rule types has started already to seep into this place, and I believe that they are not going to be able to temper it. They are not going to be able to do what the Governor-General's speech set out for them to do. They are not going to be able to say they are going to be careful, collegiate, consultative and straightforward. They have failed on every one of those, and we are not even into the first 12 months yet. They have not managed to be careful, they have not managed to be collegiate, they have not managed to be consultative and they are not straightforward. That is where we are: with a government that is obsessed with being opaque. This government is already showing the telltale signs of taking the punters for granted and being reckless with the economy, and the leaders of government have become obsessed with secrecy.

One of the first acts of the Labor party on winning government in 2007 was to put the ballasts under and around the economy to prepare for the coming global financial storm. One of the first economic acts of this government was to jack up the national credit card with no explanation to the Australian people. The contrast could not be starker. Before the election the then opposition leader, Mr Abbott, and the then opposition spokesperson on the Treasury, Mr Hockey, were like Henny Penny, running around telling everyone the sky was falling. On getting into office, what I can only describe as a hush fell over the government. It is the first time I have seen an incoming government so quiet. You would normally expect a little bit of hubris, a bit of, 'This is what we're going to do,' a bit of rally-rousing and a bit of good news for the troops—some good messages to come out. There has been nothing. It is dead flat. They must have either all gone on holidays or been told to shut up—one or the other. Either way, I suspect nobody was running the economy at that point, because you could tell when it stopped. When the hush stopped, the confusion started. It must have been when they picked up the levers and said, 'We ought to do something now,' because you can look at the confusion over education, over trade and foreign affairs, and over their Sovereign Borders plan—'We're not going to tell anyone about it; we're not going to talk about it; in fact we'll be silent about it, and hopefully it'll go away.' That is their plan.

The contrast between the early period of the government and now is just so stark. In fact, for most of the early weeks of the new government we heard more about the Prime Minister's bike riding, the Attorney-General's books and bookcase—or lack of a bookcase—and Mr Randle's canned safari than about the government's policies and plans for the Australian people. The transcript I have here of the Governor-General's speech will provide a useful reference for this government—because it is, apparently, their plan. It is very telling when you turn to the section dedicated to education. Their silence speaks louder than words—it really does. They do not talk about a better schools funding plan. They do not talk about how they are going to manage the education portfolio. What they talk about is how they are going to give school communities more of a say in how their schools are run, about how the government will work more cooperatively with the states—that is a laugh; they have not managed that so far, have they?—and about how, in the classroom, they are going to provide a vision for a national curriculum that is 'rigorous and challenging without being cluttered or prescriptive'. But there is nothing in the speech about funding: there is nothing about how the government are going to ensure that schools get the funding they deserve. The Pyne Online quotes are not mentioned. There is no mention of the fact that the government said before the election that they were going to meet our commitment. There is nothing about any of that in here. When you look back, you understand why it is not in here. It is not in here because the government had no intention whatsoever of doing it. Now the jig is up; it is quite plain that they do not intend to do it.

The government say about their small business deregulation plan that they will lighten the red-tape burden—they go on with their usual statements. But their solution, which we found out at estimates last, is to create little cabals—little consultative groups, unconnected and uncoordinated, right throughout all the departments—who will sift through regulatory burdens and try to remove them. I suspect that what they are actually going to do is create more bureaucracy to try to remove bureaucracy. That would, quite frankly, be a Liberal way of doing things. Coming back to this speech will be a good way to hold this government to account.

Under the heading 'Asia and the region', the speech says that the international policy focus will be on 'the advancement of Australia's core strategic and economic interests' with 'key partners' to bring a 'Jakarta, not Geneva', focus in our foreign policy. That is very true, isn't it? The government have managed to do that very quickly and very decisively! But I think what we need is a more responsible government—a government that is more meted—because this government is not showing the signs of being so at all.

We will be able to hold them to account on the following statement. To make sure that the 'moment is not missed', the Abbott government have said that they will 'fast track free-trade agreements with South Korea, Japan, China, Indonesia and India'. Time lines would be helpful here, but still we can hold them to account. I think that we do have to provide a strategic lead in the region which includes South Korea, Japan, China, Indonesia and India, and I will await with bated breath seeing the free-trade agreements come to fruition under a confused and hapless government whose foreign affairs minister is already in strife in Asia.

Their solution to everything is to create Productivity Commission reviews and white papers. They have done this on rural and regional Australia rather than come out with a clear, concise plan about how they are going to address issues in rural and regional Australia. There is no urgency—'We will take our time and develop a white paper over the next 12 months and see what happens out of that.' I think that rural Australia deserves far better. I think that rural Australia deserves a much more comprehensive and immediate plan to assist. That is what our government did when we were in government. This government thinks that it can delay it for 12 months, develop a white paper and see what comes of it after that. This rank hypocrisy is clearly demonstrated in broadband. We are going to get second-class broadband as a consequence of this government. This government does not understand that business, industry, research fields, health, hospitals and agriculture all need fast broadband.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (10:40): I rise to respond to the Governor-General's articulation of her government's agenda and to reply to some of this coalition government's agenda, of which there are some aspects that have been articulated and, more importantly, some aspects we did not hear about. Before I do so, I want to reflect on the Prime Minister's opening priority as he stated it in the speech he made to the welcome to country ceremony in the Great Hall on the first day of this 44th Parliament. How ironic it was. First, we heard a very moving welcome from local representatives of the first Australians, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples from the Canberra region, who welcomed all of us who have come to this country after them. Then, we had Mr Abbott proceeding to tell us first-up, before anything else, that his government would secure the borders. Before health, before prosperity and before education for our population, his government's first priority would be to secure the borders.

It struck me: against whom? Have I missed something? Can it be that we are actually at war and I had not noticed this? Who is it that threatens our security to such an extent that the pre-eminent priority for this new government is to lock up our country and secure our borders? Now, of course, I see it. This government would have us believe that we are under dire threat from marauding hordes of those women, men and children who come to us from across the sea, making precarious journeys away from the horrors of war, torture and persecution—the horrors and fears that would have any one of us fleeing given the same circumstances. These people come to seek sanctuary with us, and this government's first, pre-eminent priority is to secure the borders against them.

These are people who—it is clear from the decision that they have made—are courageous, resourceful and resilient. These are people who are willing to risk everything for a new life, for the sake of their families and for a belief in the future. These are people who, if welcomed and supported by us, make great citizens, bringing with them a sense of gratitude and determination to render their risks and sacrifices worthwhile in their new life. We see this around us. We see the great contribution made by many of those who have come before on similar journeys. Shamefully, this Prime Minister and his government are clearly intent on continuing the tone that they set in opposition, emphasising threats and fears and playing up the worst in us—the prejudice and the mean-spiritedness—rather than appealing to the best of us in Australia—compassion, decency and a sense of a fair go.

I turn now to the Governor-General's address, which set out the government's agenda for the 44th Parliament. In focusing on the areas of schools and education and on the legal rights and interests of Indigenous Australians, I am particularly interested not only in what was said but also in what has not been said. On the topic of schools, it is not so much what the government is keen to say as what it is prepared to abandon, as we now know very clearly. This is what will be crucially important now and over the next three years. When it comes to the idea of advancing Indigenous Australians and their ability to enforce their own rights, there are elements of the government's agenda that require much more scrutiny and accountability.

First, let me turn to education and the government's stated vision for education as being greater autonomy for principals, a rigorous national curriculum, all children leaving school literate and numerate, and tackling cyberbullying. Let me say that I wholly commend work towards making students feel safe and accepted by tackling cyberbullying and I look forward to working with the government on this and other issues related to the mental health and wellbeing of young people.    From my meetings with teachers, principals and parents, I know there is growing concern about the level of anxiety and sadness being experienced increasingly by younger children in Australian schools. There is a need for a much more dedicated, highly skilled workforce in schools when it comes to promoting mental health and wellbeing and help for those kids who are struggling. We need experts in mental health in schools and I want to see a greater emphasis on qualified mental health specialists to support and assist teachers and principals to meet the growing needs of their students.

But it is also important to point out that issues of cyberbullying—and bullying generally—cannot be divorced from wider issues like the commonplace discrimination and homophobia experienced by young people in Australia on the basis of their sexuality. The government's willingness to allow religious schools to continue to discriminate against students and staff on the very basis of who they are as people—their sexual identity and preferences—reinforces the systemic discrimination that allows bullying to flourish. Cyberbullying, and bullying generally, occurs in a context and it is irresponsible for any government to condone conditions which seriously undermine the mental and physical health of many of its citizens.

The other apparent cornerstones of this government's education policy, such as independent public schools and a curriculum stripped of progressive ideals, are distractions from the crucial core task of educating students to attain to the best of their ability. That has to be the core task in Australia: to harness the human potential that is in our schools among our kids to make sure that every kid can reach the absolute height of their ability by providing adequate opportunity.

Several months into this new government it is now clear that these are dangerous distractions deliberately designed to divert attention from the pressing call for real needs based funding reform in our education system. Now we fully understand something long suspected by those of us who knew that Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Pyne had never acknowledged the inequity of the current system. We know now that this government has every intention of moving away from the principles so clearly espoused in the Gonski review of schools funding.

The past several years have seen some great developments in education reform in Australia and many of us have been cautiously optimistic that we were moving away from a long-held inequitable system. To its credit, the previous government recognised the need to provide all students with access to high-quality schooling and tasked the panel led by the businessman David Gonski with its review of funding for schooling—the Gonski review. The Australian Greens welcomed the Gonski review in 2012 because we have long advocated for needs based funding for schools and we have long championed universal access to high-quality education for all kids in Australia. From early childhood education, through the schooling system to options like TAFE and university, we believe that Australian kids have a right to educational outcomes that do not depend on wealth or location. In the 'lucky' country where our average per capita income is among the highest in the world, how well a child performs at school should not be a matter of luck. The Greens have been resolute that funding for schools should be based on need and equity—what is fair—and should prioritise the public education system to ensure that public schools can set the educational agenda and standards for the nation. While they were not perfect, we supported the Labor government's reforms to school funding in the 43rd Parliament because they were going to end the unfair funding model that has seen a far greater increase in funding to wealthy private schools than to needy government schools over decades, and they were going to transition to a new needs-based model based on principle that would see a significant investment in public education to address the huge gap between children from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds.

It is true we were disappointed by the inadequacy of the funding that was to be devoted to this—it did not come close to the investment that was recommended by the Gonski panel—and of course we thought that the regime should have included more robust accountability measures to make sure that the money ended up where it needed to go. However, the framework set out in the Australian Education Act of this year offers a tremendous opportunity that is open to all education sectors: public schools, Catholic schools and other independent schools. It is the opportunity for a truly needs-based, sector-blind funding system where the factors that have been proven to disadvantage students can truly be adjusted for—factors like disability, remoteness, low socioeconomic status, not having English as the first language at home, the size of the school and the particular and pressing needs of Australia's Indigenous students.

By contrast, this government has never acknowledged the inequity in the existing system, reinforced and entrenched by policy decisions of the Howard government, which saw funding for the wealthiest schools in Australia increase at a far faster rate than funding for the poorest ones. Neither Christopher Pyne, now the Minister for Education, nor the Prime Minister has ever acknowledged the shameful fact, clearly documented in the Gonski review, that in Australia we have the most segregated schooling system, where a child's background is more likely to determine their educational performance than in any comparable nation in the OECD. In some cases this leads to a gap of five years in the same age group

Of course, even before he held the office of minister, Christopher Pyne has played education reform like a game of political football, far more interested in politics than principle. Now we see that this is set to continue as he and the Prime Minister ruthlessly dump their pre-election commitment to match the Labor government's education reforms. In doing this, they betray not only the trust of the voters who believed them but also the many, many committed teachers across Australia who have been waiting for this change in policy and have been working against the odds to offer all kids the chance to reach their potential, and those children themselves.

While a more equitable funding system may have been jettisoned by this government, it is clear that the issue of independent public schools is still squarely on the agenda. But this notion, characterised by tweaked governance like school boards and increased financial autonomy for principals, is a distraction from the core reforms we need to get on with. It is obviously an article of faith for Christopher Pyne, but what is the evidence for this great ideological push? The best reference point we have for independent public schools in Australia is the Western Australian model, and the Western Australian government's own analysis of the model, led by the University of Melbourne, concludes that there is no evidence to indicate changes in enrolments or student achievement. I have spoken to stakeholders in Western Australia who are comfortable working with the independent public school model, and I accept that that is meaningful, but many other stakeholders and researchers argue there is no evidence in favour of independent public schools in terms of increased student achievement, and there are significant risks with a move that basically amounts to privatising the education system. By removing an education department's role in ensuring that money is well spent and ensuring a base level of quality across the board, there will be even less accountability in how resources are allocated.

The national rollout that the government proposes would impact different states in very different ways. Some states are traditional and centralised, while others already have a highly devolved system of governance. We also know that in Australia principals experience high levels of stress, anxiety and bullying. The Australian Principal Health and Wellbeing Survey, published this year, showed the need to provide principals with the highest level of professional support. Increased workloads and demands for productivity, if not coupled with appropriate resources and support, will compound this.

The international research varies widely on the claim that independent public schools will enhance productivity. There is no evidence beyond the level of principal perception of the actual efficiency and productivity of the independent public school model in Australia. International comparisons can be misleading due to unique factors in educational systems and legislation. For example, some charter schools in the United States, which are likened to independent public schools, are run by for-profit corporations.

Even more contentious is the claim that increased school autonomy improves student outcomes. The Melbourne University study found 'no substantive increase in student achievement' and described the lack of impact on achievement as 'concerning'. This is actually consistent with evidence at the international level. Multiple research projects in the UK, the United States and New Zealand have found that school autonomy has very little or no effect on student achievement.

The government's claims of improved efficiency and student outcomes are misleading. They are used to bolster an agenda that is designed to distract from core issues, like the need to make a more significant financial investment in schools in Australia and making sure that that investment is targeted at the schools that most need it. Internationally, independent public schools are found to have unintended consequences, like schools manipulating admissions to select and exclude particular students to bolster their market position. This can actually compound the social segregation that we know can occur when certain schools are privileged and others disadvantaged. Of course, we actually have that scenario before us in 2013 in Australia.

By contrast, the evidence in favour of directing funding to where it is most needed is very strong. This is the call to action that the Greens would like to make. All sectors in Australia who are concerned about educating every one of our children should unite to ensure that public funding is directed to those schools that need it most.

Australia's future lies in new ideas. Giving kids a great education will make that possible. We cannot do that without investing in and supporting great teachers and a curriculum that teaches the basics well but is also rich in art, music, languages and thinking skills. As the Australian Greens spokesperson on schools, I call on this government to commit to truly address the growing inequity in our schooling system by using evidence based measures to advance this rather than spending finite resources on unproven, ideologically inspired notions, which are being used to distract from the most important task at hand.

I turn now to the Prime Minister's stated objective of being the first Prime Minister for Indigenous Australians. I commend the government on signalling a new era of engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and a greater acknowledgement of their status as the First Australians. This will be welcome if it is grounded in policy. It remains to be seen, however, how this will be translated into meaningful action. For instance, I want to see the government elaborate on what this signifies for Indigenous people and their legal rights. Two days before the election the coalition covertly flagged significant cuts to the Indigenous Legal Assistance and Policy Reform Program—$42 million over the forward estimates, with $7 million before the end of June next year.

On one hand the government states that it wants to prioritise efforts to end disadvantage in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and on the other hand it cuts legal aid funding for Indigenous people, which can only fundamentally undermine this commitment. These cuts go directly against the government's rhetoric and will exacerbate already grossly unacceptable imprisonment rates for Indigenous Australians. It is a matter of national shame that Australia's first peoples are some of the most incarcerated peoples in the world.

