Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (12:45): I rise today to issue this warning to the owners of Australia's 77,000 cattle properties: examine very closely the international campaign to make you prove you are environmentally sustainable.

Last week, on Monday, 17 March, a document was released that will potentially shape how Australian cattle producers are allowed to operate in years to come. It is a document written overseas, in Holland and the United States apparently, but one that is designed to oblige cattle producers around the world to prove they are environmentally sustainable. I believe it has been initiated and shaped principally by environmental activists. That makes me very suspicious. It is a document which cattle producers throughout Australia should scrutinise very closely. The document is called the DRAFT Principles and criteria for global sustainable beef. It has been produced by the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

The global roundtable was initiated by the World Wildlife Fund, based in Switzerland, and the US-based McDonald's hamburger chain. Another prime mover in the roundtable is an environment-related group, called Solidaridad, based in Holland. Producer bodies on the roundtable include the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the US National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the Cattle Council of Australia. Other members include processors, retailers, restaurants and environmental groups. The organisation was established by the following bodies: McDonald's; WWF; Solidaridad; beef processors and commodity traders Cargill and JBS; pharmaceutical companies Merck and Elanco; and the giant retail chain Walmart. Australia's Woolworths has also since joined.

The draft document on principles and criteria for global sustainable beef anticipates having national or regional standards that must be met by cattle producers. Who is going to verify that those standards are being met? And how much will Australian cattle producers be charged for the privilege? All the attention right now is on establishing a definition for sustainable beef. No-one has an exact definition, and that is the focus of the recently released discussion paper. However, Australian cattle producers should be told not just what sustainability means but also the process for proving it—and the price tag.

The schedule for progressing the current principles and criteria document is as follows. It is available for public comment until May 16. There will be a final review in July. The members of the roundtable are then scheduled to ratify the principles and criteria, later this year. Organisations like this roundtable are really run by the secretariat, the people working full time writing up the agenda papers for meetings, publishing the newsletters, et cetera. The executive director of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is a guy called Ruaraidh Petre. He is based in Holland, and came to the roundtable after working for eight years for Solidaridad—remember, Mr Acting Deputy President, Solidaridad was one of the original members of the roundtable, along with McDonald's and WWF. Solidaridad has certification schemes in its DNA. According to its website under 'What we do', Solidaridad says it works on 'creating sustainable supply chains from the producer to the consumer'. It does this by helping agricultural producer organisations and industrial producer companies to qualify for social and environmental certification standards. That is where the CEO of the beef roundtable comes from.

As I said, WWF was also a prime mover in the process to establish the Global Roundtable on Sustainable Beef. Imagine WWF sitting down and determining the environmental conditions that our producers are obliged to meet before they can market their cattle! This is the same WWF that waged a campaign against the land- and regrowth-clearing practices of Queensland farmers. It is the same WWF that, less than two years ago, made submissions to Queensland parliamentary inquiries, savagely denigrating the cattle industry's sustainability record. WWF also argued that compulsory standards must be implemented. WWF are no friends of the Australian cattle industry. With the excuse of having to meet so-called international sustainability principles, WWF in Australia would have even greater leverage to continue trying to force our cattle producers down the path of more and more restricted on-farm practices and compulsory standards.

Let us look at the costs associated with sustainability certification for producers. At this stage, we can only get a rough idea of what the costs might be. That is why I say Australian farmers should be told up-front what they might be charged to gain sustainability certification. However, we can gain some indication of costs. One of the other Australian members of the global roundtable is the Australian Land Management Group, a business that already offers what it calls a certified land management plan. Its website says that, to become certified, you begin by listing all your property activities, the aspects of those activities that might have environmental impacts, and what those impacts are. You then do a risk analysis and assign priority rankings to the impacts you have identified. After this, you develop a management plan to address the causes of those impacts. There is also an animal welfare component. To achieve certification, you need to implement your plan, which is then reviewed by an auditor. That review examines how the plan has been implemented and whether the outcomes are being monitored. If there are no problems, the auditor will recommend certification. After this, you enter into an annual review and audit cycle. The website says that the cost of delivery varies.

As a guide, in the first year landholders usually work as part of a group doing a start-up workshop and a review workshop. Each of the two workshops has an indicative cost of $800 per family farm or managed business. So that is $1,600 in the first year for a family owned farm. After this, there is a minimum certification fee of $150 and an annual business fee of $300. Based on 77,000 properties paying $1,750 for the two workshops and certification, that adds up to almost $135 million to be paid out by Australian farming families in one year.

In January this year, McDonald's headquarters in the USA announced its stores across the globe would buy verifiably sustainable beef from 2016. I wrote to McDonald's in Australia and asked a simple question: 'Can you provide me with a written assurance that Australian cattle producers will face no extra costs because of McDonald's future purchasing policy relating to "verifiably sustainable beef"?' The two-page response from McDonald's included the following paragraph: 'We understand that there is a concern of increased costs and whether McDonald's will pay increased prices for sustainable beef. It is too early to predict if or how beef prices will be impacted in the future but we are committed to working collaboratively with suppliers throughout the entire process and understand the existing pressures producers already face in the production of these animals.' Producers can reach their own conclusions as to what that means. I am sure McDonald's care about the planet. However, their ultimate responsibility is not to the planet but to their shareholders. They examine issues based on the view of improving value and returns to shareholders. Much of what they do is about marketing and money.

I know someone who cares passionately about the environment and livestock—and that is the average Australian farming family. I do not want to see them burdened with more cost, more paperwork and more unnecessary environmental obligations to keep WWF in business and provide a marketing point of difference for the likes of McDonald's.

I have had informal discussions with the Cattle Council president, Andrew Ogilvie, on this issue and I look forward to talking to him again. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. I am sure he is well intentioned and has what he perceives as the best interests of Australian cattle producers at heart. However, he needs to be informed by the widest possible range of views from cattle producers across the country before he goes back overseas to negotiate on these sustainability principles. I appeal to Australian cattle producers: do not take this issue lightly. Do not think it is just bulldust and that, if you ignore the issue, it will somehow go away and not affect you. Speak up now and have your say.

Finally, there is another question—a vital question—that I want answered. What happens if Australian cattle producers do not sign up to the sustainability principles determined through the global roundtable process? If Australian cattle producers do not allow a third party to certify or verify their sustainability, will McDonald's refuse to purchase beef locally? Will environmental activists like WWF campaign to ban the sale of Australian beef in overseas markets? We already see environmental activists campaigning to prevent the sale in overseas markets of Australian timber that was not produced from the sources they sanction. This is referred to as 'green blackmail' or simply 'green mail', something I have warned about in the past.

The apparent growing power of environmental non-government organisations and corporations raises fundamental questions about the future role of government, science and rational resource management in Australian primary production. This goes to the very essence of not simply who is running the Australian beef industry but who is running the country. Who determines how our primary industries are managed and administered? Who decides how our resources are utilised and where they are marketed? Who determines the prosperity of our communities, our industries and our nation? Those are the questions we must have answered.

I believe this issue should be referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. Before I do that, I will discuss this further with my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce. I believe it requires forensic examination in a Senate inquiry. We can call witnesses to the inquiry from the main players. We can thoroughly examine who will bear the cost of this sustainability scheme and who will enjoy the benefits. We can investigate what the implications are for rural and regional communities that depend on cattle and other primary production and for Australia's trade sovereignty and its ability to freely trade in primary products we already know to be sustainable.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:57): I rise to make a small contribution in this the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. It was designated by the United Nations late last year as a year to promote solidarity with the Palestinian people and to contribute to international awareness of the core themes regarding the question of Palestine after the resumption of peace talks in July last year and ahead of the first deadline of 30 April this year.

Today I add my name to those of many other Australian federal politicians from all persuasions and many other politicians from around the world in recognising that 2014 is a critical year for the peace talks between Israel and Palestine. As a middle power with a position on the United Nations Security Council, Australia has a responsibility to foster this debate, to highlight issues of concern and to independently support the ongoing peace talks.

The international year seeks to highlight the core obstacles to the ongoing peace process, including: the illegal settlements in the occupied territories; the question of Jerusalem; the blockade of Gaza; and the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. A recognition of the difficulties is vital in the process of reaching a two-state solution and securing an independent, viable and sovereign Palestine living in peace and security with the state of Israel where each recognises the other's legitimate rights. We must mobilise our nation as a part of the global action towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine

In doing so, we must have regard for the almost 70 years of United Nations history and for the centuries of history before that. In launching the international year on 16 January this year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban-Ki Moon, issued a clear statement that this year of solidarity is critical in the resolution of the aforementioned issues, critical in the formation of a state of Palestine, critical in the continuation of the state of Israel and critical in our world's journey to ongoing peace in the Middle East. I quote:

Today marks the launch of the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This will be a critical year for achieving the two-State solution, bringing an end to the occupation that started in 1967, and securing an independent, viable and sovereign State of Palestine living in peace and security with the State of Israel where each recognizes the other’s legitimate rights.