In estimates it has become clear that no work has been done by the Attorney-General's Department to assess the likely effects of this cut on the ability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services to advise and represent their clients or the likely consequences on what are already scandalous rates of imprisonment. To see these rates come down, we need a fundamentally new approach to criminal justice in Australia and we need leadership at a federal level to set justice targets to close the gap and facilitate the uptake of justice reinvestment principles. Justice reinvestment is a smarter approach to criminal justice. Reducing crime and escalating imprisonment rates requires smart, evidence based policy that actually works.

Given the inconsistency between the Prime Minister's avowed commitment to Indigenous people and this slashing to funding, the Australian public is entitled to clear answers around how this government intends to deal with Indigenous imprisonment rates and how it will equip Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to enforce their own legal rights. Where possible, I will work with this government to bring about the best possible results for our nation. Along with my colleagues in this 44th Parliament, I will always hold true to the values that underpin the Australian Greens, because these are the values that will go towards achieving the healthy, caring, just society that I want to see for my children and other people's children.

Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (11:00): One of the most visionary aspects of the coalition's policies of the recent federal election was our comprehensive policy for the North as mentioned in the Governor-General's speech at the opening of parliament. We in the coalition believe there is clear scope in northern Australia for an integrated approach from the Commonwealth, working together with relevant state and territory governments and the private sector, to unleash the development potential of the North to capitalise on the opportunities presented by the so-called Asian century, in which there will be spectacular growth in the middle class of the ASEAN nations to our north, as well as by similar developments in the nations of the Indian Ocean rim to our west.

Without doubt, now the coalition is in government, our 2030 Vision for Developing Northern Australia will play a pivotal role in the development of the North. This vision was released by now Prime Minister the Hon. Tony Abbott in Townsville on 21 June this year and formed one of the coalition's election policies in our strategic plan for the sustainable growth and future development of northern Australia. We have already taken the first step in the process by conducting extensive consultations across the North, including public forums in Western Australia, which were held in Kununurra, Broome and Karratha in July, with the then shadow parliamentary secretary for northern and remote Australia, Senator Ian Macdonald, and me. Similar forums were held in north Queensland and the Northern Territory.

This work will culminate in the release of a formal white paper by the newly established parliamentary committee for northern development which will be chaired by the federal member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch. However, the point must be made that while northern Australia enjoys a number of competitive advantages, many are currently underutilised. In fact, while northern Australia is a land of enormous potential, including in agriculture, mining and tourism, we in the coalition believe the greatest untapped opportunity lies in the development of the North as the food bowl for Asia by developing agriculture across the North, particularly irrigated agriculture, followed by realising the great potential for developing the tourist industry in the North.

Turning to the idea of a food bowl for Asia, many people are not aware that by 2020 more than half the world's middle class will live in Asia and Asian consumers will account for 40 per cent of the global middle class. Asia's real GDP is also expected to increase from US$27 trillion to US$67 trillion by 2030. Asia and the ASEAN nations are therefore already the world's biggest and fastest-growing regional economies, while Indonesia is predicted to be the eighth largest economy in a decade. This is why Australia needs to market itself now as the answer to Asia's future food needs. Australia has already been a net food exporter for well over a century, producing enough food currently to feed 60 million people, and our agricultural technology used in other countries, moreover, helps feed some 400 million people.

The iconic Ord River scheme, which was set up by the Menzies government in the 1960s, has enabled 50 years of research in the agricultural potential of the north. In Kununurra there is a plan to extend the Ord River irrigation area into the Northern Territory, where it is planned to grow sugar which will be exported to Asia. This is a very important precedent in Kununurra, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle—and you are a man who knows a great deal about the north—that could be followed in other areas across the north of Australia where irrigated agriculture could be established. The CSIRO concluded that five million to 17 million additional hectares across the North are potentially suitable for agriculture purposes. Increasing our irrigation water usage from just six to nine per cent—only three per cent—would mean that, after meeting our own people's requirements, we could feed an additional 100 million people. The Ord River Dam contains six times the volume of water in Sydney Harbour and perhaps water could be piped south to the Fitzroy Valley to develop agriculture on the black soil plains of the West Kimberley. Since the Aborigines there are very much against the damming of the Fitzroy River, the Ord River water could be put to good use in that area. The Pilbara pastoral industry, which has long been overshadowed by the mining industry, is still working successfully. There are cattle stations throughout the Pilbara, all the way along the coast from Karratha to Broome and inland to the Karijini National Park. I have no doubt that the Pilbara agricultural sector can, and should, be an important contributor to the food bowl for Asia concept for the north of Australia. There is a huge opportunity for Australia to work with our closest neighbour, Indonesia, in particular, to supply their rapidly growing market for food and other commodities, valued at some $300 million to $400 million a year in the recent past.

Moving forward, our focus needs to be on broadening our scope to include the nations of the Indian Ocean rim—which stretches from Indonesia and India to the Gulf and eastern South Africa as well as the island states of Mauritius and Madagascar—because, in doing so, there are great opportunities for the expertise which exists in the north of Australia, particularly in mining, energy and food production, as well as in services like education, which are needed in these areas. At a recent meeting in Perth, Australia took over the chairmanship of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for two years, and there are high hopes that the Indian Ocean Rim Association will develop over time into an Indian Ocean version of APEC. While APEC took some 20 years to reach the point that it is at now, I am hopeful that the Indian Ocean Rim Association will mature into a successful partnership in a shorter time than that.

I would like to make some more comments about the great opportunities that exist for the north of Australia. Firstly, I will talk about mining and energy. Although we have a huge mining industry, why can't this be developed into a processing or manufacturing industry as well? Sir Charles Court had a vision of a jumbo steel mill in the Pilbara when the Pilbara mining industry was established. The cost of labour, the cost of power and the poor industrial relations of that time have been cited as reasons for a secondary processing industry not being established. But today, with automation, the workforce required is smaller so costs are down, industrial relations are much better and, with gas, the cost of power is much less. Given this, why can't Sir Charles's grand vision of a jumbo steel mill in the Pilbara be resurrected, instead of sending our iron ore to Korea, where it is taken off the ships on one side of the port, taken straight to a blast furnace, taken to a steel-rolling mill and then exported from the other side of the port. Why can't we be doing that in the Pilbara? Should we just continue to export shiploads of iron ore or dirt to China and Japan, or should we be focusing on developing some kind of secondary processing? It is a very interest question. I have been told that the Asians would prefer to be purchasing rolled steel instead of iron ore, and that is a very interesting fact to bear in mind. It seems the problem is not with the market; it is with the producers who are quite happy to just continue exporting ore. Some people even describe Australia as a Third World country in disguise because we are no more than just 'a quarry and a farm' and we are losing most of our manufacturing industries, but I would submit that in the Pilbara there is an opportunity to reverse that perception with locally based secondary processing

I will turn next to energy. Northern Australia has the potential to grow its energy export industry to over $150 billion worth in 20 years, and the Pilbara thereby has the opportunity to be the major energy supplier across Asia and the Indian Ocean rim. Another industry of great potential in the North is tourism. Tourism is one of the largest industries in Australia and, according to Tourism Research Australia, it contributes some $87 billion to the Australian economy. The coalition vision is to expand northern Australia's tourist economy to two million international visitors per annum by 2030. People who travel the world to see and explore attractions that are unique and different go, for example, from Europe to Africa. In Australia we have many attractions which are unique and different, from the Queensland barrier reef and rainforests to the wonders of the Red Centre and Indigenous culture in the Northern Territory. In the Pilbara, we have some of the most interesting landscapes in the world, especially in the Karijini National Park. Also, across the region in general, there is rugged beauty, with historic towns such as Cossack and Marble Bar and, of course, the wonders of the Ningaloo Reef, not to mention the Kimberley Bungle Bungles or Purnululu National Park, as well as the beautiful and unique Kimberly coast, accessible these days by cruise boats operating from Darwin and Broome. So there is plenty to see in the North and there is plenty of potential for developing tourism.

One of the most important things that we need to do if we are going to expand our tourist industry is upgrade major transport arteries and infrastructure. Significant and sustained growth cannot be achieved without doing these things. We need improved roads, we need better hotels and we need more airports, and the coalition white paper will consider tasking Infrastructure Australia with conducting a comprehensive audit of northern Australia's infrastructure needs. When that report is delivered to the government, it is planned that the recommendations will be implemented over a period of 15 years.

Gaps in communication infrastructure and the high cost of services in the region will also be addressed. Communications infrastructure is particularly important. In this day and age, mobile phone coverage along the long, lonely highways of Australia should be provided as a matter of course and not regarded as an optional extra service. These days, with solar powered transmission facilities, there is no reason at all why there should not be mobile coverage along the Great Northern Highway, the North West Coastal Highway and all the other long, lonely highways in Australia, such as the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory and the Bruce Highway in Queensland.

The strategic requirements of the North are an important aspect of the coalition's overall strategy for the region, particularly for Australia's defence and border protection. The Defence Force Posture Review last year recommended an increase in the Defence presence in the north-west. Given the massive scale of project developments on the north-west coast—running into many billions of dollars—the ease with which an unauthorised boat recently showed it could access the area and tie up under an oil rig is a cause for concern. If it is that easy for a fishing boat to get into those areas where the oil rigs and other developments are, it would be easy for a boat with terrorists on board to do the same. This is a problem which we need to seriously address.

In the last parliament I was Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee and I am now Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and during Senate estimates I have been active in questioning the ADF about its lack of presence off the north-west coast, pursuing it to increase the naval presence in that area. This is an issue which was raised as a problem a decade ago by the then Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, so it is a problem that has been known about for a long time. It is certainly a weakness in our overall defence position.

A coalition defence white paper will consider basing more of our military forces in northern and north-west Australia, especially in the resource-rich areas with little or no current military presence but where there is a more tangible need for a military presence than appears to be the case on the east coast. Unless we are worried about an unprovoked attack from New Caledonia or New Zealand, we might be better served by basing more of our defence forces on the north-west coast.

In conclusion, overall the coalition sees the North as a land of enormous potential, particularly for capitalising on the opportunities presented by the growth of the middle class in the ASEAN group of countries and similar developments in the 35 nations of the Indian Ocean rim. In all, there are great prospects for agriculture, mining, energy and tourism. We in the coalition believe that it is vital for Australia to position itself now if we are to benefit from the Asian century and all that it offers us in terms of opportunity.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (11:19): In this debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech, I want to focus my contribution on the early childhood education and care sector in Australia. This sector is not only critically important for enabling parents to go to work confident that their children are being cared for and educated well but it is also critically important, as all the academic research shows, for the quality development of Australia's young children, from infancy through to the time they start school.

We have seen an amazing number of backflips from this government. We have seen backflips in education and on a range of matters, but for me the backflip on early childhood education and care is one of the most spectacular. The kind of backflipping we are now seeing from the coalition in relation to early childhood education and care is more spectacular than what we would see from professional acrobats.

Over the past six years, whilst in opposition, the now government went on and on about early childhood education and care. It went on about a number of issues, including the reforms that Labor introduced but primarily the cost of early childhood education and care—blaming Labor for increasing the cost of care to parents. In fact, the truth is that cost to parents came down under Labor, as we changed the inadequate Howard funding arrangements, moving the rebate for parents on out-of-pocket expenses from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. So Labor actually brought down the cost of early childhood education and care in this country. That move by Labor—increasing the rebate of the inadequate John Howard scheme from 30 per cent to 50 per cent—made child care much more affordable for all parents.

When Labor introduced a three-year temporary cap on the indexation of this rebate, the coalition, the then opposition, screamed long and loud and proclaimed that the sky had fallen in. Many MPs and coalition senators spoke in this place about Labor's temporary indexation of the rebate.

I would like to quote from Senator Nash in her speech in this place when she said:

What is extraordinary about this legislation—

meaning the temporary freeze on the rebate—

is that the government—

meaning the Labor government—

are making it harder, not easier, for families to access childcare and to get assistance for childcare fees.

Senator Nash went on to say that the government was doing nothing for families in regional areas. Then she said:

It is quite extraordinary that the government should do this for a savings measure—I think it is predicted to save $86 million over four years. Since when did the working families of this country become the cash cow for this government? We should be assisting families with their childcare expenses, not making it harder.

I can only assume that Senator Nash would still hold true to those comments, made very passionately and very eloquently.

What we saw during the election campaign was that the now Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, went one extraordinary step further by personally signing a letter to childcare services across the country about Labor's freeze on the indexation of the cap. I have not seen Mr Abbott's letter and I am sure it does not let parents know that Labor's cap was a temporary cap and was due to be lifted. But Mr Abbott was then no doubt trying to score political points. Guess what? Here comes the backflip. Once elected, we saw another backflip from this government as Mr Abbott quietly introduced legislation to prevent the indexation from being lifted and in fact further extending the cap until 2017. So the coalition in opposition were going on and on about the cost of early childcare services in this country, yet when they had the opportunity to allow that cap to be lifted as Labor had done, they put a cap on it. So they have in fact made it much harder for working families to continue to afford child care. This will save the government about $100 million.

Interestingly, almost at the same time the government have now asked the Productivity Commission to conduct a public inquiry into what they are now calling the childcare and early learning system to look at it being improved. One of the areas that they have particularly asked the Productivity Commission to report on is that the government are saying that families are struggling to find quality child care and early learning that is flexible and affordable enough to meet their needs so that they can participate in the workforce—affordable, put there by a government which at the same time has extended the cap on the childcare rebate until 2017. So it makes a bit of a mockery of what on the one hand the government is doing and what on the other it is saying.

Again the government has hung its hat on the productivity inquiry, saying it is the biggest reform in the early childhood sector since the early childhood sector started in this country. I would beg to differ. That report again is due to be finalised in October 2014, despite the government saying there is an urgent need. Given the requirements that the report has to lie in the chamber, and so on and so forth, that report will not see the light of day until 2015. The other puzzling piece about the whole productivity inquiry is that the Prime Minister is on the public record as saying there will be no additional funding. He said that before he took the $100 million out. We are going to do this supposed far-reaching reform into early childhood care in this country, yet there is not one additional cent for any of the recommendations that the productivity inquiry is likely to make. That can only lead me to one conclusion: if we are going to broaden the scope of early childhood education and care in this country then parents will be up for more out-of-pocket expenses. I am wondering now if the reason Mr Abbott has frozen that cap on the rebate is to get parents used to paying much more if they want additional services. You cannot take the existing amount of funding and expect it to stretch to a whole new range of services; it is just not possible.

What we have heard from the government since it was elected is that they inherited a mess. I have got to say that Labor inherited a mess in terms of early childhood education and care from the coalition government. When we took office, the early childhood education and care sector was regulated by state and territory governments. That meant we had eight separate pieces of regulation governing early childhood education and care in this sector. That meant that for a two-year-old in Hobart to be cared for and educated there were different child-to-carer ratios, there were different educational outcomes, there were different caring outcomes than for the same two-year-old being cared for in Perth. So it was a mess.

The Labor government introduced much-needed, long overdue and greatly welcomed reforms. We did this in full consultation with the sector, and that was confirmed last week in Senate estimates. Labor embarked on full consultation with all parts of the early childhood education and care sector. There were meetings in every state and territory across the country, and there was an overarching reference committee established. That committee was a true reflection of the sector: there were private representatives and representatives from the charitable sector, there were early childhood providers, there were out-of-school-hours carers, there were Aboriginal organisations, there were unions, there were independent and church based preschools and there were relevant state departments. The reference group was well briefed and had input into the full range of matters under consideration. As I said, there were many, many face-to-face consultations and the opportunity for written submissions. And of course provider peak bodies and other interested groups continued to meet privately with the relevant ministers and the shadow ministers.

This reform—revolutionary, the first of its kind and long overdue—was the national quality framework focused for the first time on the care and education of Australia's youngest children. Why? Because all of the academic research informs us that the early years of a child's life impact critically upon a range of outcomes throughout that child's life. Frank Oberklaid is a renowned early childhood specialist academic whose research, along with a multitude of other studies, indicates:

… the environment experienced by a young child literally sculpts the brain, and establishes the trajectory for long term cognitive and social-emotional outcomes … to improve outcomes in adult life, there needs to be a focus on these critical early years.

This is exactly what Labor's reforms undertook to do, and it is exactly what Labor's reforms actually deliver. Mr Oberklaid goes on to say:

Optimal brain development is dependent upon a positive environment, incorporating factors such as: good nutrition, good health and a nourishing and stimulating environment.

Prior to Labor's national reforms, this positive environment was left to states and territories and differed quite markedly across the country. This is why Labor felt that it was imperative to invest in the early years through increasing the availability of quality preschool for four-year-olds and establishing the national quality framework for all early childhood educators and care providers. This was done in full consultation with state and territory governments through the COAG processes—no backflips and nothing done in secret; what we said is what we did—and we consulted widely.

So from a patchwork of inadequate legislation in states and territories, we developed national legislation and one set of regulations so that for children, wherever they were being cared for and educated across Australia, expectations and outcomes were the same. A national framework focused around three concepts: belonging, being and becoming. A national framework widely endorsed and well received by the early childhood education and care sector. Belonging, being and becoming is a vision for children's learning with outcomes for children from zero to five years.

So the national regulations cover processes for provider approval, they have a ratings scale, they have a process for assessment and they have minimum staffing requirements. They also spell out minimum educational requirements for carers. The sector embraced these reforms. Finally the sector was seen by others—parents and the general community—as a sector staffed by professionals, offering quality education to Australia's youngest children. It was finally seen by others as a fantastic career getting the recognition it deserved, except for one remaining, outstanding and critical area—that is, the wages of early childhood educators.

There is an ongoing and outstanding crisis in early childhood education and care—that is, every week around 180 educators are forced to leave a job they love because they cannot afford to stay. These are educators who develop a relationship with the children that they care for and educate every day. These are educators who care and educate young babies through to children of five years. As the academic research points out, those children need a stable, stimulating environment and not an environment where each week 180 educators leave, not an environment where parents come into a service to find another new face as they hand over their beloved child for a day in a childcare centre. Parents do not want this turnover, and educators do not want it either. But the facts are they simply cannot afford to stay in this career—one they have studied for, one they love and one they devote a significant amount of time to—because the wages are too low.

So let me give you some examples. One of the things Labor did was to bring in qualifications for all levels of educators in a service—and that is appropriate because the academic research tells us it is important. It is important to parents to have the confidence of knowing that the educator caring for their child has some experience behind them and an academic or TAFE qualification. But an educator with a certificate III—that is, the equivalent of a tradesperson—earns just $18.60 per hour. Teachers do not earn much more: about $21 an hour. What Labor did was recognise that and so it established a fund—an early childhood quality fund—and put $300 million in there. It invited services to apply, and services across the country did apply. It was not enough money but it was a start. It would have delivered $3 an hour to that certificate III worker, which would have enabled that certificate III worker to stay in a sector they love.

This is another backflip by this government which, when in opposition, committed itself to the Early Years Quality Fund. It has since reneged and taken another $300 million out of the sector. What educators across this country are asking the Abbott government is: when will they see a decent wage increase? When will they get the recognition they deserve? When will their pay packets be decent enough to enable them to stay in the job they love? We are now months past the election. We are overdue for a commitment. It is time the coalition lived up to at least one commitment it made, instead of backflipping and pocketing $300 million from the early years workforce.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales) (11:39): I rise to speak on the address-in-reply. The Tuesday the 44th Parliament was opened was another historic day for this nation. The opening of the 44th Parliament is another milestone for the wonderful democracy in which we live. I am sure the other 75 senators in this place feel honoured and privileged to represent the people of the states and territories, along with the 150 members of the House of Representatives who were elected on 7 September. The privilege of representing our people is a tremendous honour, especially in this 44th Parliament where the laws of the land and the direction of our nation are set.

As we approach the end of 2013, Australians are looking optimistically to the future. They made it clear on 7 September that they were sick of the infighting and self-centredness of the previous government. They have given an outstanding vote of confidence in the Abbott-Truss government—the coalition government—to guide our nation in future years. Our government is about making decisions for the betterment of our nation.

On the carbon tax, this afternoon I will table the report of the Senate inquiry into the legislation coming forward to the Senate on that very issue. We hear from the opposition that they may well oppose the abolition of the carbon tax in the Senate. I find that quite amazing given that, when the Rudd government was elected in 2007, the mantle they ran under was the abolishing of Work Choices and when that legislation came here into the Senate we simply sat here quietly, respected their mandate and allowed the Fair Work Australia bills to pass. I question whether the Senate will now do the same—will they respect the will of the people of this nation?

The Australian Labor Party goes back a long time. It is the oldest party in our nation, along with the National Party which was formed shortly afterwards—the Country Party, as it was then. On 7 September, the Australian Labor Party received its lowest primary vote in 110 years. This was due to the carbon tax which was never going to be introduced. You will remember former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, along with former Treasurer Wayne Swan, said before the 2010 election that there would be no carbon tax. Well, there is a carbon tax, and the fact is they gave a commitment not to introduce it. We have given a commitment to abolish it. We know the cost to business, and I will talk more about that when we get to the carbon tax repeal bills which will be in this chamber very soon. It is amazing that when I asked the Department of the Environment, during our inquiry, about the government's plans for the carbon tax they advised that our emissions will not go down; in fact, they will go up. So there will be no reduction in emissions except for a crazy scheme to buy permits overseas later on—which I have said all along will simply open up a world of fraud and allow the siphoning of taxpayers' money.

Another clear commitment of the Abbott-Truss government, when in opposition, was the abolishing of the mining tax. You will recall, I am sure, that in June 2010 the elected Prime Minister of the time, one Mr Kevin Rudd, was removed from the prime minister's position. He was planning a super profits tax and the new Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, said, 'We need to clean this up.' So who did she meet with? She met with representatives of Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Xstrata—the three biggest mining companies in our nation. They came to an agreement. It is amazing how, when it came to collecting that tax, those three big companies paid little or none. That is smart business, in my opinion. It is smart business if you can set up a plan with the government of the day and dodge a bullet yourself. You are being very clever. Of course, it was the small miners that faced the tax. None of us would argue that the Australian people do not deserve a fair share of the minerals in the ground. That is why we have state royalties. It is a simple case of allowing states to raise their royalties or put them in proportion with the price of the commodities so that when the price of the commodities goes up, a bigger return goes to the states and hence to the people.

The third big issue was asylum seekers. This is a tragic issue. I think it was in October 2008 when the former Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd abolished the regulations and laws that were put in place by the Howard government. We saw the opening up of a people-smuggling industry, and more than 50,000 people arrived here in boats. Sadly, more than 1,100 lost their lives in that process. A few months ago there was an absolute tragedy when bodies were floating in the ocean and an Australian boat had to go past those bodies to try to save more people after another boat had gone down. It is a very sad affair when you are in a boat and you must simply pass by those bodies floating in the water. That was just one of the many tragedies that have happened. And of course they have cost the Australian taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. It is good to see now that those numbers of people are shrinking.

Red and green tape: it is a sad fact that in just 15 months Labor had five ministers for small business—that is an average stay of three months. The small business minister in the Labor Party was never in the cabinet. Small business is the backbone of our nation—the biggest employer. There was hardly enough time to get the title on the door, that is how often small business ministers' names changed. This is the disregard the previous government had for our small business sector which, as I said, is one that employs half of all industry employees in this nation.

Already, the small business sector has reacted to the election of the Abbott-Truss government. CPA Australia's fifth annual Asia-Pacific Small Business Survey shows around one in five Australian small businesses expects to employ more people in 2014, and a significant proportion expects to invest in new assets over the next 12 months. This is in stark contrast to what we saw under Labor when 412,000 jobs in small businesses were lost, while the number of employing small businesses declined by 3,000.

For too long business, and particularly small business, has been strangled by red and green tape. Time and time again business people tell me of the endless paperwork they have to complete just to open their doors. We will identify where this burden can be taken off them. The first act will be to remove the carbon tax, and this will be a huge relief for all small businesses, particularly those heavy users of electricity such as butcher shops, corner stores and supermarkets. Our government will ensure that the Board of Taxation, the ACCC and the Fair Work Commission will have small business expertise.

Our recent Senate inquiry was amazing. I know a person who owns an IGA supermarket. It is a pretty tough game to be in when you are competing against Coles and Woolworths. He had to repair a gas leak in one of his large refrigeration units. He had to replace 65 kilograms of refrigerant, which would have cost $26 a kilogram before the carbon tax but cost $150 a kilogram because of the carbon tax. A thing that should have cost around $1,950 was $9,750—more than $8,000 above the cost for 65 kilograms of refrigerant gas because of the carbon tax. What does the IGA owner do? He must increase the price, up the margin, to pay for it. This is what the carbon tax did to businesses, especially the small businesses that find it hard to compete.

Rural and regional Australia will be well looked after by the Abbott-Truss government. I know that the Australian population lives around the seaboard and is crammed into the big cities. I think the real heart of Australia is in our farming families and our regional businesses. It might be the local milk vendor or the agricultural machinery dealer, the local hardware store or the dress shop. They are all an integral part of the economy. Our dairy farmers, cattle producers, wool growers, vegetable growers and egg producers work seven days a week against the elements to provide food and fibre for our nation and for export. One can only imagine what would happen to us if they were to down tools tomorrow.

We are investing in the future. We will increase the contribution to resource development by $100 million. We will commit $20 million to strengthen biosecurity and quarantine, establish a biosecurity flying squad for the first-response units and create a first-response biosecurity and container fund to tackle alien pest and disease incursions. This is very important; we are an island nation. One of the great selling assets we have in exporting our food is our clean, green image. We must see that that clean, green image is maintained, that diseases and pests are not brought into this country.

We will commit $15 million in the form of rebates to small exporters for export certification registration costs. We will provide $8 million towards minor new chemical permits to increase access to new technology and safe, effective pest and disease control, and $2 million will be provided over four years to assist the integration of agriculture into school curriculums.

But this is what the Abbott-Truss government will not do: we will not react to a TV program and shut down Australia's live export trade. This was a disgraceful decision and the ramifications and negative effects on the beef industry were huge. When the previous Gillard government cut live exports to Indonesia, it did absolutely nothing for our friendship with our closest neighbour, a big trading partner, and, of course, the price of cattle simply went down and down. Those cattle, when exported live, cannot exceed 350 kilos live weight. The delay in those exports meant a lot of those cattle exceeded 350 kilograms of live weight. Jobs were lost—people who fly helicopters to do the mustering, people at the waterfront; truckies and their road trains who carry the stuff had their trucks lying idle until some months later when those cattle trucks transported many of them south.

The town where I live were very proud and very pleased they had Bindaree Beef, an export abattoir. Truckies were bringing cattle from the top of Western Australia to northern New South Wales, because they could not market them, at a cost of $200 a head freight. What was left for the beef producers? So we are certainly not going down that way of cutting off food supplies to our nearest neighbour.

GrainCorp: just last Friday Treasurer Joe Hockey took a courageous decision and rejected an application by Archer Daniels Midland to take over GrainCorp. It was an important day for Australian agriculture and we listened to the people whose future depends on the success of GrainCorp and those who are grain producers. I did not have one wheat farmer call my office or speak to me to say it would be a good thing for Australian wheat growers, especially on the eastern seaboard, to sell off GrainCorp.

Established in 1916 by the New South Wales Government, GrainCorp is already a monopoly, and to have it sold off to a multinational company—this was a courageous decision by Treasurer Joe Hockey. Some have said we are not open for investment, we are not open for business, but that is not the case. The Treasurer made it quite clear that of 131 applications he looked at, he rejected one out of 131. I find it amazing that the Foreign Investment Review Board were not unanimous in their recommendations. That says it all in itself. When it comes to rural Australia and selling off farms and agribusinesses, what I have seen of the Foreign Investment Review Board is that it is a rubberstamping factory to sell off rural Australia.

Obviously, someone at the board gave this serious thought. The problem was the vertical integration of Archer Daniels Midland. They would have sold the chemicals and fertiliser to the farms. They would have bought the grain and put it in their silos for storage and charged a fee if it was going to be warehoused. They would have put it on their rail and taken it taken to their facility at the waterfront. Then because of the 16 per cent ownership of Wilmar International Limited they would have put it on their ships and taken it to China, where they have built their new flour mills, and processed the wheat into flour with very cheap labour and very cheap electricity, then put the flour on their ships and brought it back to Australia.

What would that have done to great companies like Dick Honan and the Manildra Group? How could they have survived when we have the cost of labour, the cost of electricity, the cost of energy and the cost of processing in Australia? We have already seen too many industries close down in this country from value adding. That would have led to more monopoly for Archer Daniels Midlands, who operate in more than 140 countries around the world. We would have only been four per cent of their business, but they could have added through their value-adding chain through the very clever way they have set up their facilities and their processing in countries with cheap energy and cheap labour. They could have made it very hard for Australian processors to complete.

Look at the canola industry. They would have done the same with that. How could the processing of our processing canola oil survive? That is why I believe Treasurer Hockey has made a very courageous and wise decision. Archer Daniels Midland already has almost 20 per cent share in GrainCorp. That can be raised to about 24 per cent. But I know GrainCorp will grow. They started as a small New South Wales business almost 100 years ago. They have grown to what they are today and they will continue to grow.

I am very pleased to see the increase in the Nationals representation in the 44th Parliament. Already the new member for New England, Mr Barnaby Joyce, who is the Minister for Agriculture, has hit the ground running, meeting farming groups, looking at drought and disease issues and generally engaging with farming communities. This is in stark contrast to what happened in the portfolio in the preceding six years. I welcome the member for Lyne, and the member for Page into our National Party room, David Gillespie and Kevin Hogan respectively. I have known David Gillespie for many years. He is a doctor, a gastroenterologist. He set up his business and knows what small business is about. He is a father, a husband—just like Kevin Hogan—and it is great to have these people in this part of our party room working in conjunction with the Liberal Party and a strong coalition.

There is a lot to be done. There are things I have worked on since I have been in this place, like the changes to the registration of liquidators, where we launched an inquiry. The previous government did nothing. We met a situation where a rogue liquidator got into a business called CarLovers Carwash. It cost CarLovers $1.8 million in legal fees to have that rogue removed. You cannot have a system like that. ASIC needs more powers.

I look forward to our inquiry into ASIC, and to knowing why it took them so long to act on Commonwealth financial planners when they were tipped off by the whistleblowers when people lost their life's earnings. You see it over life. You see a young couple meet—they get married at, say, 27. They go and take out a big mortgage to buy the house, to fulfil the Australian dream. They have two or three children, they rear the kids and educate the kids. The kids grow up get educated, get a job. Mum and dad put a little nest egg away, their life earnings, and it might be at the age of 55 or 65 they find some rogue comes in and gambles with that money, like putting it on a racehorse. ASIC needs to lift its game. I look forward to that part of the inquiry, we need a strong, active corporate watchdog.