The Secretary-General stressed that the international community must work together and that the leadership of both Palestine and Israel must both display immense political will and live up to their commitment to a negotiated two-state solution. I quote:

I call on all members of the international community and, in particular, Israelis and Palestinians, to work together for justice and a durable peace. Israel and Palestine need to live up to their commitment to a negotiated two-State solution and resolve all permanent status issues, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, the Madrid principles, the Road Map, the 2002 Arab Peace initiative and existing agreements between the parties.

The leaders of Israel and Palestine will need political will, a sense of historic responsibility and a clear vision for a better future for this and future generations. I pledge to do my utmost in support of their efforts.

The Secretary-General's statement highlights that this international year is not partisan. It places significant emphasis on the security of both the Israeli and the Palestinian populations and the importance of leadership from both sides. What would be tragic for our country—for Australia, as a home to many Israelis and many Palestinians—would be for little or no progress to be made over this year of solidarity.

For our government to adopt a position would be out of step with other nations on the United Nations Security Council, out of step with other nations in the Western European and Others Group and out of step with the Australian community. Our opportunity to contribute to these peace talks, by fostering debate and recognising the serious wrongs committed by both sides, would be lost. It would be lost not through an articulation of our clear position on the matter, but lost through our silence. It would be lost through our government adopting an approach of making a decision, but not taking the time to explain this to this parliament and not taking the time to explain it to the people of Australia.

We need to view the Year of Solidarity as an opportunity for us as a parliament and for us as a nation to look at how we can assist this process for the benefit of both Israeli and Palestinian communities both here and in the Middle East. That is to not dismiss it as an attack on the Israeli people, but to use the opportunity to look at how Australia can effect a fair and balanced approach on this very important matter.

I was pleased to attend the Australian launch of the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on Monday afternoon here at Parliament House. The launch was organised by the member for Calwell, the member for Reid and the member for Fremantle under the auspices of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine group and the United Nations Parliamentary Group. The launch was attended by over 70 people, including members of parliament and senators from all parties, ambassadors, DFAT officers, members of the local Palestinian community and advocacy groups, as well as representatives from the international Australian charity the Global Gardens of Peace.

Speakers included Ambassador Izzat Abdulhadi, the head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific; Mr Christopher Woodthorpe, the director of the United Nations Information Centre for Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific; and Bishop George Browning, the president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. Every speaker made a valuable contribution to the event.

But I want to highlight Bishop Browning's response to a question about political will on the question of Palestine in Australia. Bishop Browning was emphatic that Australian politicians are out of step with the views of the vast majority of our community and the vast majority of the leadership of like-minded countries. He was emphatic that there was a clear majority of Australians who supported a two-state solution, who supported an end to the conflict and who supported ongoing peace.

On that, I point to the work of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. It is a multi-faith, non-political organisation headed by a small secretariat. Many of us have met with APAN on a number of occasions. I encourage others who have not to log on to their website, to give them a call and to have a discussion with its members who comprise Australians of Jewish, Islamic and Christian faiths, as well as non-religious Australians, as they go about their tremendous advocacy work.

Sadly, when the matter of the designation of the international year came before the United Nations, Australia was one of just seven nations to vote against the motion. While 110 countries supported the motion and 57 abstained, Australia moved to seek a defeat of the motion. On the question of settlements, instead of continuing to condemn this illegal occupation as Australia had done under the Labor government, the government joined only eight countries in abstaining from the vote to defy the 158 countries, including many conservative, Western governments.

The government was one of just five countries to abstain and six to vote against the motion that Israel, as an occupying power, should be forced to comply with the Geneva Conventions of 1949. One hundred and sixty nations supported ordering Israel to comply scrupulously with the conventions. A section of the Geneva Conventions, which this government has moved to no longer support in regard to Israel and Palestine, states:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The changing of our vote on Israeli settlements in Palestine by this government does nothing to help that process.

What concerns me deeply is why we are changing our vote. Why are we backing away from taking a bold, independent stance? So far, I do not believe the government has outlined its case to change Australia's position, especially at such a crucial time in the peace negotiations and at a time when Israel continues to expand its settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories. It is settlement activity that the United Nations condemns as against international law and settlement activity that must cease for peace to occur. Australia, under this government, is changing its position and condoning these moves.

Members of this government use this chamber as an opportunity to make divisive, aggressive comments about the question of Palestine. Last week, Senator Seselja used some terrible logic in seeking to criticise members of this place who support a Palestinian state. I quote:

When you look at the treatment of gays and lesbians, and women, in Israel in comparison to other parts of the region, you see they get support from those who claim to be strong supporters of gay and lesbian rights and of women's rights.

After the senator's speech, Ms Samah Sabawi, an Australian-Palestinian writer, wrote an open letter in response, of which I would like to share a part. She said:

Sir, you also fall into the trap of mentioning women's rights and gay rights in Israel.

You ignore the countless women under Israeli occupation who are forced to have their babies at checkpoints,

You turn a blind eye to the thousands of children who are arrested, some as young as five, by Israeli soldiers and tried in military courts,

You ignore the dearth of human rights abuses committed by Israel every single day,

And let me tell you being gay is not some super power that allows Palestinians to fly over checkpoints …

Ms Sabawi's words clearly rebut Senator Seselja's assertions, and I thank her for her efforts. As a country we need to be better than casting those types of aspersions and we need to be better than stringing together false logic to slander one side or the other. That is why it is wonderful to conclude this speech with a positive story, a story of hope, a story of the Australian spirit at its best.

Yesterday was the parliamentary launch for the Global Gardens of Peace, an initiative of Moira Kelly AO, who is famous for her work in assisting impoverished children in developing or war-torn countries to gain access to First World medical care. In 2004 Ms Kelly was on a trip to Gaza and visited the Commonwealth war cemetery. During her meeting with the Palestinian authority she remarked that the cemetery was the only beautiful space in the area and that Australia would build the children and families a garden. Three years later Ms Kelly was visited by a Palestinian representative who gave her a title to a small parcel of land in a former settlement. At the time her priority was caring for the conjoined twins that had captured so many of our hearts, Trishna and Krishna, as they underwent their operation, and the garden project was put on hold.

In 2012 Ms Kelly began recruiting a team of experts, and by the middle of last year 20,000 square metres of land was secured in Khan Younis, a board was appointed and workshops were underway with the local community to identify their exact wants and needs. The staff at the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne have been tremendous leaders in this project with Mr Andrew Laidlaw, the chief landscape architect, and his team designing the garden as a replica of the children's garden at Melbourne with appropriate alterations as requested through consultation.

Ms Kelly and the committee are determined that this garden be a gift from the Australian people to the people of Gaza. The fundraising task is large—$5 million is required—and I would encourage all Australians to give generously. It is a tangible project that epitomises the good in Australians and, in a small way, the international year. This humanitarian project is breaking barriers between people and breaking barriers between borders and, so far, the Israeli government have provided no impediment to the movement of supplies into Gaza for the garden. While debate ensues between politicians, the work on this garden is giving children and families in that region some peace.

I thank all who are working towards a peaceful solution in the region. I call on our government and I call on the Israeli and Palestinian governments to do everything they can to continue the negotiations and to find a resolution—a resolution particularly in this year, the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:11): Over 12 months ago I got to give a speech in the matters of public interest discussion and I talked about the problem of plastics in our oceans. Since I made that speech billions of tonnes of garbage has made its way into our oceans and hundreds of millions of tonnes of plastic has made its way all through our ecosystems. We still have a long way to go. We have made some progress in the last 12 months, including a plastic bag ban in my home state of Tasmania, but we still need to look at market based schemes to try to stop plastic bottles getting into our oceans.

Today I rise to speak about another issue of marine conservation—whaling in the Southern Ocean. This is a matter of long-running interest to all Australians and to all parties in this chamber. Australia once had a whaling industry; we no longer do. We have ended that chapter in our history, but it was an important part of our story.

Over Christmas I was visited by a Chinese cable television station. They came to Tasmania to interview me about what was going on in the Southern Ocean with the Japanese whaling fleet. I asked them to visit Bicheno on the east coast of Tasmania, because that is where I was staying, and they came. The reason I wanted them to visit Bicheno was that it was a whaling town. I took them to the whaling lookout and showed them where the old-timers used to stand and spot the whales. We went to where the whales were slaughtered and processed, and I showed them the beaches where the carcasses were laid out in the sun.

My message was very clear: whaling was part of our heritage. It no longer is and we no longer use it as a justification for slaughtering whales. The narrative that whaling is a tradition lies in the past, not in the present nor the future. Australia's role in whaling is now simple—we study them, we conserve them and we fight on the international stage to prevent their slaughter. I am pleased to say that there is tripartisan support in this parliament for those three objectives. What is in dispute is how much fight is needed to actually, physically prevent the barbaric slaughter of whales.

I am briefly going to quote some excerpts from an article by Terry Barnes, who probably puts it more eloquently than I could. It is worth noting that he is a former Howard government adviser and is considered a conservative commentator in this country. Sometimes the most biting and honest criticisms come from your own political brethren. Terry Barnes's criticism of Greg Hunt and the Abbott government's efforts to prevent any action on whaling deserves a wide audience for this reason alone. Earlier this year, incensed by Hunt's abandonment of the Liberal-National government's whaling election promise to the send the ACV Ocean Protector, Barnes was inspired to write the following for The Age:

Four months ago, I looked into the eyes of a huge yet gentle humpback whale.

We were in Tonga, on a photographic trip, snorkelling near a mother humpback and her playful calf. I detached myself from my group to return to our boat but, to my amazement, mum followed me.

Gently, slowly, she eased her way through the water until we were nose to nose, leaving no more than a couple of metres between us. Just as I thought we'd collide, she suddenly stopped.

Her eyes searched mine, and we looked intently at each other for what seemed an age.

…   …   …

Having been looked in the eye by a humpback, it's impossible to stand by idly as the latest Southern Ocean whaling season begins. If they are there now, my mother and calf may encounter humans who are not harmless tourists: the Japanese whalers bent on killing them, ostensibly in the name of science, while upholding spurious national honour in the face of global condemnation.

…   …   …

In these pages in October, I praised Hunt for his passionate anti-whaling stand. To his great credit, he treats whale conservation as a mainstream political matter, and fought for his election promise to be honoured fully. But I worried then that not all Hunt's colleagues share his vision: sadly, I was right.

If the government has gambled that this will upset only hard-core greenies who would never vote Coalition, it's seriously mistaken. The anti-whaling message resonates strongly in middle Australia, too.

…   …   …

Hunt's promise-breaking colleagues should remember that, while whales don't vote, millions of Australians who want them conserved do.

It is my experience in life that most people who become conservationists, greenies or green-tinged have been touched by something bigger than themselves.

I think of my own experience last year at my colleague Senator Siewert's wedding in Western Australia. Senator Di Natale and I went surfing together at a point break near Yallingup. There were only two of us out in the water. After about 15 minutes, a large humpback breached about five times about 100 metres from us. A couple of minutes later, as if on cue, a pod of dolphins appeared. As it turned out, I caught a wave in and left Senator Di Natale out in the ocean on his own. He very quickly followed me, having seen a shadow go underneath him—which I told him later was probably a dolphin. Nevertheless, it is those sorts of encounters with nature that can change your life and make you rethink your priorities.

Australians want their government to take strong action to prevent the slaughter of whales in our waters. I know this, Terry Barnes knows this and Greg Hunt knows this. But Greg Hunt and the Liberal-National government have failed the whales and failed the Australian people. Year after year, then opposition spokesperson Greg Hunt would pop up every summer calling on the Labor government to do more about whaling. There were press releases, media conferences, questions in parliament and speeches. He gave the impression that he cared, that in government he would act.

I will just read through some of the headings of Greg Hunt's media releases as spokesperson on whaling: 'Letter to Garrett—the time has come for action on whaling', 'Free Peter to deliver on his whaling promises', 'Harpooned by his own whaling promise', 'Garrett loses passion for whaling campaign', 'PM jets out for sushi and sake—but no real action against whaling', 'Will Peter Garrett finally announce his whaling envoy on National Whale Day?' and 'A cracker record and a broken promise on whaling, Garrett scraps plans for whaling surveillance'. All in all there were dozens of these media releases. They were often highly personal and aimed directly at Peter Garrett. No wonder, when Greg Hunt broke his promise—and this government's promise—to send the ACV Ocean Protector to the Southern Ocean to monitor whaling this year, that Peter Garrett tweeted: 'No surprise as Liberals break promise to send vessel to whale hunt. This after Hunt grandstanding every Christmas and January for years.'

Other things that Greg Hunt has said are also worth reviewing if you are interested in the subject—and I know most Australians are. We have heard rhetoric such as:

We've got blood in the water and a blind eye in Canberra, it's completely unacceptable.

There was also:

Sea Shepherd have had to do the Australian Government's work and that in part has contributed to this conflict.

On another occasion, he said:

Mr Hunt indicated the Coalition would make defending Australia's Southern Ocean interests an election issue, promising to restore regular patrols and also to deploy a Customs vessel to monitor Japanese whaling.

Just before the election, we were told:

Should the whaling season continue, the Coalition commits to sending a Customs vessel to the Southern Ocean. It is important that Australia has a Southern Ocean presence given the ongoing risk of confrontation between whalers and protestors.

He could not have been more clear than that. Mr Hunt was so strong in his language and so clear about what he would do and why he would do it.

Did he lie to the Australian people? Was he just using whaling for political gain when he had no intention of acting? Was he just fundamentally incompetent and did he fail to understand how he could use his portfolio to protect whales? Was he rolled by his cabinet colleagues? Minister Morrison commandeered the ACV Ocean Protector for Operation Sovereign Borders. Minister Robb went on the record saying trade deals are more important than whales—signalling to the Japanese that, whatever they wanted to do with whales, the Australian government would roll over. Most likely it was a combination of those things: a weak minister and a dishonest government—an unprincipled government willing to promise something in opposition, and in an election campaign, that it was never going to deliver.

It became apparent it was starting to unravel for Mr Hunt when his language shifted to:

We remain committed to surveillance in the Southern Ocean.

He was no longer committed to sending the Ocean Protector, now he was just 'committed to surveillance'. Apparently, in Hunt's mind, this met the promise. Then we had the farce of him being questioned about the Ocean Protector on the doors. 'Just give me 10 more days to give you an answer,' he begged. Finally there was an announcement just before Christmas that he was supporting sending a chartered Airbus instead of a vessel—and that this was meeting his promise. He said, in fact, that it was better than his promise.

It beggars belief that he thought the public would buy that a passenger plane could play the role of, in his words, 'a cop on the beat' better than a $150 million vessel purpose-built to protect Australia's interests in the Southern Ocean. This is the sort of cynical spin that is responsible for the public losing faith in this government so quickly. The first flight, a flight which cost the Australian taxpayer $93,000, saw the whaling fleet for no more than eight minutes and then flew home. There were a few aerial photo shots which we never got to see—more secrecy.

The final straw for Greg Hunt's cynical attempt to cover up his broken promise was in Senate estimates. I asked the chiefs of the defence forces what they thought of the surveillance capacity of an Airbus A319 for the Southern Ocean. This is how the Chief of Air Force replied:

The A319 is not suitable for that task.

   …   …   …

The word surveillance can mean many things—surveillance out of a passenger aeroplane is a pretty limited operation.

There you have it: the last vestiges of credibility of the coalition's approach to whaling were torn down by our Chief of Air Force.

This summer, as over previous summers, the organisation Sea Shepherd has succeeded where our government has failed. After one of the longest and toughest Southern Ocean campaigns, Sea Shepherd has claimed it has reduced the whale slaughter by 75 per cent, and we will find out in coming weeks just how many whales have been slaughtered this season. Greg Hunt once claimed that Sea Shepherd was doing the government's job. I agree.

I hope, like all Australians, that this summer just gone will be the last whaling season ever in the Southern Ocean. The case brought forward by the former Labor government against the Japanese whalers in the International Court of Justice has, or at least had, tripartisan support. In that respect, I thank Labor and acknowledge the work that it has done to get this to the international court, and I acknowledge the support that the Liberal-National government have also given and the resources that have been provided. This court case looks at whether the Japanese whaling program breaches the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Australia has argued for a long time that the Japanese are undertaking commercial whaling, that their program is not scientific and that the program breaches the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

I hope, as many do in this country, that we will have a decisive finding handed down in Australia's favour next week, on 31 March. I hope that the International Court of Justice will find that the whaling can no longer continue. I hope that Japan pledges to abide by this decision. I am optimistic. I look on the bright side. But I know that this result may not happen. In fact, there is a strong chance of a middle-ground decision being issued. The Australian government needs to be ready to think on its feet. What happens if the court legitimises Antarctic whaling? What happens if Japan refuses to accept the verdict? What happens if Japan threatens to leave the whaling convention and continue its slaughter of whales unabated? I hope that somewhere in the environment minister's office, in the foreign affairs minister's office, in the Attorney-General's office or in the Prime Minister's office a brief outlining all of Australia's options in light of this court case is being thoroughly examined. I hope there are high-level meetings occurring between agencies as we speak. We need to be prepared for any eventuality.