There are many things that need to be done. We need to get the budget in order. Already AIFM's figures last Friday were over $300 billion. We cannot go on mortgaging our kids' futures way. There are going to be hard decisions to be made and, as I said, Treasurer Joe Hockey has the worst job in Australia. He will deliver his budget next May, and in the meantime we are still working on the previous government's budget. That is why the debt is still going up. I think this is of greatest concern, especially if the world economy slows down more. We have seen the recessions in Europe. Japan has a huge government debt. America is the same, breaching their cap and political wars putting the scares right through international financial markets. We need stability in Australia, but we need to get our debt under control. I will support tough decisions by Treasurer Joe Hockey to do exactly that. I think it is a case where we need to look after our country for future generations.

We look back at what our ancestors did. They built our nation, our farmers. Those remarks of AWU boss Paul Howes, that the ma and pa farmers are gone—what a disgrace! The generation of farmers are the ones who know the land, have conserved the land, have preserved the land, have looked after the land and have helped build this nation. Mr Howes, stick to your union job and stay out of the rural Australia. You do not understand it. I do understand a bit about shearing sheds. I spent 27 years of my life in them. I was actually a member of the AWU for 12 months but I did not buy a ticket and got kicked out of the shed under compulsory unionism days.

So, there is a tough job ahead for the government, and many tough decisions to be made. But I know under the leadership of Mr Tony Abbott and Mr Warren Truss and the careful guidance of Treasurer Joe Hockey and the team around them—that is what I like about the Prime Minister so much, and my Leader of the Nationals, Mr Warren Truss: they get on so well—we have a great coalition, and I look forward to doing the best for our nation in the future years.

Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (11:59): I rise to contribute to this debate, the address-in-reply. I listened to the Governor-General's address with great interest as she outlined the Abbott government's agenda for the 44th Parliament. I have to say that while I listened intently I was watching the faces and the body language of those opposite and I have to say it was very revealing. There were many who could not help but smirk at the words, 'We should never be a country that cuts tall poppies down to size,' knowing as we all did the relentless character assassination led by Mr Abbott against the former prime ministers Gillard and Rudd and Labor members, and the notion that the government will bring a 'Jakarta rather than Geneva' focus to foreign policy. We have seen how that has gone for all the wrong reasons. Our relationship with Indonesia is now at its lowest ebb and we need to very seriously consider how we are going to address that. What was really most disconcerting about the address-in-reply was the lack of policy detail and what was left unsaid has me most worried, as we discovered last week with Minister Pyne's announcements in relation to reneging on the deals across all states and territories in relation to education funding. That concern is quite real and very genuine.

What do we know about this government's approach to social policy, the challenges of aged care, community services, housing shortages or homelessness? There was nothing in that statement that gave us any clue as to what the government's approach might be to those real and emerging challenges. Where was the detail of the complicated machinery-of-government changes in relation to Indigenous affairs, consolidating all of the decision making and the policy development into the central agency of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—a classic example of where coordination equates to micromanagement, and the conflicting priorities of central agency decision making with service delivery can mean delays and inertia where policy change was actually the driving factor in the first place.

The policy agenda of 'Australia is under new management and open for business' allows commentary from close prime ministerial confidants like Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council. In his address to CEDA's 2013 annual dinner, he argued that our minimum wage is too high, that the NDIS is too expensive, that corporate welfare is crippling Australian industry and that climate change is a myth. This government is relying on a coterie of experts to provide cover for the decisions being made across portfolios and we can see even in the way in which the Commission of Audit is being undertaken that that is code for widespread cuts to government programs. And we are seeing some familiar faces: Dr Kemp has re-emerged to undertake the government's higher education review and Dr Switkowsky is back to advise on telecommunications and the NBN—and the list goes on. Not content to just promote jobs for the boys; the government has also withdrawn the appointment of a number of advisory bodies to suit its own purposes. I think it was a deliberately spiteful decision to rescind the appointment of former Premier Steve Bracks as US consul-general. Then we had the decision to wind-up the Australian Social Inclusion Board, the national housing reform council, the Insurance Reform Advisory Group, the Not-for-Profit Reform Council, all based on the argument 'that these bodies have outlived their original purpose'—or, more importantly, are not focused on the government's policy priorities. That speaks volumes for what is really in this government's mind.

The government has signalled its intention to claw back the not-for-profit reform agenda, putting civil society organisations back in their place at a time when there is growing expansion of their role in direct delivery of social services. Again, the government's rhetoric does not support the reality of the work that these organisations do on the ground. Mr Andrews has said that he wants to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, despite its success in reducing red tape, in building greater capacity and capability in the sector and in implementing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report, which provided a seminal, independent road map for modernising Australia's multibillion-dollar not-for-profit sector—something that is quite critical to meet the implementation of the NDIS, as just one example.

It is a shame that Senator Kim Carr has left because we would like to know what the government's policy agenda for innovation and research and development is. Again, it is Mr Newman who gives us the clue—a known climate change sceptic. He believes that money spent on science and cutting carbon pollution is wasted. So it is very hard to reconcile the rhetoric of the government's statement with the reality of their cuts to the CSIRO and the subsequent loss of our scientific expertise to overseas. It is hard to reconcile the digital divide being created across the country by tearing up the NBN rollout targets and the immediate impacts on university communities—including in New South Wales, Western Sydney and Wagga Wagga—with the rhetoric of innovation within health, commitment to food security, productivity in agriculture and investment in regional industries. What is the future of the multistage, innovative and collaborative research programs being managed across Australia and international research institutions by cooperative research centres, for example?

What we have seen is a very clear theme emerging in the coalition government, one that will no doubt be dubbed 'dirty little secrets,' I am sure and it is this: no government in living memory has been as reluctant as this government to inform Australia about its decisions, to justify its actions or to engage with the Australian community. We have all heard of Steven Covey's The seven habits of highly effective people and the first of those is 'start with the end in mind'. This is certainly what we have seen in the first few months of the prime ministership of Mr Abbott. He has closed down the transparency of open government—an expectation of a modern democracy. Mr Abbott described being in opposition as theatre and while he was in opposition he promised Australians they would get a 'no surprises government'. What we have been witnessing in recent weeks is akin to theatre of the absurd. His election manifesto claimed:

The Coalition will do the right thing for Australia and deliver a strong, stable, accountable government that puts the national interest first and delivers a better future for all Australians.

We will restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you.

At his campaign launch in August, Mr Abbott said again and again:

We will be a no-surprises, no-excuses government, because you are sick of nasty surprises and lame excuses from people that you have trusted with your future.

How that statement has come back to bite—now we know that a no-surprises government comes at the absolute cost of open government.

Mr Abbott has nothing to say to the Australian people. People in the street are quite nonplussed by his attitude, which they characterise, when I speak to them, as 'pretty unbelievable'. They find it incomprehensible that, unlike our previous eight Prime Ministers, he made no address to the nation in response to the international humanitarian crisis of the hurricane in the Philippines, for example. We can count on the fingers of both hands the number of media appearances he has made. He does not allow his ministers to appear on television. He is being micromanaged by his office, as are his ministers. That is not what Australians would call a grown-up government.

In a signal of the frustration being experienced by the national media, Laurie Oakes recently broke ranks by saying that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and senior ministers were breaking their election promises of greater accountability for voters and that the Abbott government is 'thumbing its nose at voters' through a lack of transparency and communication.

You can't thumb your nose at the voters' right to know and you can't arrogantly say 'we'll let the voters be misinformed and we won't help journalists get it right'. That's just a disgusting attitude.

Laurie Oakes is right—it is disgusting and quite contemptible.

They're busily trying to avoid the media as much as possible and to control the media and ... I don't think they will get away with it for too long.

And, frankly, nor should they. It seems that transparency and the public's right to know are not going to be features of this government.

We have watched the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection tightly bind up his department and others on information about asylum seekers. We no longer know if boats have arrived, been stopped or hidden. This is all done under the pretext that this is not in the national interest and that there is no right to know. Customs no longer issues advice about boats in distress en route to Australia. We read about them in the Jakarta Post. 'On-water matters are not to be discussed'. In another insidious change, it is particularly disconcerting to visit the new website of the rebadged Department of Immigration and Border Protection, where all information about asylum seekers or detention centres has been removed.

Mr Morrison's weekly briefings are held away from the press gallery and he just declines to answer questions, leaving Laurie Oakes again to observe that:

What's particularly not acceptable is Scott Morrison's arrogant attitude. He sees it as getting at the press but it's not. It's getting at the voters and eventually I think the voters will wake up.

I think that they have already done that. Media briefing are reduced to a farce by the minister and Commander Campbell, who must surely rue the day he accepted the poisoned chalice of heading up Operation Sovereign Borders. We are concerned about the politicising our Defence forces, which is something that has gone beyond the pale already under this government.

Mr Hockey has joined the club. When he announced the government would respond to Australia's ballooning credit card bill by almost doubling the borrowing limit to half-a-trillion dollars, he held a 10-minute press conference and took few questions. He has misrepresented the national accounts and squibbed and fibbed on our economic situation to suit his own purposes, and he is not the only one.

Of course, it is not just the Australian public, the media or us as the opposition who are most frustrated by the strict control on information being run from the Prime Minister's office. Spare a thought for the public servants trying to bring to bear the machinery-of-government changes announced by the Prime Minister since his government was sworn in, and who are ultimately responsible for delivering the new government's agenda. They tried desperately during Senate estimates to explain what was going on, but they could not shed too much light. They are being asked to achieve this at the same time as the Prime Minister has directed the elimination of 12,000 jobs within the service, and that decision making be centralised within the Prime Minister's office. Ministers' offices are still not fully staffed. Ministers' offices refuse to take or return telephone calls about critical policy issues. That leads to confusion, misinformation and policy inertia. The atmosphere in the lead-up to the resumption of parliament was shambolic. In some agencies people were desperate, and many commentators began to suggest that this reflected a deep lack of trust in the public sector by the incoming government. That is of concern to us all.

During the caretaker period prior to a general election and in the period following a change of government, one of the main tasks of senior public servants is to prepare portfolio briefs for the incoming government, called the 'blue books'. The documents usually provide a fairly frank assessment of the party's election policies, the public service's view of the economy and other information designed to allow a smooth transition between governments. In 2010 redacted versions, or red books, were released under freedom of information laws, but not this time. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Treasury official, an acting assistant secretary, responsible for the decision wrote:

… release of the incoming government briefs would interfere with the establishment of an effective working relationship between the Treasury and Treasurer.

The need to develop a trusting relationship is particularly important in the early days of a new government, to set the tone for the future working relationship of the whole department.

Disclosure of the incoming government brief would not be conducive to establishing a productive, trusting and effective relationship with the Treasurer and would adversely affect Treasury's effectiveness as a central policy agency, which I also find to be contrary to the public interest.

What is contrary to the public interest is this veil of secrecy that has come down over this government's decision making. FOI experts, such as lawyer Peter Timmins, suggest that Treasury's refusal to release its advice to the incoming government is clear breach of the public interest. Mr Timmins's view is that:

It's been in the Freedom of Information Act for 30 years that advice, opinions, recommendations, in the course of the operations of an agency isn't protected—except if, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose it.

Senator Ludwig has shone a light on the lack of disclosure by the government and its contempt for freedom-of-information laws, and rightly asks: what have they to hide? At least five departments have refused outright to release incoming government briefs, and another five have asked for fees of up to $2,356 to release the information that previous governments released. No rules have changed; the departments are now simply refusing to release them under the same rules that previously applied.

Now we know that Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, is a signed-up member of the secret squirrels club too because his office recently revealed:

The Attorney-General may, from time to time, provide guidance to the government on the operation of the FOI Act.

And asked whether Brandis supported a recommendation of the recent review of FOI laws by former public servant and diplomat Allan Hawke, Minister Brandis' office said:

The government is closely considering all recommendations of the Hawke review.

The Hawke review recommended that the incoming government briefs be exempt from FOI, which does not match with the Abbott commitment that 'accountability and transparency will be the principles that underpin our government'.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop recently gave the keynote address at the conference of the Australian Council for International Development, but her speech was closed to the media—the rest of the conference was open—because the media were seeking details about the $4.5 billion worth of cuts to our aid budget and the axing of AusAID, which ceased to exist as an independent agency as of 31 October. That announcement certainly did not come into the 'no surprises' category. That action had never been signalled by Ms Bishop in opposition nor by the opposition in its campaign policy.

There are many stakeholders who need to understand just what that is all about: not just the NGO community but the technical consultancy organisations such as SMEC, who work so closely with government in the field. The cuts will have diplomatic impacts too, as programs and funding commitments form part of bilateral agreements signed during diplomatic visits here and abroad. There is no information from Ms Bishop about how the options for implementing large and immediate aid cuts are being developed, who is being consulted or how those impacts will be managed. What possible business is this of the Australian people?

The way in which the AusAID staff were treated was appalling. The graduates, who had already been recruited for next year, were dismissed by email last week. We have to think about what the impacts of the integration of AusAID into DFAT after almost 40 years will look like. It certainly has not been a very happy marriage to date.

Environment minister Hunt, who failed to find one notable scientist to support the veracity of the coalition's direct action plan, and who resorted to Wikipedia to help explain the government's position on climate change, is yet to outline to the Australian people just how this plan is going to deliver the reduction in carbon emissions or how in fact Direct Action will roll out in practice. The bills are in the parliament, as we know and, without the detail required to give Australians confidence, we know that Mr Abbott recently abandoned the bipartisan international agreement that bound Australia to reducing emissions by up to 25 per cent by 2020 by unilaterally announcing a commitment of five per cent by 2020 instead.

This again is another indication of the lack of commitment to our international obligations—code for the Geneva focus—that became a hallmark of the previous coalition government. Now we see the reinforcement of these issues by the introduction of temporary protection visas, by reverting to depersonalised language, such as 'illegal maritime arrivals', and the challenge to the legality of seeking asylum—the issues that have been raised with all of us most recently as people despair about the lack of information and transparency that is coming from this government. We have silence from the Defence minister about bastardisation, we have silence from the Nationals in general and this is our— (Time expired)

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:19): The beginning of a new parliament is one of the best times to reflect on the future direction of our country. Having been re-elected for another term, I thought it worthwhile also to reflect on my maiden speech in this place and the causes I have pursued since that speech seven years ago. Back then I warned that the modern rights movement threatened to corrupt the true meaning of 'right', giving status to mere desires and fuelling a competing so-called rights agenda. Seven years later, I regret to say it has come to pass. We regularly see it: a tiny vocal minority pursuing its own desires at the expense of others, at the expense of our traditions and of our societal fabric. I have spent my time here trying to tackle that agenda, along with many other issues that are important to me and important to mainstream Australia.

The other day one of my staff reminded me of a quote from Peter van Onselen back in 2010. He said:

Bernardi was the person who got the ball rolling on Abbott's ambition to become Liberal leader.

I am not sure that is entirely correct but there is no denying that I have done my best to help get the ball rolling on a few worthy causes. I did help to get the ball rolling on tackling Labor's emissions trading scheme in 2009—a policy that was against the national interest, was fuelled by falsities and rent seekers and, regrettably, was embraced by the coalition at the time. The response to my opposition was hysterical and vitriolic. I was called a dinosaur, a rebel, a denier. How dare I question the always accurate, eminent wisdom of Al Gore, Tim Flannery and their acolytes? Those who shared my views in this parliament were told they spoke for nobody but themselves. Yet only weeks later the ETS policy was opposed by the coalition. It was defeated in this place and then it was dumped by the former government.

I helped to get the ball rolling on open discussions about dismissing calls for sharia law and legal pluralism in this country. My approach was labelled at the time as cynical and knee jerk, with some having no problem with the government's plans to change tax, property, insolvency and security laws to accommodate sharia finance. Despite the condemnation of the critics about my concerns, the major parties finally dismissed calls for sharia law in Australia in what I deem yet another win for common sense.