This is what I think should happen. Australia needs to appoint a special envoy on whaling to Japan. We cannot let this issue spiral out of control, and ongoing dialogue with Japan is vital. The government needs to urgently establish a ministerial task force featuring the Attorney-General, the environment minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There needs to be whole-of-government coordination on this matter. The left hand must know what the right hand is doing. This task force should be supported by an interagency working group from the relevant agencies.

Australia should never accept that Japan should be allowed to continue the slaughter of whales. Allowing the slaughter of non-endangered minke whales but not endangered species of whales is not a compromise that we should accept. This is a moral question that I and the Greens and most Australians will take a stand on. Whales being harpooned and allowed to drown in their own blood is simply unacceptable.

If the court fails to find in our favour, there are so many other legal, political and diplomatic paths we can follow to end whaling. We must exhaust all of these and not simply roll over. Whatever the verdict, next summer Australia must send the Ocean Protector to the Southern Ocean to be the 'cop on the beat' that this government promised. Whether to enforce a positive court verdict or to monitor the efforts of a continuing so-called scientific or commercial whaling, we need to be there. As Mr Barnes said in the passage I quoted in the beginning of this speech, we cannot stand idly by and watch these amazing creatures get slaughtered. We are better than that. This should not happen on our watch. Sadly, it is happening with sharks in Western Australia. We are seeing turtles and birds entangled with plastic. We have polluted, hunted or crowded out so many species on this planet. Enough is enough. Let us call a spade a spade and stand up for our whales.

Senator BACK (Western Australia—Second Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:26): I rise to express deep concern at the approval of an application for an industrial wind turbine development in New South Wales, the actions of the proponents and, indeed, the actions of the New South Wales Department of Planning. If the evidence that has been provided to me is accurate then it needs to be addressed urgently both by the proponent and particularly by the state department. If there is a failure to do so, I intend to proceed further.

I refer to an application which was approved on 14 March 2014 for the $200 million Flyers Creek wind farm just south of Orange, an application originally made by Babcock & Brown, subsequently renamed Infigen in April 2009. A number of potential host farmers have expressed their outrage, as evidenced in the media, about the development application to the Planning Assessment Commission on 12 February and the fact that the approval was given only one month later.

I go to the major application process for the project, which was made by Babcock & Brown under the name of an Adrian Rizza on 16 December 2008. The application form says:

Persons lodging applications are required to declare reportable political donations (including donations of or more than $1,000) made in the previous two years.

I notice that in that application, over the signature of Mr Rizza, exactly the same question was asked:

Persons lodging applications are required to declare reportable political donations … Have you attached a disclosure statement to this application?

The documents record the answer: 'No.' In this case, over the signature of Mr Rizza, no disclosure statement was made.

I then go to the figures of the donor annual return for the financial year 2006-07 submitted to the Australian Electoral Commission by a Christina Shi, a senior financial accountant with the company Babcock & Brown Australia. I notice that, in the space for donations totalling $10,300 or more for the period July 2006 to June 2007, the total sum is $43,000. The statement made by the proponent Rizza was that there was no disclosure to be made. I then go to the following year—remember, this is a two-year statement period. For the financial year 2007-08—again, this is a return from Babcock & Brown to the Australian Electoral Commission, and it is over the name Susanne Newhouse—there were donations totalling $108,800 to political parties. Of course, this causes me to ask the question: if donations of $108,800 and $43,000, totalling $151,800, were made to political parties, where is the validity in an application going back to 2008 in which the proponent stated there was no disclosure of payments to political parties?

The New South Wales Department of Planning declared, in Disclosure of political donations and gifts: guideline, dated October 2008:

A person is guilty of an offence under section 125 of the … act … in connection with the obligations under section 147 … if the person fails to make a disclosure of a political donation or gift in accordance with section 147 …

Furthermore:

Section 124A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979(Special provision where development consent tainted by corruption) deals with a decision of a consent authority to grant or modify development consent where the decision is tainted by corrupt conduct. In these circumstances … the Minister or the Court may suspend the decision pending the institution and determination of proceedings in respect of the decision. The Minister is to give the consent authority and the applicant for the grant or modification of the development consent written notice of the suspension as soon as practicable …

If the documents I am quoting from are accurate, and I have no reason to believe they are not—they are in the public arena—then it seems to me that we are looking at potential corruption occasioning the acceptance and approval of this project. To me, that is very, very serious matter and one that needs to be addressed in the public interest as well as in the interest of those affected by it. As I said, I will be inviting the department, the commissioner, the minister and the company to advise us where the anomaly may have occurred.

This whole issue of industrial wind turbines is not settled. On 24 February this year, the NHMRC released its long-awaited systematic literature review of the health effects of wind farms—a topic which I have a very keen interest in. The NHMRC did not say there were no health issues. They stated there was consistent but poor quality evidence that proximity to wind farms is associated with annoyance and, less consistently, sleep disturbance and poorer quality of life.

I draw attention to the names of three people who were on that review panel. I have no reason to believe they are not eminent, ethical and honest people, but I ask what they were doing on the review and whether they declared an interest. One of the people is Dr Norm Broner, the only acoustician on the panel. As I understand it, he is a paid consultant for SKM, which is a large multinational company with significant commercial interest within the global wind industry. He has performed work for wind developers, which was not publicly disclosed during the review process, as far as I understand it. During the time of the wind farms and human health review, Dr Broner authored or approved a report titled Flyers Creek Wind Farm—technical review of supporting documentation, dated 12 July 2013, containing influential advice which, it is reasonable to argue, the New South Wales department relied upon in making its decision to approve this particular project.

Another key person on the panel providing advice to the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission was Professor Wayne Smith, Director of the Environmental Health Branch at New South Wales Health. His advice to the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission that there was no evidence of adverse health effects is absolutely untrue and at variance with the report of the NHMRC review.

Also on the panel was Dr Elizabeth Hanna, President of the Climate and Health Alliance. This alliance assisted a major international wind turbine product manufacturer, Vestas, to launch their global denial of any adverse effects from turbines, in Melbourne in June 2013, whilst, I understand, Dr Hanna was a member of the review panel. This was despite a Vestas engineer admitting at an Australian Wind Energy Association conference in 2004 that wind turbine noise caused annoyance symptoms and needed adequate buffers.

We have a circumstance here, regrettably, where I believe the independence and, therefore, the veracity of the report of the NHMRC is very open to question. If some authors of that review have in some way had an influence on the decision of the New South Wales department in approving this particular project, I believe it must be the subject of much further scrutiny.

I now turn to a recent statement of the Australian Medical Association. On 18 March the AMA released a position statement on wind farms and health without any listed authors, with no references and containing information that had nothing to do with health research and everything to do with supporting wind farm development applications. It reflects wind farm industry promotional spin and it is a statement that essentially implied that health symptoms are not caused by wind turbine knows, rather by anxiety.

If the Australian Veterinary Association, the body representing my profession, were to come out with such a poorly structured document as this—not authored, not defended and not referred—I would be going to the association and saying, 'Hide your heads in shame.' But it does not matter what I would do as an old vet. It is more important to learn what members of the profession have said and done throughout the world.

There has been an outcry to the AMA from across the world, and quite rightly so, including from professors from the United States and Ontario, Canada. Dr Gary Hopkins from South Australia strongly condemned this statement and demanded the AMA revoke it and amend their position to support epidemiological research. Dr Hopkins is a man with 36 years experience in South Australia as a physician. He has been a lecturer at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, lecturing to undergraduate and postgraduate students, including students in the Postgraduate Diploma in Occupational and Environmental Health. He is one person who I thought might actually know something about the topic. I quote from a letter Dr Hopkins wrote to the AMA:

I am rendered speechless by your irresponsible, ill researched, ill advised and reckless statement that those who might suffer physical effects from the presence of turbines are suffering a psychological condition (anxiety). Indeed, your very statement itself causes anxiety in those likely to be effected ("who will believe me when I tell them I feel sick"?).

He went on to make the obvious point that any medical person makes to a student, and that is: first do no harm. He concludes the letter by saying:

Was this the attitude of your forbears to those of the London plague just before they died until a connection was made to the transmission of the disease by rats?

The AMA position statement should immediately be withdrawn.

The concern now reflecting on the Australian Medical Association is what role have they played in supporting the industrial wind turbine industry in coming up with this ridiculous statement, even after the NHMRC themselves continue to cast doubt and continue to agree with the position which we have taken for so long—and that is that there needs to be strong and independent research undertaken.

It is well known that I have been promoting for a long time to my colleagues in the coalition—and indeed with the strong support of Senators Madigan and Xenophon—the view that there needs to be independent research into the health effects of wind farms. I do not know whether or not these concerns are real, and neither does anybody else, but there is a growing body of medical opinion around the world that in fact these do have a profound effect—blind studies that have been done et cetera. What I have promoted to the parliament at different times is that the NHMRC be required to cause research to be conducted into the possible effect of wind farms on human health. Indeed if the CEO advises the Minister for Health that the NHMRC does not have the resources or expertise to conduct the research—and it may well be that they do not—then the health minister and the energy minister should jointly appoint an appropriate person or panel to undertake for the first time in the world properly and independently analysed studies.

I went on to say that any research undertaken, whether by the NHMRC or an independent panel, must include full spectrum acoustic monitoring, epidemiological and laboratory studies; seek the views of industry and the community generally; identify the range of interests and concerns of those whose views are sought—and I come back to my comments of a few moments ago with regard to the panel that did the latest so-called review; and include, but not be limited to, the research into audible noise, low-frequency noise, infrasound, electromagnetic radiation and vibration arising from or associated with wind farms, including wind, turbines, transmission lines et cetera.

In the few minutes that I have available to me, I want to return to the approval that was given by the department to Infigen on 14 March 2014, and there are, quite rightly, a number of conditions pertaining to and contingent on that eventual support. I remind you the original application was made back in 2008. There was a five-year period in which the proponents had to act, and they did not. There was a circumstance in which the New South Wales department was requiring further information. The company itself, not the department, failed to fulfil the terms of the approval and that was to meet the requirements within the five-year period. We are now in the circumstance, I understand, close to some six years later, that we are at the very point of an approval being given but I say this to you: 'the project approval does not operate until the following deferred commencement conditions are complied with, and these relate to all land within the project area being identified within the document reference'. I say again: it is incumbent on the department and the proponent to come clean and tell us where the truth lies. (Time expired)

Senator THORP (Tasmania) (13:41): Last week I had the privilege of being a member of the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva. Delegations from 141 countries met to discuss and craft resolutions on a number of issues important to Australia and to parliaments around the globe.

I took a particular interest in the work of the Standing Committee on Democracy and Human Rights. At the conclusion of the conference, all member countries voted to support a resolution on the role of parliaments in protecting the rights of children, in particular unaccompanied migrant children, and in preventing their exploitation in situations of war and conflict—a subject with particular resonance for us here in Australia, grappling with the fair, humane treatment of people coming to our shores.

The 130th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union considered the arguments, debated them and came to the following resolution. I will summarise its content: the conference reiterated that Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as 'every human being below the age of 18 years'. It acknowledged that efforts have been made globally to promote the protection of and respect for the human rights of unaccompanied migrant children, separated children and children involved in armed conflicts pursuant to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The conference recognised that the fundamental principles and rights that must be guaranteed to all children, especially unaccompanied or separated children, boys and girls, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and states other obligations under international law. This includes: the best interests of the child; nondiscrimination; nonpunishment; non-refoulement; family unity; the right to physical and legal protection; the right to an identity; the right to life, survival and development; the right to be heard and to participate in decisions that affect them; the right to be protected from violence; the right to education; the right to due process guarantees; and the right to health care and psychological support, reintegration assistance and legal aid.

The resolution noted that paragraph 7 of General Comment No. 6 (2005) on the Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, issued by the Committee on the Rights of Child, defines 'unaccompanied children' as those who have been 'separated from both parents and are not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so'; while paragraph 8 defines 'separated children' as ' those separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or customary primary care-giver, but not necessarily from their relatives'. It went on to restate that paragraph 13 of General Comment No. 13 (2011) on the right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence, issued by the Committee on the Rights of Child, states:

Addressing and eliminating the widespread prevalence and incidence of violence against children is an obligation of States parties under the Convention. Securing and promoting children’s fundamental rights to respect for their human dignity and physical and psychological integrity, through the prevention of all forms of violence, is essential for promoting the full set of child rights in the Convention.

It is important to remember that in accordance with articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties from 1996 any state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child must ensure that the rights and principles enshrined in the convention are fully reflected and given legal effect in relevant domestic legislation. Importantly for our parliament, the resolution recognised that parliaments have a crucial role to play in ratifying international legal instruments on the protection of children and accordingly in implementing domestic legislation. It affirmed that parliaments like our own have a role in protecting the rights of children, in particular unaccompanied migrant children and children in situations of armed conflict or affected by organised crime, that they must be in line with international law and based on the best interests of the child. The resolution also acknowledged that we must consider that policies criminalising migrant children have a negative impact on children's access to basic rights. The resolution encouraged parliaments of states which have not yet signed the three optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to urge their governments to proceed with their signature and full accession.

All countries need to design efficient legislative tools for the legal protection of minors, thus establishing a legal framework effectively guaranteeing the rights of children, and to enact legislation aimed at establishing comprehensive and effective protection systems with adequate resources and coordinated by high-ranking government officials in order to ensure the best interests of the child. This is vital. Further, the resolution encouraged parliaments to enact legislation aimed at addressing the special needs of separated and unaccompanied children and children involved in armed conflicts which, as a minimum, should provide for specific procedures in keeping with the rule of law. Importantly, parliaments are encouraged to underscore the importance of working together with United Nations bodies, non-governmental organisations and other entities in order to collect accurate and reliable data on the number of separated or unaccompanied migrant children and children involved in armed and internal conflicts and situations of organised crime in their respective countries. They are also encouraged to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of children, children involved in demonstrations and political rallies, including their right to protection from violence and freedom of association and expression.

We called on parliaments to share best practices on the protection of children from the perspective of restorative justice with the governments, parliaments and human rights organisations of countries where armed conflict and situations involving organised crime are developing; to ensure compliance with international standards for the protection of separated or unaccompanied migrant children, including the principles of non-discrimination and non-punishment; prohibition of inappropriate detention of the child; the best interests of the child; the right of the child to life and development; and the right of children to participate in decisions that affect them. One significant suggestion is to, in partnership with UNICEF and in consultation with Interpol, promote the establishment of a comprehensive international and up-to-date register of foreign separated or unaccompanied minors as an efficient tool for safeguarding the rights of such children, and to entrust the responsibility for coordinating such data to a single national authority.

The resolution urges parliaments to hold governments to account for their humanitarian duty to provide children, especially separated or unaccompanied migrant children and children in situations of armed conflict, with the necessary services in order to guarantee basic human rights such as education, medical treatment, counselling, rehabilitation and reintegration, child care, accommodation and legal assistance, bearing in mind the special needs of girls. It also urges parliaments to support the establishment of national referral mechanisms to this end. It was recognised that it is very important to support initiatives aimed at training, education and continuously building the capacities of child protection professionals, specifically offering training in international human rights law to all members of the armed forces, law enforcement and immigration officials, border guards and other individuals and agencies involved in protecting the rights of children, especially separated or unaccompanied migrant children.

It also asked individual parliaments to promote action to prevent the migration of separated or unaccompanied minors from their countries of origin by strengthening cooperation and promoting bilateral conventions with countries of origin. A simple but vital strategy was that of taking appropriate measures to ensure than an effective birth registration system is in place for all children, including separated or unaccompanied migrant children. It was clear that we need to raise awareness of children's rights in receiving communities like our own and to work actively for the most efficient coordination between agencies responsible for receiving unaccompanied children, in recognition of the high incidence of post-traumatic stress among unaccompanied children and in order to take every measure to help them—a considerable challenge for our own parliament.

Parliaments and governments must open borders based firmly on values such as the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights and international conventions, especially when so many victims are children, and to find a way to combine respect for border protection and the right to seek asylum. So the resolution urges parliaments and governments to incorporate the perspective of minors and to place greater emphasis on children in legislation, budgets and policymaking, with a view to ensuring that the voices of young people and children are better heard. All parliaments and governments need to enact all provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in national legislation in order to guarantee equal rights to all children.

It was a privilege to be among legislators from around the globe who were as one when it came to protecting our children. I look forward to the day when Australia can hold its head high and state proudly that we as a country live up to the standards that this resolution embodies.

The international legal framework dealing with children and transnational organised crime includes instruments such as the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and this must be adhered to.

Parliaments are also urged to prohibit all forms of violence and discrimination against children and to pass enabling domestic legislation in order to give full effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also calls on parliaments to ensure that adequate resources are allocated from national budgets to enforce laws, implement policies and improve practices related to the protection of children; and invites parliaments to hold hearings and consultations so as to assess the effectiveness of our existing laws, policies and practices on protecting children, especially separated or unaccompanied migrant children.