I also helped to get the ball rolling on raising security and identification concerns about face coverings like the niqab and the burqa. People could not run away from me fast enough, quite frankly. They took every opportunity to tell the media that my attitude was simply racist. Who would have thought that being concerned about people hiding their faces in public would draw such absurd responses? These responses look even more foolish when you consider that New South Wales, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and a number of other places have enacted legislation to tackle this very issue.

On behalf of parents everywhere, I helped to get the ball rolling on challenging excessive foul language during family TV-viewing times. But apparently, by standing up for families, people think you are whipping up a 'moral uproar', which is just another flippant response from the morally vacuous.

I also helped to get the ball rolling on exposing baby bonus payments being paid after abortions, something the previous government at first denied but then were pressed to deal with. My pursuit of these causes has been met with derision by some in the media, contempt from the political left and white-anting from a few snipers on my own side.

So I stand here, somewhat bloodied after these departures from the PC agenda, but I am still determined to keep the ball rolling, to represent my constituents and the millions of Australians who share similar concerns. It is a task that I welcome with every fibre of my being. I agree with the sentiments of the new member for Fairfax: politicians come and go but ideas last forever. Sadly, in the battle of ideas these days, it seems more important to be politically correct than to be actually right. I do not and I will not conform to that mantra.

I have always fought for the things that I believe in. These are the same things that many Australians believe in too. They love this country and want to see it prosper. They love their families and they want to see them strengthened and protected. They love their communities and want to see pride in our culture and a greater sense of belonging. They love to work hard and want to see less government interference in their lives and to keep more of the fruits of their labour. They love our traditions and want to see them endure. They are mightily sick of politicians pushing conviction aside and putting convenience in its place. For the past seven years I have stood together with these Australians and tried my best to give them a voice. It has meant that I have often found myself standing outside the political and media establishment, but I know that I do stand with the mainstream and I make no apology for having firm beliefs. I will not be silenced by the bellicose calls of the intolerant, and neither should any other Australian.

Some in the political class are too afraid to talk about the issues that matter to many of our citizens, the issues that go to the very heart of our society's foundations. They forget that our role in this place should always be more about the commitment to our nation than about satisfying our own personal desires.

So, as we embark on a new direction, with a new parliament and a new government, we are wise to remember that our constituency does not stop at the press gallery or at our own colleagues. This House was built within the hill, not on top of it, as a permanent and enduring reminder that true democracy never comes from the top down. We have a duty to speak up for our beliefs and those of our constituents as well as fostering respectful debate without fear or favour. That will be my goal in this new parliament, as it has been ever since I stepped foot in this place.

In briefly addressing some of the issues I feel are most important, I start by saying there is nothing wrong with loving your country and fighting for its culture and its institutions. After all, those institutions have helped make this country as great as it is, which in turn brings many from overseas to our shores looking for a better life. Australia has been the beneficiary of decades of migration that have enriched our national tapestry. Indeed, my own family is part of that tapestry too. But we can only maintain this if we stand against what UK journalist David Goodhart refers to as 'separatist multiculturalism'.

Let me say that I do not argue against the genuine desire for different ethnicities to live together harmoniously. I have always supported an orderly and respectful migration policy. But I do have concerns about policies that emphasise differences rather than focus on national pride and citizenship, or policies where Australians are made to feel ashamed of our own history and culture.

Somehow it is seen as xenophobic to suggest that those who choose to come here adjust to our society and embrace our values, the values that made Australia such an attractive place to migrate to in the first place. Some even maintain that our flag is a symbol of division, rather than unity. And when things do not work out, the PC apologists blame our culture, our values and our people for not trying hard enough.

We need to ask ourselves: how does our country benefit if we encourage isolation? How do we build a stronger nation when some are unwilling to become building blocks of a cohesive society? So a balance must be struck between the obligations of society and the obligations of those wishing to benefit from it. After all, a strong and harmonious nation is one that values above all what unites us, not what divides us.

Many amongst the political elites do not seem to want to talk about this, but the public sure do. And we saw this in the parliament's multiculturalism inquiry, where hundreds of Australians raised concerns about sharia law, immigration, integration and competing cultural demands. These people are not 'extremists' or 'racists', as the modern day version of Lenin's 'useful idiots' would have us believe. These people are patriots, deeply concerned with the type of country we will be leaving to future generations. And, frankly, I share many of their concerns—as does the great silent majority. Is it any wonder that faith in our political class is at such a low, when some politicians have so much trouble reflecting the genuine concerns of regular people in favour of some token appeasement to political correctness?

Just as we face challenges to our culture and laws, our society also faces a concerted push to deny the most fundamental right in existence: the right to life for the most vulnerable in society: the unborn, the sick and the elderly. We must remember that part of the duty of government is to care for its citizens—particularly those who cannot care for themselves.

Unfortunately, the push for legalised killing continues. In recent weeks Australia's first euthanasia clinic opened in Adelaide only a few streets away from where I live. Advocates of euthanasia claim that safeguards can limit the abuse of euthanasia. They say that the slippery slope does not exist. But they are either uninformed or are being deliberately misleading to further their cause.

In Belgium, where euthanasia was legalised in 2002, there have been a number of cases where patients were killed who did not explicitly request euthanasia and where nurses administered the lethal drugs despite this being against the law. And now, the Belgian parliament is even considering allowing euthanasia for minors. Tell me again that the slippery slope does not exist. Crossing the line to allow legalised killing opens up all sorts of questions that have dire consequences for us all, including the most vulnerable in our society.

It is a similar slippery slope with unborn babies' right to life. I know this is an emotive issue for people on both sides of this debate, but when legal, medical abortion was introduced in the sixties did the advocates for abortion foresee that 70,000 to 100,000 unborn children would be killed each year in Australia? Were they so naive as to think that abortion would just be restricted to protecting the health of the mother? These days in places like Victoria abortion is available virtually any time during pregnancy and it even caters to the whims of parents: they can abort a healthy baby girl if they prefer a boy. The human toll of this slippery slope is simply astounding, and yet even abortion on demand is not enough for some. Greens party cofounder Peter Singer, for example, spends his time advocating for human rights for apes but does not seem that concerned about unborn children or even disabled children that have been born. Singer argues:

Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

I disagree. I think it is absolutely wrong. We should be promoting a culture of life in society and not allowing the shadow of death to be cast over all our lives. I know of many Australians who share this view and I am continually heartened by their support. They might not be the ones who shout the loudest, but that does not mean that they are wrong or they should not have their voices heard.

The same goes for those Australians who support the current definition of marriage. They often endure terrible slurs for simply giving their opinion and sometimes get labelled homophobic, which is an absolutely unfair accusation to make. Defending traditional marriage in no way means that someone harbours hatred for homosexuals. This is yet another example of the political Left using insults rather than evidence to make their point. In fact, the Left continue to invent new phobias as pejorative terms for anyone that does not agree with their radical agenda.

In response I would like to suggest that many of these people seem to suffer from veritaphobia—a fear of telling the truth. And the truth is that history has demonstrated that tampering with tradition has unforeseen consequences. When I questioned the possible future demands associated with redefining marriage, my words were labelled as the 'worst sort of slippery slope argument'. It was said that there is no country that has legalised same-sex marriage that has legitimised polygamy. Critics climbed over themselves, and stampeded over the truth, on their way to the nearest microphone to twist my words for their own ends. They conveniently failed to notice that we already see in Brazil and the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage is legal, the recognition of multimember unions. I will say it again: tampering with tradition has unforeseen consequences. This is not about denying rights; it is about the fact that individual desires should not trump the wisdom of the ages.

Part of that wisdom has come to us through organised religion. Of course, religious belief is essentially a private matter for individuals, but when religion is discussed in the public sphere double standards abound. Frankly, in this brave new world it is seemingly permissible for people to denigrate Christianity in all manner of ways but not to critically examine other competing belief systems.

There are concerted efforts to remove Christian influence from our society, despite the incredible contribution Christian ethics and beliefs have made to our way of life. And, contrary to popular belief, recent studies have found that most religious persecution is directed against Christians. They face oppression in nearly three-quarters of the world's nations. Where are the headlines about this in our mainstream press? Just imagine the indignation if believers of a different faith were subject to the same level of persecution. We would never hear the end of it, and yet when it comes to the slaughter and oppression of Christian people the silence is deafening. The inconsistent reactions from the perpetually outraged in respect to religion—and any of their other pet causes—demonstrate the deliberate agenda that political correctness pursues against free speech.

Many Australians saw that through the Labor government's blatant attempts at censorship via their proposed media council and antidiscrimination laws. While these more obvious methods have been called out for the rubbish they are, more subtle efforts continue to enforce groupthink on society today. We see it in our newspapers, on TV, in our kindergartens, our schools and workplaces. We regularly see it on our ABC. One of its flagship programs, Q&A, regularly has a token conservative panellist outnumbered four to one, as if this represented community sentiment. It does not, but it does represent the ABC's bias. So it is reasonable to ask: why are taxpayers footing a $1 billion bill for the ABC when it consistently fails to present a balanced view?

Sure, the political Left speak about tolerance, but time and again we see that their tolerance only extends to an echo of their own voice. Rather than respectfully disagreeing and getting on with debate, traditionalist views are drowned out in a cacophony of slurs, smears, confected outrage and attempts to cow others into silence. A former member of the parliament, the Hon. Dr David Kemp, put it this way:

The threat to freedom of speech has always come from those who believe they have some superior wisdom, or access to a truth that others must be forced to see.

This threat must be met each and every time we see it and it must be met with an unwavering commitment to free speech for everyone, not just those who are deemed worthy by the self-appointed elites.

It is also time for this parliament to tackle the sense of entitlement and the burgeoning welfare state. Every Australian should have the opportunity to reach their full potential through education, employment and hard work. The spirit of entrepreneurship and diligence are the keys to individual prosperity and a stronger economy. In 2009-10, according to the ABS, 60 per cent of Australian households received more in social benefits than they paid in taxes—60 per cent. Of course some of them genuinely need assistance, and part of the government's job is to help them. But to have 60 per cent of households relying so heavily on government in this way is far too much.

Too many children are growing up in families that are stuck in a hopeless cycle of generational welfare. We simply cannot allow this debilitating path to continue. Nor can we allow a government to live beyond their means, for that is merely stealing from future generations to fund the indulgences of today. Making change in these areas will require tough choices to be made. It means we have to stop kicking the proverbial can down the road hoping someone else will eventually pick it up. But in the end isn't that what we are meant to be doing—picking up after the legacy of previous can kickers and getting Australia back on the right track? What our forefathers built for us and what past generations have fought hard to maintain is too precious to play around with. Our values, our principles and our traditions have endured the test of time and are worth preserving and speaking up for.

So I say it again: just because you support traditional marriage does not make you homophobic, just because you defend Australian culture does not make you a racist, just because you defend the right to life does not make you a misogynist, just because you are a Christian does not make your views any less important in the public debate. Australians who believe in the essential pillars of our democracy, in our traditions and in our values must learn to throw away the insults of the self-styled progressives and stand strong against such tactics.

What traditional conservatives seek to defend goes to the very heart of our way of life and the blessed bounties we receive from residing in this land. In this new parliament it is fair to say that I carry a bit of scar tissue from my commitment to these values over the past seven years, but I am absolutely resolute in my determination to continue to stand for conviction over political convenience in this parliament and beyond.

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory) (12:38): The address-in-reply is an opportunity to reflect upon the new government's agenda, as expressed by the Governor-General in this place on the first day of sitting of the 44th Parliament. It is with a disconcerting sense of deja vu that I rise today to comment on the coalition government's plan to slash thousands of jobs from the Australian Public Service and make savage and unnecessary cuts to the programs and services that benefit the lives of so many Australian families.

I have had the great honour of representing the people of the ACT as senator since 1996 and yet, sadly, the content of my comments today echo those of my early speeches to this chamber in that same year. Now, as then, I rise to defend not only my community and the many dedicated public servants I have the immense privilege of representing, but also millions of vulnerable Australians across our nation, from a new government that is embarking upon a program of cuts to the Australian Public Service that is motivated by a tired and redundant ideology. We are just a few short months into the new Abbott government and yet it is abundantly clear that the stale, old Liberal Party playbook has been dusted off and we are witnessing a replay of the early actions of the Howard government and many state coalition governments since. Now, as then, the coalition comes to government committing to make a set number of cuts to Public Service jobs while at the same time effusively promising that there will be no forced redundancies. Well, I have heard that before. But, following their election, the new government initiated a review.

Federally, the coalition are in the habit of calling these commissions of audit, for which the resulting recommendations, I presume, are very much a foregone conclusion. I know the pattern well. The promises of the pre-election period are quickly discarded and deep, painful cuts to the Public Service are enacted due to a manufactured debt and deficit crisis. But what we know is that these measures are unnecessary and that the debt and deficit crisis is a product of a deliberate and deceitful political campaign to saddle Labor with the blame for their plans, this government's plans, to radically cut government services. For the entire period of the last parliament, the coalition conducted an unrelenting and entirely spurious campaign against the former government in relation to debt and deficit. The then opposition leader, Mr Abbott, and Mr Hockey deliberately sought to manufacture a sense of crisis in the condition of the federal government's finances—all specifically designed to suit their political advantage—and completely ignored the reality of Australia's robust economic performance under Labor's stewardship. This campaign needlessly and recklessly damaged consumer and business confidence in our economy during the most trying period for the global economy since the Great Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. But this campaign, motivated by political self-interest and quite divorced from reality, has been exposed for what it was—that is, farcical.

The priorities of the new government in the period since the election have exposed its campaign as posturing solely for the political purposes I described and put the lie to any notion of a debt crisis or budget emergency. We now have a government whose priority is to abolish a price on pollution without a credible plan to reduce the punishing impacts of pollution on climate change; we now have a government whose priority is to give a tax cut to billionaire mining companies through the abolition of the minerals resource rent tax; we now have a government whose priority is to hand hundreds of millions of dollars of tax concessions to the 16,000 superannuants with net worth in excess of $2 million, while ripping away a tax concession for 3.6 million of our lowest-paid workers, who are predominantly women; and we now have a government whose priority is to dismantle the early years quality framework intended to boost the wages of hardworking childcare professionals, who are amongst Australia's lowest paid workers, and reallocate that money to subsidise au pairs and nannies for comparatively wealthy families. These are not the actions of a government confronted with a budget crisis. These are the actions of government suffering from an ideological myopia. Sadly, we know why this campaign was confected. It is designed to provide the necessary political cover for the pursuit of a tired and dated ideological agenda of cuts to the public sector. We know this, and I know this, because we have seen it all before.

I will return to the government's cuts and their impact on my community, but first I would like to turn to the real facts of Australia's economic performance under the previous Labor government. I do so because it is essential to combat the inevitable revisionism of the coalition on this matter. It is a revisionism that was also conducted by the Howard government when they were elected in 1996 which attempted to paint the reforming period of the Hawke-Keating government in an unjustly negative light. We have already seen the attempts to downplay the enviable economic inheritance that this government has received from the previous government in this chamber, and doubtless we will hear much more of it. It is the Howard-Costello playbook, dusted off, being played again.

The previous Labor government's record—of which, as a member, I was exceedingly proud—is a solid one. This is especially true when taking into account the severe economic downturn in the period following the global financial crisis and the economic performance of comparable economies. And this, unlike the new government's unsubstantiated attacks on that record and the revisionism of that period that we have already seen by members opposite in this chamber, is attested to by many of the world's most pre-eminent economic institutions and commentators. During our time in government we grew our economy by more than 14 per cent, in some of the most challenging economic conditions ever faced by an Australian government. This feat is all the more impressive when contrasted with the performance of comparable economies. The same period saw the United States's economy grow by less than one-fifth of that, and the European Union saw its economy contract by two per cent.