It also invited parliaments to support awareness-raising efforts, especially by working with the media to address xenophobia and violations of the rights of children. It is noted that Universal Children's Day, 20 November, provides a favourable framework for mobilising and sensitising public opinion to the protection of minors. The resolution calls for a review of international law and international humanitarian law conventions with a view to harmonising the provisions on special guardianship for minors under 18 years of age; and also calls on parliaments to ensure proper and qualified evaluation of whether unaccompanied minors should return to their country of origin.

The resolution calls on parliaments to find ways to ensure the humane and safe return of those who must return after receiving a final rejection of their asylum application, so that no minor returns home without a safe and appropriate reception, acknowledging that an important step in the process is to make sure that minors are reunited with their parents, bearing the child's perspective in mind in every case and ensuring the rights of each individual child. The resolution invites parliaments and other institutions to share with the IPU their best practices in the protection of children's rights, in particular the rights of separated or unaccompanied migrant children.

I commend the website to senators; have a look at details of the dealings of the last week's work by the IPU. It was a privilege to be there with my colleagues from the Senate and from the other place, particularly under the very effective leadership of Jeanette Radcliffe.

Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (13:55): I rise to make some brief remarks supporting the previous description of the work of the IPU. As a member of the delegation I can say that it was indeed a privilege to be there in Geneva last week. It was in fact my seventh IPU Assembly. This was a huge opportunity to reflect on the way the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assemblies have developed over the last few years and how the agenda has started to be very focused.

This assembly was focused on the rights of unaccompanied minors. I was able to accompany Senator Thorp to visit the facility for children aged 12 to 18 in Lausanne and to learn about a very different approach that is underpinned by the EU directive on the care of unaccompanied minors. I think it is something we definitely have to start reflecting on more here in Australia when we think about the way we are looking after unaccompanied minors and refugees in our detention centres and in the community. I remind everyone here that there are almost 600 children still on Christmas Island, and we need to thinking about how those international obligations are being met or not being addressed.

The other really important standing committee in which I participated was formalising the standing committee on the United Nations; the purpose of which is to draw much stronger links between the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assemblies and the work of the United Nations and aligning some of the key policy agendas across the world.

We talked most significantly about two things in that standing committee. The first was food security—when you see what is happening in the African subcontinent—and the tragedy that is playing out there in terms of food security. The second issue was how countries are going to tackle the agenda of the post Millennium Development Goals, post 2015. It is important to look at how that whole agenda is going to be shaped, how parliaments across the world can connect with the United Nations agenda and ensure that we have strong benchmarks and strong targets. Most critically, it is important that governments around the world that make commitments to funding the post Millennium Development Goals—which will be called the Sustainable Development Goals—will honour those commitments.

We have discovered some firm promises from countries have not been met, and that in fact is the reason some Millennium Development Goals have not been achieved. Specifically some goals around infant mortality and maternal health in some countries are disappointingly below the achievements that we were seeking. So the critical issue now is that, if people do promise to make contributions to the post Millennium Development Goals program, they honour their promises regardless of financial situations in the world.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union Assemblies play a key role in soft diplomacy—parliamentarians to parliamentarians meeting to discuss these issues. Sometimes they create the opportunity for more formalised diplomatic relations in the future. It was definitely worthwhile and I appreciate the privilege.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:04): Mr President, under the 30-day rule contained in standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the Assistant Minister for Health for her failure to answer questions on notice Nos 223, 224, 225, 226, 227 and 234, asked on 20 February 2014, relating to the conflict of interest at the heart of her office, and related matters.

Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Health) (15:05): In response to Senator Wong: due to the large number of questions which have been received by my office, I can advise Senator Wong that my office and my department are working hard to finalise these answers and that they will be with her as soon as possible.

I would also take this opportunity to point out that the majority of the questions on notice which were submitted by Senator Wong prior to Senate estimates I have subsequently answered and responded to, both in Senate estimates and in the chamber.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:05): I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

The minister has come into this place and provided an unacceptable explanation for her failure to answer these questions. These are legitimate questions about how she dealt with a conflict of interest that was at the heart of her office—and I am not surprised that she is leaving the chamber, because it is consistent with the way in which this minister has dealt with this chamber on this issue of the conflict of interest at the heart of her office; and it is consistent with the misleading of this chamber on more than one occasion—from a government that was supposedly going to be transparent and accountable we see, in practice, that this is a government which stonewalls, which obfuscates, which refuses to be up-front and which refuses to be transparent.

The conflict of interest in the minister's office has cast a shadow over the ethical standards of this government. The response of the assistant minister to public concerns has been arrogant stonewalling. Her refusal to account for her actions has made a mockery of the Abbott government's claims that it would be an accountable government. The series of questions on notice to which I referred today were put on notice on 20 February. They ask for simple, straightforward, factual information; information about how the minister complies with the government's ministerial standards and information about how she ensures her staff comply with the government's standards for ministerial staff.

It is simply not acceptable and certainly a little unbelievable that the minister has failed to answer these questions after 30 days. We know that this assistant minister can move very quickly when she wants to. Look how quickly she moved when the Australian Food and Grocery Council asked for the health star rating website to be taken down. One phone call from the food industry lobby and the website was down within hours. There was a flurry of phone calls from her office to the department to get the website down. When it comes to responding to lobby groups' concerns, she is all action. But when it comes to responding to concerns about her conduct, there is no action at all. Everything grinds to a halt. The shutters come down. The lights go out. No-one is at home. This is the opposite of accountability in government. This is a minister who has already been censured by this Senate for refusing to comply with an order to produce documents. Now she is compounding that refusal by refusing to answer questions on notice. It is obstructionist behaviour. It is evasive behaviour. I will submit that it is untrustworthy behaviour. It shows contempt for the Senate and for the public.

What are these questions that the assistant minister finds so hard to answer? Why is she so stumped by them? These are questions for which the answers would be readily available in any government that was functioning properly and that was committed to accountability. The first question on notice, No. 223, seeks details about the process the minister followed in appointing her chief of staff. When did she seek the Prime Minister's approval? Did she advise the Prime Minister of Mr Furnival's interests? On what date did Mr Furnival commence as her chief of staff? Are we in this chamber to believe that the assistant minister's records are in such disarray that she cannot even say on what date Mr Furnival started working for her?

Question on notice 224 asked about the statement of interest required from staff. I asked whether or not the minister required her staff to do what is required under the statement of ministerial staff standards, and that is to submit a statement of interests. I asked when Mr Furnival submitted his statement and what that statement disclosed. One would have thought that she would be able to answer a question about whether or not her staff in fact complied with the standards the Prime Minister has set. It is not complex. It does not require the scouring of hundreds of pages of records or delving back into ancient history. The obvious answer—and I am still waiting for the minister to answer the question—that one could draw is that the minister is simply refusing to answer the question because the answer is, no, she has not ensured that her staff have complied with the statement of standards.

Question on notice 225 asked about the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation in December 2013. These were simple questions about one day and one meeting. These were simple questions about who attended the meeting and why there was a failure to declare the interest in a lobbying firm. The assistant minister chaired this meeting. It appears she is not able to recall which staff were there. She is not able to find her records about one meeting and respond on that point.

Question on notice 226 asked whether or not Mr Furnival, as the assistant minister's chief of staff, received hospitality gifts or sponsored travel in relation to his employment and also asked questions about the assistant minister's current staff receiving such things. These are matters that the government's statement of standards for ministerial staff requires staff to declare. So what I am asking is: under the declaration that her staff have to engage with, can she please tell us what has been declared? One would not have thought that was a difficult proposition. A government complying with its own standards would have no trouble in answering this question.

Question on notice 227 asked whether or not any of the minister's current or former staff have a direct or family interest in the food, tobacco or alcohol industries. Again, that is something that would have to be disclosed in the statement of interests required under the government standards for ministerial staff. I would have thought that, if the minister is properly managing her staff and her office and ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest in this role, she would have had no trouble in answering this question.

Question on notice 234 is a question as to whether or not the assistant minister has agreed to any of her staff maintaining outside employment or involvement in a business or retaining a directorship. It goes on to ask a number of other questions. These are straightforward, factual questions about management of conflicts of interest within the minister's office. A conclusion that can be drawn from the minister's failure to answer is the one which I think is demonstrated by her answers today—that she simply failed to manage the conflict of interest in her office.

I would also make the point that there has been a rejected freedom of information request from me and also a journalist which has been reported. That freedom of information request relates to a letter that the minister gave evidence about at Senate estimates. Let's recall that, in all of the debate, dispute and discussion about this minister's behaviour, her single item of defence has been that she required her chief of staff to give undertakings about how he would address the conflict of interest. She told Senate estimates that these undertakings were set out in a letter from her chief of staff outlining the measures that would be taken to avoid conflicts of interest between his business affairs and his ministerial staff role. This is a letter that is central to the defence that this minister has put to this chamber. It is central to the defence about how she ensured that the statement of standards applicable to ministers and staff was complied with. One of the reasons she was censured was her failure to produce this letter.