Under Labor's sound management our economy grew from the 15th largest to the 12th largest in the world. Our prudent and measured fiscal stimulus helped avoid the rapid upswings in unemployment experienced across the developed world and the crippling social and economic costs now being experienced across much of southern Europe and elsewhere. One of our finest legacies in this regard is that, according to Treasury analysis, the previous government's stimulus measures helped save 200,000 jobs during the darkest period of the global financial crisis. That is 200,000 families sustained by employment in a period when they otherwise would not have been.

The former government's expeditious response has been acknowledged by leading economists and economic institutions worldwide. Nobel Prize winning economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, along with the International Monetary Fund, have praised the design and scope of Australia's stimulus response to the global financial crisis as the most effective stimulus response of any government in the world and a model to be emulated internationally in the event of another global downturn.

Unemployment remained low under Labor, particularly when contrasted against the performance of comparable nations over the same period. We created one million new jobs while across the world tens of millions were shed. Interest rates fell from 6.75 per cent to 2.75 per cent, saving Australian families with a $300,000 mortgage $5,000 a year. Inflation was contained across the period of government. In fact, under Labor's stewardship Australia experienced the first minerals export boom in our history that was not also accompanied by an outbreak of inflation.

With net government debt just above 10 per cent of GDP, Australia has one of the lowest levels of government debt in the world. For the sake of comparison it is worth noting that the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan all have net debt levels more than eight times our position. Even Canada, a country of similar resource abundance, has a net government debt position in excess of 34 per cent. Our credit rating from all major credit ratings agencies is AAA, and we remain one of merely eight nations worldwide with a stable outlook.

The former Labor government is proud of its achievements in managing the economy, and these facts are firm evidence of our strong and intelligent stewardship. We bequeathed to the new government a growing, low-inflation, low-unemployment economy with an enviable set of government books. Our policies ensured that hundreds of thousands of Australians remained in their jobs in the aftermath of the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression and that new jobs were created. We left the new government with an economic and fiscal outlook that would be coveted by leaders across the developed world. That is Labor's proud record.

But, going back to my earlier points, we know the real reason for the government's posturing on this. They need their manufactured sense of crisis in relation to government finances to provide the necessary political cover for their 'commission of cuts'. It is simply cover so that they can arbitrarily and unnecessarily take the axe to the Australian Public Service and the many services provided by government that so many Australians, particularly those on low incomes, rely upon. A reality based appraisal of the fiscal and economic conditions bequeathed to the government provides no justification for the cuts to the provision of government services that lie at the heart of the government's agenda.

The impacts of this agenda will be felt most sharply in one place, and that is of course Canberra. As a proud and passionate Canberran, and this being our wonderful centenary year, I feel more strongly about this than ever. Canberra is my home and home to hundreds of thousands of people who are also proud to call Canberra home. But there is no way to deny it: the slash-and-burn agenda of the coalition is destined to hurt our regional and local economy.

In the face of all this, there is still plenty of room to be positive. We have actually weathered the storm before. We endured an economic downturn from 1996 through to 1998—I think that was the lowest point—but since that time we have diversified in quite an extraordinary way. Having been through a downturn following the election of a coalition government, we know that things do turn around. So I am quite positive about Canberra's future, despite this parlous state of affairs. I would particularly like to take this opportunity to applaud and acknowledge the forward vision and planning, at an economic level and at a social level, of the ACT Labor government. As I said, we have a more diversified economy now than in 1996, and Canberrans, working in the Public Service or in business, particularly small business, have shown ourselves to be a very resilient and resourceful community.

Thanks to the foresight and efforts of many, Canberra is now a world-leading education hub. We sit at the nexus of some of our many great national institutions of scientific and social research, such as the CSIRO; the John Curtin School of Medical Research; the national ICT centre of excellence, NICTA; and many more. Proximity to these institutions, to our federal Public Service and to a highly educated population, both here in Canberra and in the region, makes us a more attractive destination than ever for investment and start-up business. We will always have proximity to the Commonwealth government, one of the largest purchasers for many goods and services in the Australian economy. One area that I am particularly interested in, as always, is information and communication technology. The Commonwealth will remain the largest single purchaser of information technologies in Australia.

All these things are great strengths of the Canberra economy and all these things, as they have before, will help us through harsh economic times. Canberra has a very bright and brightening future. But we must learn from what happened in 1996 and harden our resolve to be able to withstand the pressures that will be brought to bear as the coalition takes the axe to the Public Service here. Just to remind people listening today, when the Howard government came to power in 1996 they promised, committed to, 2,500 Public Service job cuts with no forced redundancies. We know the reality was tens of thousands—some reports have the numbers well over 30,000 ultimately. This resulted in loss of business and consumer confidence and a collapse in property values and ultimately a recession. The Abbott government has promised 12,000 job cuts and no forced redundancies but we have already seen them back away from this commitment. As the additional supplementary estimates information came out, they were forced to concede that they were not able to make their forecast savings of $5.2 billion with only 12,000 job cuts and no forced redundancies. The reason that forced their concession in this regard was that once you project that there will be no forced redundancies the natural attrition rate changes. This is a known factor, it has happened before, yet we still had a new government that persisted in taking what many of us in Canberra knew and tried to convey during the election campaign was a promise that they would be unable to keep. That has come to pass and they have not been able to keep the promise of no forced redundancies. We have seen them abandon that promise and, if experience is any guide, the 'commission of cuts' will continue to construct a cover for a desire to cut further.

With that context in mind, Canberra has just come off one of the best years ever in celebrating our raison d'etre. The centenary of Canberra has proven to be not just a fantastic celebration for Canberrans but indeed for the whole nation as systematically we have moved through our centenary year highlighting and celebrating each step 100 years ago when the formation and foundation stones of this great city were laid. I have reflected many times in this chamber on the significant historical steps taken on significant dates and I have had the pleasure of seeing the commitment of the ACT government through their creative director of Canberra's centenary, Robyn Archer, as she has worked her magic through a whole range of extraordinary events, celebrating the great minds of the nation through their many topical talks and through lectures relating to the profound sciences. We have seen extraordinary cultural events. We have seen our cultural institutions step up and put their best foot forward and open their doors to not only Canberrans but the many hundreds of thousands of Australians and overseas visitors coming to see an array of exhibitions and artworks and cultural institutions. It moved me to see those exhibitions but they remind many Australians how proud they also can be in the national capital when they come here and realise perhaps for the first time that this city is as much theirs as it is for the people who live here. It is very much a city for the whole of Australia, and in this sense whatever damage is inflicted through cuts here we will be resilient. I do not believe the economy will be as damaged as it has been in the past but this is because it is a lived experience and we know what we need to do to keep stimulating at a local level through start-up businesses to promote small business activity, we know that for those families affected by job loss we need to work harder in providing greater job opportunities across the ACT Public Service and indeed through transition to the private sector.

All of these things make me extremely proud, as I said at the start of my comments, to be a senator for the ACT. We are facing tough times, and all the indicators are showing that, but it will not dampen our spirits as a community. We have been through these tough times before and have recovered with great strength. I look forward to working through this period with the people I represent with a sense of optimism and resilience as we take on the challenge of having contraction forced upon us through unjustified and ideological cuts imposed by this newly elected Abbott government.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (12:57): As we began the 44th Parliament and as I listened to the Governor-General's speech I reflected on the achievements of the last parliament that I was so proud to be part of. I remember with great clarity that wonderful day when we passed our first carbon price laws in this parliament. What a joy that day was. I felt so proud as a Queenslander to be doing what is necessary and taking that first step towards what is necessary to safeguard our reef, to safeguard our beautiful farmland and our wonderful rainforests and to safeguard our coastal way of life. As a mother, I thought about the effect that those sorts of decisions would have on future generations. That was one very high point, but we had others. The passage of the mining tax, albeit, sadly, a watered-down version, was a really crucial step in this nation's history to try and share the wealth. The passage of our first universal dental care laws in Denticare allowed children finally to be able to get the dental care that they need. Just as they would go to a doctor they can now go to the dentist. Finally, we got some protection for our farmland and our aquifers from coal seam gas exploration and mining with the passage of a water trigger in our environmental laws.

I reflected on all those achievements and I felt very proud. But in listening to the Governor-General outline the agenda of this new government, frankly I was horrified. I was horrified at the lack of long-term vision and at the selfishness and narrow-minded approach to policy making that was expressed by our gracious Governor-General in advocating and speaking the Abbott government's agenda. The first thing that struck me as incredibly sad and short-sighted and confronting was this obsession with repealing our carbon price. And not just that, but proposing to replace it with this amorphous, undefined concept. We heard in estimates and in Senate inquiries last week that not even stakeholders know the details of this amorphous Direct Action Plan, which no economist—and certainly no ecologist or soil scientist—in the country has said will work. And it has a set amount of funding dedicated to it that our Prime Minister has now said he will not go above, even if this government is not on track to meet its five per cent cut of greenhouse gas emissions. We have a weak scheme, which is not even backed by its own proposers.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, that wonderful renewable energy bank that the Greens are so proud of being part of establishing, was here last week and said it is actually making money for the taxpayer. It is investing money in renewable energy not at a cost to the taxpayer, but at a profit, and it is bringing down emissions. This marvellous carbon price legislation and mechanism, with all of its good features and all of its success, is now on the chopping block and dismissed with a three-word slogan: 'Axe the tax'. Such tragic short-sightedness.

The Governor-General continued on with the Abbott government's agenda of axing the mining tax. We all acknowledge that it has its flaws—it needs to be much stronger; it could and should be raising far more revenue—but rather than fixing those problems the government propose to get rid of it entirely. Of course they are not proposing to reverse the cuts that single parents have to face when they were dropped down off their parenting payments onto Newstart. What a shame that some cuts are open to exploration and others are not.

The other particularly painful aspect of the Governor-General's speech was the reference to securing our borders. I felt a real chill down my spine as those words were read out. Securing our borders from what? From desperate people who are fleeing situations of danger that most Australians do not experience and probably will never experience in their lives. Fleeing with their families—with their children, with their parents, with their siblings—and just wanting to have a safe life and to contribute to a new nation where they can feel like their lives are not at risk and their children can prosper and flourish. Securing our borders from those people? Is that really what it has come to? Are we that afraid of other human beings? I was horrified.

Of course we know the promise to retrench 12,000 public servants is going to hurt not only those families affected but also will cut the services on which we all rely. I thought it perfect irony that the new Commission of Audit that is being proposed by this government will be headed by none other than the head of the Business Council of Australia, Tony Shepherd. We know businesses reign supreme under this new world order, and now they are in charge of the razor gang of this new government. It is horrific, but somehow very fitting.

We heard in this past week that even promises that had been made pre-election, which we had assumed would be kept, are now going to be completely tossed out. The school funding promise, the Gonski funding promise that was made clearly by the then opposition leader, who is now Prime Minister, is now meaningless. We are told those words apparently do not mean what we thought they meant. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, did not actually mean what he said. So many backflips and so much short-sightedness and self-interest. The overall take-out message from that speech that I sat here and heard with great sadness was a real lack of positive vision, a fear about the people we share this planet with, a disdain for the needs of the natural world and this obsessive belt tightening for no apparent good in disregard for the real needs of families and workers and the services on which we all rely.

Sadly, this is not an experience that is new to us in Queensland. We have now had a government with a similar very destructive agenda unleashed on our state for the past 18 months. We have already had almost 14,000 public servants sacked from their work. As I have said, it is not just the families that suffer from those sackings but also the services on which we all rely are now not there. They have been contracted; they have been dismissed.

Sadly, the Newman government has cut or repealed or watered down more than 15 of the environment protections that Queenslanders had become used to and had felt were necessary—protections for our free-flowing wild rivers, many of which occur on Indigenous land. Just last week I met with traditional owner in the Wenlock region David Claudie. He said he does not want mines and dams on his land; he wants to keep those protections for his land that were on our law books but which Campbell Newman is going to repeal. It is going to be open slather on the cape once again. Our coastal protection laws are also gone—so much for the protection of our reef from the huge number of new and expanded coal and gas ports. Our national parks—not so sacred after all, despite the fact there is only four per cent of them in the country and about that number in Queensland. Logging is fine; grazing, yes, that is fine: all of that sacred land is now open. It is also open, of course, for massive tourism developments; however, hotels, cows, logging do not belong in national parks.

There have been other sneaky systematic reforms, like changing the court costs rules so that people in the community who want to challenge a decision on a development and who want to have their say about the future of their regions and their locales now cannot afford to go to court because now you have to pay in the Planning and Environment Court. These are systemic changes to lock people out of our democracy. Sadly, we have seen even more of that in recent months from our state government with the changes to the rules about bikies. Now it seems that people are not allowed to gather anymore and ride their motorbikes. The extent of those laws is what is truly scary, the fact that they could actually apply to any organisation of three or more people. That is horrific. We are back in the Joh days. 'Here we Joh again!' as the phrase goes. There are things like the sentencing mandate that has been brought down: judges are not allowed to decide things like sentences anymore, even though they have for eons and that is actually part of the doctrine of separation of powers. Never mind, Campbell Newman and his Attorney-General will dictate how long alleges criminals will go to jail for.

It seems a political appointment has now been made to the Crime and Misconduct Commission—set up in Queensland after that wonderful inquiry by Tony Fitzgerald—who is dictated to by the state government in what they can and cannot say, and when that is investigated that parliamentary committee gets sacked. There is absolutely no scrutiny or transparency. These people have a glass jaw and they are intent, it seems, on removing all environmental protections and locking down and removing our civil liberties. Being from Queensland, I find that very concerning.

The attacks do not stop there. They are now going to change the electoral system to lock in their own power. They are going to lift the public funding threshold to 10 per cent to make sure that only the big parties can have a say in parliament and retain their seats. Most importantly, they are going to lift the cap on political donations so if you are rich enough you can buy yourself a seat in parliament in Queensland now. Sadly, we all know what the influence of wealth does to politics. We have seen that very recently in this very parliament where Mr Clive Palmer, who is due to give his first speech today, spent between $12 million and $20 million—we do not quite know because he has not told anybody yet—and has effectively bought himself representation in the parliament. He had a bit of an argument with Campbell Newman about a mine and a railway, did not like the result, spent a whole lot of dough, and now he gets a voice in federal parliament.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Waters, the Clerk has reminded me that you should refer to Mr Newman as the Premier of Queensland, his appropriate title.

Senator WATERS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will do that in future. So Mr Clive Palmer is here ostensibly to represent the people of Fairfax but it remains to be seen whether it will be his interests or theirs that get the most currency in this place.

It is such a disappointment to see this complete lack of a positive agenda from the new government. This is going to be a really challenging parliament not just for those in here who actually want a better future, fairer society and protection for our planet but for people in the community who feel the same way. I was particularly disappointed with the Abbott government's plan for a so-called 'one-stop shop' for environmental protection. The shop is selling out the environment and letting the state premiers do that. We have had 30 years in this country of the federal government gradually playing more of a role in protecting places and species that are so significant that the world wants us to conserve them—nationally and internationally significant places and species. They have become the responsibility of this parliament, but Mr Greg Hunt, who is meant to represent the environment, look after it and caretake those places, has decided that he does not really want that responsibility anymore. He would rather leave that up to state governments—state governments which have an atrocious track record on environmental issues. The Franklin dam is the best example; the Mary River dam in Queensland is another example where the state was willing to sell out our environmental assets. It took the federal government to step in and say: 'Sorry, that is too precious to lose. That is of national significance. We won't let you destroy it for private profits.' That is the system now under threat from this government. They are sneaking through changes and entering into memoranda of understanding with all the states. There is a huge build-up to the COAG meeting next week, with states being heavied to take on these new responsibilities because Mr Greg Hunt does not want to do his job anymore as the Minister for the Environment. He does not want to have responsibility for protecting those precious places and species. He does not want the climate laws either, so I do not know what he wants to do in his role as environment minister—I think he is probably going to have a bit of free time on his hands, if that is his approach.

In Queensland, the reef is a massive employer for our economy. We have 63,000 people who rely on the reef for their livelihood. That is an awful lot of people—far more than the mining industry has ever had—and yet we have plans for a doubling and trebling of coal exports, which will drive climate change and the direct destruction of the reef through the six new or expanded coal and gas ports that are on the books. The World Heritage Committee has said, 'Guys, you have got to stop this industrialisation or we're going to list the reef as World Heritage in danger.' You would hope and think that that would have some kind of effect and that the government of the day would take that warning seriously and do what is necessary to arrest the decline of our reef—but no. We have had no moratorium on these coal ports. We are full steam ahead. We have a strategic assessment that was released last week that does not actually stop any of those destructive developments that the World Heritage Committee are so concerned about. We have the Abbot Point decision due to be made by the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, next week; it would become the world's largest coal port, in Queensland, right when the climate scientists are saying we are seriously at the eleventh hour. I do not want to see the reef I enjoyed so much as a child devastated by the dredging and the dumping and the shipping highway that it would become if that Abbot Point coal port expansion goes ahead. I do not want to be party to the climate effects of opening up the Galilee Basin for the profits of Mr Clive Palmer, Ms Gina Rinehart and a few Indian multinationals. That is not in our nation's interests. It is not in our grandchildren's interests. It is in the interests of making a few rich people even richer, to the detriment of all of us. I hope that the Minister for the Environment reconsiders what I suspect will be his approach on Abbot Point and thinks long and hard about his own children's future and the future of all of our children.

Many of those ports are proposed for gas export as well as coal. We know that coal seam gas is dangerous to our aquifers. We know that the National Water Commission and the CSIRO have warned us about the potential long-term effects. We do not even know if we can mitigate those long-term effects. We could be contaminating or depleting aquifers that can never be repaired; that is what the science is saying. Yet we have seen an open slather and approvals given left, right and centre by both the state and federal governments with no regard to the precautionary principle which says if you are going to really bugger something up, maybe you should think twice about it before you give the approval. Never mind that—just give the big tick to big business and the big miners. When you are in the bush, make a nice little promise to a landholder and then do absolutely nothing about it when you are back in parliament.

I was temporarily pleased with Prime Minister Abbott's reported remarks to Debbie Orr, one of the landholders of Tara on the Darling Downs. Apparently he said he did think landholders should have the right to say no to coal seam gas. I agree—I think they should. It is a huge risk that is being taken with their land and water and with the climate; they should be able to say no. Sadly, when I moved a motion in this place recognising and applauding the Prime Minister for that statement, members of his party—the government here in this chamber—chose to vote against that motion. Sadly, members of the Labor Party did as well. We see one thing being said in the bush to communities and the absolute opposite being done in this chamber. I hope people realise that they are being sold a pup.

I want to finish by mentioning women. As one of the youngest women in this parliament, I recognise the huge issues that women are still facing in this day and age: the lack of equal pay, and not just for work of equal value but for the same job. There are some horrifying statistics of how female dentists are earning less than their male counterparts when they have had exactly the same training experience. The fact that that is still happening in this day and age just blows me away, and we have to fix it. Then there are women's reproductive rights, which I imagine the next Senate will probably have to confront, given the proclivities of some of our colleagues in this place. There is the discrepancy in superannuation that women find at the end of their working life, and the fact that so many Australian women still face violence in their daily life—these are crucial issues that we must make some headway on.

Yet we have one woman in cabinet—just one. Out of 20 people, all they could find was one woman. There are some good strong women on the Liberal side. Naturally, I disagree with their policy stance but they are good, strong advocates. They were overlooked and now we have a dearth of women and their perspective in cabinet. I am worried that it will really show. I am proud to now be the Australian Greens' spokesperson for women, and I will be building on the record of my colleague Senator Rhiannon. I hope and expect to get support from women in all parties to try to further this crucial equity issue.

This 44th Parliament is going to be a bit of a tough time for us here who want a better world, who want fairness and equity and a safe environment for our kids. It is going to be challenging for people in the community who feel the same. As a mother, that is a perspective that I bring. I think about the sort of world that I want my little girl to live in and I think about when she is my age, when she herself is a parent. It is going to be a very different world. The decisions that we take in this place today will shape that future. We have such a great responsibility.

To have the carbon price repeal bills come to us later today in the Senate is a matter of great shame for me. The Greens will fight that repeal with everything we have. We must act on climate change. It is not just for ourselves; it is for all of the other creatures that we share this planet with, and it is for all generations to come. So we will fight for fairness, we will fight for climate action and we will fight for equity. We will fight for a better world and I hope that we do not see this parliament take us too far backwards in the next few years. It is a challenge that the Greens are willing to face. We pledge to all Australians that we will fight for their future.

Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (13:17): Recently I have been fortunate to do a bit of travelling—indeed, some rather extensive travelling—in the Asia-Pacific and it has caused me to reflect upon the nature of our country, Australia, and how much it has changed in the last generation, and how much the relationship between Australia and the Asia-Pacific has changed, because it has changed so very much.

The Australia where I was born, grew up and went to school and university was a great country but always a bit sleepy back then. It was somewhat insular—prosperous and comfortable—but not always self-confident and not always self-assured. Industries were protected and prices, particularly for imported goods, were very high. Overseas travel then was a luxury. In many ways the country was still feasting off the glories of yesteryear. If it was not riding on the sheep's back then it was lounging very comfortably on its fleece. We were in the region, but we were not really of the region. Memories of war and colonial experience were still fresh and still coloured views and relations from both sides.

But you cannot say that today. What happened? What changed over, let us say, the last 25 years? There is no doubt that transport and the communication revolution helped to finally subdue what Geoffrey Blainey described as 'the tyranny of distance'. Sure, mobile phones and the internet have helped enormously to subdue the tyranny of distance. But we should not forget that it was the reforms of successive Australian governments over the course of the past three decades that transformed Australia into the much more open, much more confident and much more successful nation that it is today.

In the 1980s—I know we are going back 30 years here—both Labor and the coalition realised that the old institutional arrangements that had really carried Australia since Federation had outlived their usefulness and were no longer enough to guarantee Australia's place in the sun. Those guarantees were diminishing and in some cases they were over. Reforming the economy, opening Australia to the world and liberalising trade and investment were initiated largely by the Labor government—and they should be acknowledged for that—but supported in a bipartisan spirit by the Liberal and National coalition, which understood it was in the national interest that changes be made lest Australia be left behind in the Asia-Pacific, which was then itself just starting to emerge from slumber.

We laugh and we shake our heads now, but how well I recall the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kwan Yew, make his observation about Australia in 1980. He said Australia was destined to become 'the poor white trash of Asia'. That is what Mr Lee said in 1980. And he was wrong. He is still alive today and he acknowledges that he was wrong. But if Australia had not changed, if we had not embarked on serious reform, today we would be the world's largest trailer park. We would be second rate and a second-rate country. Sadly, the bipartisan spirit of economic reform was rarely apparent as the Howard government continued the reform agenda. Over the past years of the Rudd, Gillard and then Rudd governments, the reform instinct has largely disappeared from public policy as Labor confused tax increases for economic reform.

But in the same way as Australia continues to survive natural disasters, we have survived Labor governments. I am confident that the new Abbott government will progress the national interest in a steadfast and appropriate way. In the meantime, Australia continues to enjoy the fruits of visionary work and tough decisions of past governments which have set our country on a new and better course. Australians today enjoy a higher standard of living than they did when I was growing up. It is a much higher standard of living. We have far more opportunities in education, in work and in life generally. We can buy a lot more things and we can buy them more cheaply. We can travel and communicate much more easily. When I look back to the 1970s and 1980s, I sometimes have to pinch myself when I see how far Australia has come. This is not said in any partisan fashion at all. Australia has been one of the most successful nations on earth over the last 30 years.

Let us face it, that is because of a bipartisan spirit of economic reform. It has changed this country enormously. We can go to the world, but also, the world can come to us much more readily. We export not just wool and coal, but highly sought after products, talent and ideas. We are much more at ease with the world because we are much more comfortable in our own skin. When I was growing up, my friends would always tug their forelock to Europe or the United States or somewhere else. They always wanted to be somewhere else, never in Australia. But today, that is far less apparent. Australians tug their forelocks to no-one. It is precisely because we are now economically confident and socially confident that we can progress initiatives like the New Colombo Plan, which is one of the flagship programs of the Abbott government.

You will be aware that the New Colombo Plan aims to provide young Australian undergraduate students at university the opportunity to study and work in the Asia-Pacific. It is a wonderful opportunity for young Australians. I studied overseas more than 25 years ago now. In my generation, nearly everyone who was lucky enough to study overseas went to the United Kingdom, to the United States or perhaps to Canada. You were somewhat quirky if you went somewhere else. Certainly, if you went to a university in the Asia-Pacific, that was considered quite unusual. But haven't things changed? That is no longer the case. Whereas I saw my future, my opportunities, bound up—it seems strange now, but bound up—with Britain, with the United States or more broadly with Europe, most young Australians today see the future bound up much more in their region, whether it is China, India or the Asia-Pacific more generally. That is an enormous change in just 25 years.

The New Colombo Plan heralds a new age of discovery. Much of Australian historical opinion, if not hagiography, commonly credits Mr Whitlam and Mr Keating with having discovered Asia. But as I like to remind this chamber, not surprisingly not many people realise that the original pioneers of Australia's rendezvous with our region were liberal politicians such as Sir Robert Menzies, Sir Paul Hasluck and, later, Lord Casey. Their efforts predate the involvement of those two Labor prime ministers. The coalition continues to build on that very important legacy. The New Colombo Plan is another sign that under a coalition government Australia is determined to have a mature, respectful and productive relationship with our neighbours. It is different today; the world is different. In 2013, such a relationship needs to be based on reciprocity and mutuality.

For centuries, for about 500 years since the days of Marco Polo and Vasco de Gama, the West had met the East largely to possess its treasures, initially through trade and then through colonisation. Spices, tea, silk, porcelain and later rubber, oil and cheap electronics flowed to satisfy the West's appetite for the exotic. This subsequently fuelled the Industrial Revolution and later a mass-consumption society. That was the initial relationship between East and West. Where the goods went, people soon followed. Just as hardworking Asian labourers had crossed the oceans to build American railways, extract Australian gold and fill English textile factories so had the continent's young and ambitious sought the benefits of Western education and Western opportunities. This included the tens of thousands who took advantage of Australia's original Colombo Plan, and the millions who have studied in Australia ever since.

But today, this traffic is no longer one way. The coalition's New Colombo Plan is animated, and this is a big change. It is animated by the acknowledgement that the playing field has now evened out and that Asia and the West, including Australia, are equal partners in building the future. We can learn from one another and benefit from one another, which is why the key aspect of the relationship is exchange and two-way mobility.

No longer is it a matter of the West teaching all to the East. It is now a matter of trading perspectives and learning from each other. As I said before, it is only because as a nation we are more comfortable in our own skin, more confident and therefore more at ease with the world, that we can truly engage with Asia. We have changed so much in just 25 years. The New Colombo Plan aims to lift knowledge of the Asia-Pacific region in Australia, and strengthen our people-to-people and institutional relationships through studying internships undertaken by Australian undergraduate students in the region.

Our country is one of the great providers of tertiary education to many countries across the world. In fact, Australia continues to educate more students from overseas per head of population than any other nation on earth. In terms of sheer numbers, Australia teaches the third highest number of students from overseas in our tertiary institutions right now and we also do it very, very well. We will continue to do that, but we also want to see our undergraduate students consider studying overseas for part of their course, becoming familiar with our neighbours' languages and their cultures and benefiting with work experience opportunities on the ground. As foreign minister Julie Bishop has said, the government wants to see study in the Asia-Pacific region become a 'right of passage' for Australian undergraduate students and an endeavour that is highly valued right across the Australian community.

Funded by $100 million, the New Colombo Plan will commence in 2015 after a pilot phase in 2014. Japan, Indonesia, Singapore as well as Hong Kong are being invited to participate in the pilot phase. The success of this program will rely on close cooperation between governments, universities and businesses in Australia and throughout the region. The new architecture of these regional agreements can no longer just be government to government; it has to be now government to government, bureaucrats to bureaucrats, universities to universities, business to business and non-government organisations to non-government organisations, and so forth. It has to have many streams because governments cannot make this work; it will take the cooperation of many.

The New Colombo Plan is a good illustration of the coalition government's focus on Asia. As the Prime Minister said during the election campaign:

Decisions which impact on our national interests will be made in Jakarta, in Beijing, in Tokyo, in Seoul, as much as they will be made in Washington.

As Australia continues to welcome hundreds of thousands of international students, and I hope we always will continue to, it is time that the Marco Polos and Vasco da Gamas of our generation Y venture out from our friendly ports and into the wide world, this time not to look for spices and silk but for knowledge and work.

A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to visit Japan, where I spoke to government officials and business leaders about the New Colombo Plan. I can tell you they are very excited about it; they liked the idea. They want to see more young Australians in Japan because they too understand that Japan needs to become more open to the world. As Japan helps Australian students become more Asia ready, Australian students will help Japan become better prepared to truly embrace the globalised world. The approach of the Abe government is much more outward looking for a Japanese government, and that dovetails very nicely with the New Colombo Plan and our idea of sending undergraduate students to Japan. So the Japanese government was particularly enthusiastic about it. I know that the enthusiasm is equally great in the other three pilot countries: Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia. I know from speaking with government officials in other Asia-Pacific countries that they are also very keen to come on board in 2015 and subsequent years.

In three decades, thanks to the political courage and wisdom of a number of politicians from both sides of politics, Australia went from the verge of becoming the poor white trash of Asia to one of the region's great success stories and a much desired partner for our neighbours in trade, investment, energy, education, tourism, culture and many other spheres of life—all within about a generation and not much more. I believe the New Colombo Plan will build on the success we have had in remaking our country and will go towards securing our shared future in the Asia-Pacific.

As this is my first chance to speak in the 44th Parliament, I thought I would say something positive. I believe that over the last 30 years there was very much a bipartisan approach in many areas of economic reform and there is no doubt that that set Australia on a course for sustainable growth, and that that is one of the principal reasons Australia is now one of the great success stories in the world. It is not something that any Australian should ever forget. We are a much, much better country than we were in 1980 and that is really thanks to decisions taken by governments of both stripes, often against the public will. Sometimes governments need to lead and let us just hope that the Abbott government can.

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:35): I rise to make my remarks in the reply to the Governor-General's speech. I listened intently to Senator Mason's contribution, most of which I found very, very interesting and agreed with. What I must make note of is that Senator Mason talked about governments in opposition working together in the best interests of the nation, whether it be economic or diplomatic, and it is so true. That would be nothing less than what the people of Australia expect from us. Probably like you, Acting Deputy President Ludlam, on a number of occasions around barbecues, at the local golf club or down at the pub a major trend has been coming in my direction in terms of what voters think of politicians. It cannot be repeated in the same words in this chamber because I would find myself on my feet defending my words and trying not to get thrown out, so I will not lower my standards. Sadly, the quality of the political debate over the last 12 months to three years has been appalling. I listened intently to the Governor-General's speech. I do hope, as most of my colleagues hope, that one day Australians will see us as people of quality and people who have dreams and visions for our nation. However, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that that has been the case in this place over the last few years.