I can now inform the Senate, as I flagged, that the minister's department or office have refused to provide access to the letter under the Freedom of Information Act. In a letter to me, the department said: 'The document requested is neither an official document of the minister nor a document of an agency.' So the letter that the minister says sets out arrangements to avoid a conflict of interest at the heart of her office is not an official document. This is the letter that is at the core of the assistant minister's defence. She claims it proves she was managing the conflict of interest in her office, but she refused to produce it and now her own department says that it is not an official document of a minister.

This freedom of information refusal simply casts further doubts on the minister's claims. This is a letter which her chief of staff provided as part of his employment to ensure there was no conflict of interest and to ensure she was complying with the Prime Minister's code of conduct. Now we are told it has no official status. It is apparently in some grey zone, perhaps the same grey zone as all of this minister's other non-responses to questions and all of her misleading statements to the Senate. You have to ask, if it is not an official document, what is its status? Is it written on the back of a napkin? Is it scribbled on the back of a coaster? Why is the minister fighting tooth and nail against producing it?

Senator Bilyk: Does it exist?

Senator WONG: I will take that interjection. Maybe it does not exist at all and that is why cannot be produced. The Prime Minister promised before the election that he would lead a government that would be accountable and transparent and he is not delivering on that promise. The Assistant Minister for Health's failure to answer these questions is just the latest example of how this is a government that is not doing what it said it would do. It is a secretive government and it is an arrogant government. It is a government that refuses to be accountable to the public for its actions.

We have had the Assistant Minister for Health, with a conflict of interest in her office, misleading the Senate and refusing to answer questions. We have had Senator Sinodinos refusing to explain his involvement in Australian Water Holdings. And we have had the Prime Minister refusing to be upfront about what he knew in both of these matters. One minister has gone, another has been censured and a chief of staff has quit over a conflict of interest. We now have absurdities like the letter which the Assistant Minister for Health claims shows how she was managing a conflict of interest, but which her department says is not an official document.

We have absurdities like the acting Assistant Treasurer, who is also the Minister for Finance, put on hold changes which are the responsibility of the Assistant Treasurer and where the Assistant Treasurer stood aside yet he is still the Assistant Treasurer even though his job is being done by the acting Assistant Treasurer. The Prime Minister is leading a secretive, slipshod and arrogant government.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:17): I would like to contribute to the debate to pay tribute to Senator Nash, the way she has handled the portfolio and the way she has answered questions. It is so different to the previous government; we are still waiting for answers about Copenhagen and what happened at the climate change conference there. I am still waiting for a number of questions that I put on notice to the previous government. Yet the hypocrisy of the Labor Party shows through and here is a motion moved 30 days after.

I think the record will show that Senator Nash, in responding to the inquiry by the Leader of the Opposition—who I might say read every part of her speech, and I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that she get a new speech writer—explained to anyone who wanted to listen that her office was very busy. I heard her say that they were actually working on the answers to those questions. I also heard her say that most of the questions were asked by Senator Wong at estimates and were either answered there or taken on notice there. Since that time, there have been other questions.

I wanted to put just a modicum of fact into that bile filled speech from the previous speaker about someone who I think is doing a magnificent job as a minister. I have to say as well, it is refreshing how open the Abbott government has been and how accountable it has been in all of the very important and serious matters that it has been involved in. I have been here for a long while now—some say too long. I have sat through the Hawke and Keating governments, I have sat through the Howard government and I have sat through the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. There is a pattern that I have noticed over those years with Labor: how they run the union movement, how they run the Labor Party in New South Wales, how they looked after Mr Thompson and how they looked after Mr Williamson. These two icons of the Labor Party are now facing criminal charges and jail, but they looked after them and kept everything secret even from members of the HSU, the union that was paying for Mr Thompson's theft. Unions and the Labor Party itself were hiding Mr Williamson.

I have noticed over the years that Labor governments follow the New South Wales Labor dictum of keeping everything secret. That way, you never get into trouble. Unfortunately, things do come out, as we have heard. Senator Dastyari will know, because he was around in part of the cover-up, and my namesake—I am embarrassed to say that he is my namesake—will know how the Labor Party looked after these people, covered up for them and were never accountable, not even to their own members and not even to the union members who were paying them.

I have seen this over many years. It is the Labor way to cover-up, obfuscate and never answer a question. We think question time these days is a bit rowdy when you hear the opposition catcalling, but at least at question time now senators are getting answers to questions. I well remember when this matter was first raised with Senator Nash. I thought to myself, having been around for a while, 'Do not say anything, take it on notice, go and look at it.' But immediately Senator Nash got up and gave an explanation on the very first day. I thought, 'That is the sign of a very, very good minister.' A good minister is someone who is across the portfolio and able to deal with all of these issues.

I might say that in the substantive part of her portfolio she is doing excellent work, such as in rural and regional Australia and I guess elsewhere as well. I just want to answer Senator Wong's accusation of 'an arrogant stonewall'. Well, that Labor leader using 'an arrogant stonewall' as a description just fades away to stupidity when you actually hear what the answer was. The department has been very busy. They have had an enormous number of questions through estimates, not about this issue but about real issues in the portfolio, and they are, obviously, giving attention to them. Senator Nash did say that they were working on the answers, so they are going to come, unlike the answers to the questions on Copenhagen which we are still waiting on. As the minister said, she had already answered many of the questions at estimates. I wanted to make sure that anyone who might be listening to this debate is not confused by the tirade that we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:23): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Singh and Peris today relating to proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

It has been made clear today that the Attorney-General is more interested in defending the rights of those he refers to as 'bigots' than in defending the rights of minorities. In order to protect what Senator Brandis described in this place as the fundamental right to be a bigot he has released plans to narrow protections under the Racial Discrimination Act and then exempt almost everyone from this law. What is the point of having a law if you are then going to have umpteen exemptions from it? That just outlines the dishonesty that is being put forward in this draft exposure that Senator Brandis provided to the public yesterday.

By the Attorney-General's own admission vilification and hate speech should never be a feature of intellectual debate. So, if that is the case, why does the Abbott government want to introduce such broad exemptions to the law? Under these exemptions even people vilifying ethnic and racial groups in bad faith are protected as long as they can claim it was related to any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter. It is difficult, within that huge list, to think of any public statement that would not be covered by those exemptions, which shows the dishonesty in the proposed changes that Senator Brandis has put forward.

Let us think about what the changes might actually mean. They will mean comments on an online blog or article. They would include a sign threatening a Jewish group at a neo-Nazi rally against immigration. It is hard to imagine any conduct that falls outside these exemptions, which is an observation that was made by Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs who clearly said:

The new exemption makes clear the fundamental importance of free discussion on any matter of public interest, no matter how extreme that discussion is.

Is that really the kind of Australian society we want to live in? What is the point of having Senator Brandis bringing forward these changes of freedom of speech at any cost, bringing forward changes that he claims put forward laws for racial vilification and hate speech, but then exempts just about every kind of activity from them?

Let us take the case of Fredrick Toben—which is a case very familiar, I am sure, to Senator Brandis—who has been found time and time again to have unlawfully produced and published material that denies the Holocaust. He has accused Jews of exaggerating the scale of the murder of Jewish people during World War II and he has dismissed people, who were offended by or disagreed with such outrageous claims, as being of limited intelligence. Is this the kind of display of racial vilification that we want to allow in our community without any recourse? Because, under that huge list that Senator Brandis outlined in section 4, it would be allowed. This is absolutely absurd and is not supported by some 150 community and ethnic groups across the country—some of which Senator Brandis claims he has met but which, clearly, he has also chosen to ignore.

We have been enlightened today by the way Senator Brandis has appeased the IPA. Through his cups of tea and through the IPA's briefing to the coalition it has been made very clear that the IPA are very happy with these proposed changes, as will be Andrew Bolt, because they go very much to the heart of doing exactly what the IPA, I am sure, briefed the coalition on. People in positions of privilege—people in positions of power—like Andrew Bolt have a platform to be racist. They are public commentators. They are journalists. It is not a level playing field. The victims, though, of racial abuses do not have that position of privilege or power— (Time expired)

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) (15:28): In her contribution Senator Singh demonstrates, as occurred all through question time today when Senator Brandis was answering questions in relation to the exposure draft of the amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, that the opposition is not even prepared to listen. We have put in place a process, and at least Senator Singh did acknowledge that Senator Brandis's answers during question time were that he has had extensive—in fact I think the term he used was 'exhaustive'—consultation with minority groups throughout the development of the exposure draft.