The degree of childish behaviour is like kids in a sandpit—in fact, you can have a laugh at kids in a sandpit, because they might be blueing and two minutes later they will be all over each other sharing a lolly or an ice cream. I have to emphasise that I hope we lift our game in the debates in this chamber and the other chamber, because I am sick of trying to defend the behaviour here of the last few years.

When I listened intently to the Governor-General's speech in this chamber some two weeks ago, one would have thought that the intent of the incoming Abbott government offered some things for the country, but let us look at the coalition's mantra in last couple of years. I liken the government to the dog that has caught the car—the mongrel mutt that barks and chases everything down the street. It never gets the car and may get clipped on the nose by a mudflap, but this one has caught it. The reason I say that is from hearing people say things in conversations I have had with business people who have come to my office in last two weeks or on the phone. I thought I was imagining it, but these people have asked: 'Has this government got any plans? Has this government got any visions of grandeur for our children and our children's children? Has this government got any vision of what the heck it's going to do now it is in government?' In the last two or three years in opposition, the Mr Abbott-led coalition only spoke about what it was not going to do. All we copped was what it was going to stop. 'There will be no mining tax.' Good luck to the miners; they have lined the pockets of political parties on both sides. It is no secret that they contributed a heck of a lot more to the Liberal Party than they did to the Australia Labor Party until the mining tax was announced. But the government bluffed Australians by saying what a fantastic government they would be by abolishing the mining tax.

I am a supporter of the mining industry—make no mistake about that. It is not the only industry but it is an important one for Australia. I am also not scared to ask: what is wrong with a profits-based tax? If we are digging commodities out of our country and exporting them, these commodities are not renewable. What was wrong with taxing a company that had reached $50 billion in profits, so a bit more would come back to Australia? Mr Acting Deputy-President Ludlam, I know your party's stance is that $50 billion is way too generous. You have said the tax should not be limited to coal and iron ore, but it should be on every mineral dug out of the ground. There are good arguments for and against that.

By Mr Abbott eliminating the mining tax and so doing a favour for the miners, without any negotiation, there will be some nasty, unfortunate consequences. In my role as chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Legislative Committee for six years, and now being on the references committee in opposition, I have made no secret that road funding is very important to me for a number of reasons. One is as a Western Australian, where we really rely on our roads. We have one railway line to the eastern states and a dilapidated wheat rail line, which gets more embarrassing each year with governments backflipping and not putting any money into that line either. Another is my background as a road train operator between Perth and Darwin. Two pet projects were to be delivered on behalf of the Gillard and Rudd governments, and one of those is funding of some $500 million for the North West Coastal Highway. Mr Acting Deputy-President Ludlam, coming from WA you would know that shocking single-lane road. We know the width of the new Shay Gap road is a nightmare. How do I know? It was a nightmare 30 years ago, when I was trucking there. I was there a couple of weeks ago and it is still a nightmare. My son does three trips a fortnight on that road to the Pilbara. It is well know that this major arterial for mining and offshore oil and gas fields carries eight-metre wide loads, at times hanging over both sides of the road. It carries a massive number of road trains daily, but when two road trains coming from opposite directions pass each other at 100 kilometres per hour, the legal limit, there is a possibility that these juggernauts will hit as there is no more than 12 inches between their mirrors.

When Mr Albanese, as the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, announced this road would be upgraded along with major upgrades to widen the North West Coastal Highway north of Carnarvon, this news was welcomed by the West Australian transport industry and road users. With Mr Abbott determined to repay the mining companies for funding his 2010 and 2013 election campaigns, this is an offset as the Abbott government has said it will not guarantee these road projects. The Transport Workers Union in Perth, of which I am a lifetime member, as I was when I was a trucker—it is the worst-kept secret in Australia—is adamant about getting these projects done. Minister Albanese recognised the importance of these projects so he dedicated the funding, and should the Labor Party have been re-elected those projects would have gone ahead. Money was in the budget, as indicated on the Labor Party website and the forward estimates. Since the victory of the coalition, those projects were not forthcoming, because the Regional Infrastructure Fund, where the funding would come from, was funded by the mining tax. There is a payback for the miners but the downside is no $500 million for road widening in WA.

Then we had Mr Briggs, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, on Radio 6PR Perth being interviewed by Paul Murray about the funding of these road projects. I listened intently to what Mr Briggs said:

… as the Finance Minister said before the election, we are committed—

that is, the Liberal Party—

… to those projects, the Great Northern Highway and the North West Coastal because they are extremely important projects.

Not being one that does not trust politicians, as that would be a little disingenuous—I would like to think they are all like you and I, Mr Acting Deputy President Ludlam—I thought I might just take the opportunity to follow up those statements in Senate estimates the week before last. As deputy chair, I asked questions to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and to Mr Mrdak, the secretary. I asked him clearly whether those projects were funded. I have the transcripts here. I do not need to table them, but they are here if anyone wants to see them. Mr Mrdak came out very clearly, with Senator Sinodinos at the table representing the minister, and said that these projects are not committed. They are not funded at this stage. The Abbott government will not build these projects just yet. I am putting my own words around this, but they are looking at everything and they realise some projects are far more important than others.

Senator Edwards: Sterlo, we want outcomes!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): Order!

Senator STERLE: I do appreciate your protection, Acting Deputy President; I need it from Senator Edwards. He frightens me dearly. I will try and compose myself while I go back to telling the truth and not to making stuff up. What they clearly said was, 'Well now, we don't know now because we don't know if the money is there. We'll see and hear how much heat will come out of WA and we may well fund them.' I asked Mr Mrdak, the secretary of the department, if it would be right to say that no minister could go out there and actually make these announcements? To which he said that they cannot say that because it has not been decided. What we are leading to here is that the government Australia voted for on September 7 is not the government they thought they were going to get.

Apart from the road funding in WA, there are other massively important road-funding projects that are not going to be delivered. It clearly came out at Senate estimates again that the Melbourne Metro Rail project, worth about $3 billion, will now not go ahead. The Brisbane Cross River Rail project will not be going ahead. The Perth urban rail public transport project, worth $100 million, and previously worth $500 million, is not going ahead. I know that would rile you, Mr Acting Deputy President, because you have been very vocal on public transport and rail infrastructure in WA, as we have.

For the South Australians, Tonsley Park public rail transport project is a no-go. There was $4½ billion worth of projects but Mr Abbott made it very clear before and after the election that he will not be building public transport or rail. Apart from road-funding projects that a lot of people do not know about yet that will not be going ahead, we saw last week one of the biggest backflips—I cannot think of another term—or bulldust statements we have ever seen from Mr Pyne on education. Prior to the last election, I think every Australian was well aware that I thought the Liberals were using the terminology—

Senator Edwards interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator STERLE: Senator Edwards from South Australia just threw a line out there along the lines of 'you cannot fix everything with money'. I tell my kids that all the time too. I do not condone going out before the election and saying you will throw a lot of money at something but once you get elected changing your mind. Those opposite now blatantly go out there and lie. Look at Mr Pyne's form on education.

Senator Kroger: Don't you remember what you have done for the last few years?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Sterle, please direct your comments through the chair. On my right, Senator Sterle is entitled to be heard in silence.

Senator STERLE: It is always amazing that when the truth comes out and Senators or politicians get caught talking out the side of their head, don't they get vocal? Don't they jump up and find every excuse why it is all right to lie to the Australian people? The opposition at the time could not wait to tell everyone that if they got in, the grown-ups would be in charge and that they are open for business. Let us look at those two lines. First, 'the grown-ups are in charge'. Let us look at the debacle off our shores to the north, the embarrassing situation. If we do not have anyone who is capable of sorting out the issues with Indonesia, I tell you what I will do: I will shout myself brand-new pairs of Havis and boardies and I will go over and sort it out because I will do a damn better job than what is going on at the moment.

Senator Kroger interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! On my right.

Senator STERLE: So, for crying out loud, if you do not have any grown-ups, can you just find one—pay one? Find an ex-bureaucrat or someone who can be a grown-up, who can get over there and who cannot carry on like this.

Let us talk about the north while we are at it. What about the shadow immigration minister at the time, Mr Scott Morrison? Between Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott, I am trying to think of the lines that I used to hear all the time. First it was 'stop the boats' then it was 'turn back the boats', 'turn back the boats when safe', 'buy back the boats', 'deny the boats', 'hide the boats' and 'what boats?' Watching the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is like a scene from South Park, with Officer Barbrady: 'nothing to see, move along'. This is just incredible. I just wish that the grown-ups were in the building, because they are certainly lacking in the coalition party room.

Let us go back to education. Let us look at the footage of the COAG meeting the other day with the state education ministers. This is a government that has been in for 10 weeks. I am not expecting miracles. No-one expects miracles. You have to find your way. They have to sort out labour and staffing issues; they have to have an internal fight about who gets promotions and who gets the bigger office. I know, I understand. After 10 weeks we had Mr Pyne, the Minister for Education, tell the Australian people he was on a unity ticket, that the coalition were on a unity ticket with Labor on public school funding and that no school would be worse off. Then we have Mr Pyne publically slapping down state education ministers from both persuasions, Labor and Liberal, and refusing to honour agreements with New South Wales and other states that were agreed to before the election. In the footage of the wound-up state ministers, there is Mr Pyne in the corner with the most silly of smirks on his face; to him it was just a big joke.

I know I am running out of time so I will move on to one of the other clangers: 'We are open for business.' Oh my goodness, I think that might have come from the Prime Minister talking about foreign investment and attracting foreign investment to Australia. We all know this great nation was built on foreign investment. Coming from Western Australia, if we did not have foreign investment where would we be, not just in agriculture but in mining? When I tour the Ord stage 2 development, the sugar—Senator Eggleston was talking about it proudly earlier on today, and I was agreeing with him—thank goodness for the Chinese; they are pumping in nearly a billion dollars. But it is not only the Chinese up on the Ord River. There are the Brits, the Americans, the Indians; they are all up there. They are 'open for business'.

I recall another clanger while we were talking about foreign investment, while it was a hot topic, and it was in relation to the sale of GrainCorp to the American conglomerate ADM. I saw another comedy sketch where the Treasurer, Mr Hockey, came out, breaking into one of those famous sweats, and saying that he would not be bullied—the Libs have to repeat everything twice—about foreign investment.

As chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, I can tell you that tonight was set aside to continue our inquiry. It was ably supported by Senator Gallacher and I from Labor; we wanted to hear more and talk more about GrainCorp. We wanted to talk more to ADM. Guess what? The panic hit the room. Senator Heffernan, you old dog—you sly old dog! Great work behind the scenes, fantastic; knocked the Treasurer right between the eyes, blew him out of the game. So we find that we are not really open for business. We might be open for business but we just have to run that past the Nationals first and make sure that they are happy with that.

A government senator interjecting—

Senator STERLE: As for the grown-ups: we just have to try and find some grown-ups, because we do not have any grown-ups over there. If we had grown-ups we would not have the foreign minister out there—where was she? In Cambodia or Myanmar or somewhere—telling them the Japanese were our best friends while insulting the Indonesians. Now she is trying to pick a fight with the Chinese. That is her latest one. For crying out loud, as I said, I am happy to chuck on a new pair of Havis, a new pair of boardies, I will go over. I could not do a worse job than what is going on with that lot over there.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:55): I thought I would start my speech this morning by making a couple of confessions. The first confession is that actually I agree with the strong point that was made by Senator Bernardi in his speech earlier today. Senator Bernardi said: 'The public is sick of politicians putting their convictions aside.' On that, I absolutely agree with the senator for South Australia. Whatever you think about the Greens, we are a party of very strong convictions. I would like to thank the 40,000 or so Tasmanians who returned the Greens to the Senate in this last federal election. They did so because they know that we will stand by our convictions. We always do stand up for our strong values and we will certainly do that in this term of parliament.

The second confession I would like to make is about the Governor-General's speech. I actually thought for the first few minutes that the Governor-General's speech was the Governor-General's speech, that they were actually her words. I have since found out from speaking to a number of Tasmanians that they were as ignorant as I was. I remember thinking to myself after about a minute: 'I can't believe the Governor-General is being so vacuous and using such toxic terminology in her speech about Australians and the Australian economy'. I quickly realised that in fact these were the words I have heard and every Australian has heard ad nauseam for the last three years from Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Then I thought: 'first impressions are most important'. After sitting and listening to that for 20 minutes, what really struck me about that speech was the message it was delivering about the next three years of coalition rule in this country. The idea is simple: we live in an economy. That is what the speech struck me as saying. 'There is nothing else to our lives except for business and the economy.' We do not live in an environment or live in a community. We live in an economy. In other words, the fundamental assumption is that what is good for business, especially for big business and their interests, is good for all of us. Personally, I believe and my party believes, as do other people in the Senate, that that is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous assumption: 'look after business first and the rest will follow.'

The Greens recognise that the economy is important. It is an important tool for allocating resources, helping manage our communities and our lives. It is here to help us flourish. It is not the other way around. We are not here to be a slave to the economy and to help the economy flourish, necessarily. When I think about the legislation that is shortly going to be before this House, such as the repeal of the clean energy package and the mining tax, I thought about a recent 7.30 interview with Al Gore.

Senator Abetz interjecting —

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Yes, you know the one Senator Abetz. Annabel Crabb was sitting in. Mr Gore made same pretty big statements about what we have come to know as 'special interests'. He described how, in relation to climate change and the destructive influence of energy, coal and oil companies, our democracy has been hijacked and that special interests control decisions too frequently. He then quite provocatively went on to claim that the debate in Australia around climate change and the repeal of a carbon price reminded him of the tobacco companies in the United States who were able to lobby compliant politicians to deny links between tobacco smoking and cancer; that shameful period of history that we look back on now and cannot believe happened. He went on to say that the power of special interests is a political fact of life and is pitiful. Especially when he was queried about whether this was some sort of conspiracy theory, he said, 'No, this is the way it works.' And that has certainly been my experience in my very recent time in parliament.

Debate interrupted.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:33): I move:

That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 5 December 2013 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills:

Poker Machine Harm Reduction ($1 Bets and Other Measures) Bill 2013 (subject to restoration to the Notice Paper).

Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013 (subject to restoration to the Notice Paper).

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:35): I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for today.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stephens ) (17:20): For the information of senators, I present an election petition of the Court of Disputed Returns in respect of the election of senators for the state of Western Australia.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (18:02): Order! The President has received letters from party leaders requesting changes in the membership of various committees.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (18:02): by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—

Appointed––Senators Edwards and Parry

Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples—Joint Select Committee—

Appointed––Senators McKenzie and Ruston

Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—

Appointed––Senators Bushby and Fawcett

Education and Employment Legislation Committee—

Discharged––Senator Smith

Appointed––Senator Kroger

Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed––Senators Kroger and Ruston

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—

Appointed––

   Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Waters for the committee's inquiry into Australia Post on Friday, 6 December 2013

   Participating member: Senator Waters

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed––Senators Eggleston, Fawcett, Kroger, Macdonald and Parry

Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—

Appointed––Senators Edwards and Parry

Migration—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed––Senators Edwards and Williams

National Broadband Network—Select Committee—

Appointed––

   Senators Ruston, Seselja, and Smith

   Participating members: Senator Abetz, Back, Bernardi, Birmingham, Boswell, Boyce, Brandis, Bushby, Cash, Colbeck, Cormann, Edwards, Eggleston, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Heffernan, Johnston, Kroger, Macdonald, Mason, McKenzie, Nash, Parry, Payne, Ronaldson, Ryan, Scullion, Sinodinos and Williams

National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed––Senator Seselja

National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed––Senators McKenzie, Seselja and Smith

Parliamentary Library—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed––Senators Boswell, Seselja and Williams

Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed––Senators Fawcett, Kroger and Smith

Question agreed to.