It is important to note that this is part of a process. Senator Brandis has also said that he wants to have a conversation with the Australian community about the shape of these laws, which is why they have been released as an exposure draft—so that the community and members of parliament can comment on the exposure draft that has been released. Rather than just howling from the sidelines and spending all of question time interjecting and screaming at Senator Brandis across the chamber, it might be very useful if those members opposite—who obviously do not want to listen to any opinion other than their own—were to engage with the process.

Senator Brandis has released an exposure draft of this legislation for public comment—for the community to engage, for the community to comment—prior to bringing a final piece of legislation to the parliament. I think that is good process. In fact members of our party who had expressed concern—as part of the public commentary about our proposals to modify the act that was taking place prior to this process—have expressed their appreciation since Senator Brandis brought the exposure draft to the party room. They appreciate that it gives them the opportunity to participate in the public debate and to consult with their communities with that exposure draft in their hand.

But the Labor Party just do not want to listen. They are not interested in what Senator Brandis has to say.

Senator Tillem: You're right.

Senator COLBECK: 'You're right,' says Senator Tillem. You should be ashamed of that. They are just demonstrating their intolerance. It is surprising how many people who claim to be tolerant show the least tolerance when it comes to public debate.

Senator Tillem: That's disingenuous.

Senator COLBECK: They try to howl people down, as Senator Tillem is trying to do at the moment. They try to howl people down. They are not prepared to listen to other perspectives in the debate.

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Senator Tillem interjecting—

Senator COLBECK: And the chorus starts. They are not interested in what anyone else has to say. They are the ones who know best. They know better than anyone else. They are not tolerant of anyone else's opinion. It is interesting that in this debate, as Senator Brandis said a couple of days ago—

Senator Tillem: I am not interested in bigotry. I am not interested in racism.

Senator COLBECK: I will take your interjection, Senator Tillem, and I will put on the record that neither am I—and I do not think any member on this side of the chamber is.

What Senator Brandis said, Senator Tillem, was actually quite true. People have the right to be what they want to be.

Senator Dastyari: Do people have the right to be bigots?

Senator COLBECK: They do, Senator. They do have the right to be what they want to be—and the community has the right, and should have the right, to decry that. And they should decry that. I am happy to condemn that sort of speech as much as anyone on that side of the chamber. But we are about providing the opportunity for people to speak freely. That is an important part of any community. It is not up to us to tell people what to think or what to say. That is what the Labor Party seek to do. They seek to control what people might want to be, want to think or want to say. You cannot do that. Yes, put parameters around it—which is what the draft seeks to do.

Importantly, however, the exposure draft gives the community the opportunity to be part of the discussion. As I have said, members of my party who have had concerns about where this might go have expressed their appreciation of the process that Senator Brandis has put in place. (Time expired)

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (15:33): I want to applaud Senator Colbeck's statements about the behaviour in this place and I am looking forward to hearing silence from the other side of the chamber during debates from now on.

One of the problems with having a consultation is that you may hear things you do not want to hear. A second problem is that it is particularly difficult to consult when you have already gone out publicly and committed yourself to making the change—and not just committed yourself to making the change but celebrated the fact that, in the opinion of the decision maker, that change will permit behaviours that many people are quite concerned about.

We now have a process in place and I am pleased that we also now have an exposure draft. That will encourage more people to come forward to put their views. The exposure draft in itself raises some issues, however. Senator Singh has already pointed out that the definitions in the exposure draft are very narrow and that the parameters for what constitutes a breach have been considerably tightened. That is a major concern. The proposal has very much reduced the range of behaviours considered to be inappropriate under the vilification process.

The implication of this proposal is that our community thinks it would be completely okay for words and actions to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate'. Those are the current words in the legislation. They are the current words the minister has committed to changing. That is clearly on the record. I am sure that there will be a range of organisations, community groups and individuals who will take up the opportunity through the consultation process to remind the minister, the department and the government that we live in a society which has, for many years, operated with the understanding that words or actions that humiliate, insult, intimidate or offend are not appropriate.

On one side of the argument you have an acceptance that such behaviour is not something that makes people feel safe or secure. It is not something that allows them to feel as though they are respected in our community. After all, that is the intent of the legislation—to ensure that every person in our community is safe, is secure and is respected. On one side you have that. On the other side there is an absolute commitment to free speech.

I think this is an important opportunity for us to weigh up, as a community, what we want Australia to be like. So far, I am pleased to say, everybody in this debate appears to be falling over themselves to openly commit that they are completely opposed to racism in our community. That is a good thing. It has given us a chance to reaffirm that. But the second point is: where in our community and where in each of us individually do we see the balance between our right to free speech—to say whatever we want to say about whomever we want—and the absolute, intrinsic right of people to feel safe, respected and secure?

One of the clear intents of the current legislation is to raise awareness in our wider community and to show everybody in our country and internationally that we have a society that values human beings and that human beings cannot be discriminated against while they are living in Australia. We pride ourselves on that. In fact, we go overseas and tell other countries about how they should operate in this way. What we are saying by opening this debate—by the exposure draft and the consultation in a process where the minister has already made a public commitment that he will make a change—is that, in that area, we are opening up the doors for people to question just how strongly we value these commitments that we have made over many years.

I think it is incredibly important that the whole issue of vilification be understood and that we have a debate about what that means. I also think that we should really see whether we want to limit any kind of threat of people being physically afraid. We have so much evidence, and in so much work we do here in the Senate we find out about the damage that is inflicted on other people in our community. It is not just physical. (Time expired)

Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (15:38): I seek to take note of answers by ministers, particularly those by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Boyce, we have a motion before the chair, and that is to take note of the answers by Senator Brandis to Senators Singh and Peris. Were you seeking to move a different motion?

Senator BOYCE: I was seeking to address the answers, but particularly those of Senator Cormann.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You will have to move a different motion for that. In that case, if you intend to move a different motion, I will call any other speakers who wish to speak to this motion first. Is that your intention, Senator Boyce?

Senator BOYCE: That is my intention.

Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales) (15:39): I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Brandis to questions without notice. I rise to ask the question that everyone is asking, and that is: why? Why now, days from a by-election that could alter the government's capacity to pass legislation? Why now, weeks away from a budget in which the government has been sincerely promising since September to make deep and lasting cuts to our social services, to put a blunt axe to foreign aid, to slice the budgets of our public broadcasters and to undermine the assistance that we extend to pensioners, single parents and low-income earners? Why does the senator think now is the time for Australians to be considering the degree of bloviating racism permissible in our public discourse? Why is this the pressing issue of our time? Why, when we have tried so hard to earn a reputation as a country that welcomes people of all races, does the first law officer of the Crown think that, among all the issues requiring urgent attention, the right to offend, to insult and to humiliate someone is worth rising up to defend? Why has the Attorney-General, with heavy heart and after careful consideration, determined that—of all the pressing matters, all the legislation weighing so heavily on the minister's mind and all the freedoms to protect and cherish—the freedom to humiliate someone based on the colour of their skin warrants this?

I would like to assert that, quite frankly, the reason this matter has come to the floor of this chamber is not the careful consideration of the Attorney-General, it is not that it meets the strategic objectives of the government's legislative agenda and it is not that the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form is so outrageously unjust. Of course not. The fact that this is a matter of urgency is simply due to the astonishing conceit, breathtaking arrogance and unbridled contempt that was so evident in Senator Brandis's response in this chamber on Monday. It is not just what the senator from Queensland said but the way he said it that has elevated this issue to a matter of pressing public concern. Senator Brandis's response to Senator Peris's question was delivered in a manner that made no effort to disguise his contempt and disdain for either the question or the questioner. Ladies and gentlemen, we were all here to witness it, but for the Hansard record I will repeat the minister's words:

People do have a right to be bigots, you know.

For the Hansard record, I want to be clear and to use the two other words Senator Brandis proposes to omit from the act: his response was delivered in a manner that was both offensive and insulting. Whether it was a sound bite or a headline, Senator Brandis's response was reprehensible, cringeworthy and ultimately untenable. He left himself with no choice but to try to undo the self-inflicted damage.

So I ask again: why is the right to humiliate someone because of their race a matter of such urgency? The senator can continue to pretend that this is an issue solely about free speech, but it is not. It is more than that. It goes to the heart of this country. It goes to the heart of a multicultural nation. Frankly, the responses that have been given by Senator Brandis are both offensive and insulting in themselves. The unmasked contempt in his response to Senator Peris was simply astonishing. Senator Brandis is not simply defending the rights of the likes of Andrew Bolt. No, he has gone beyond that now. Senator Brandis, through his contempt, has been forced to use this issue to defend himself.

Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (15:44): I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Brandis to questions without notice. I was not aware of the initial motion when I stood to speak earlier. I am concerned by the level of contribution that has been put into this topic by a number of people. I was pleased to hear Senator Moore's comment that it is good that everyone has the opportunity to say that they abhor racism and that they will do what they can to stop it. But to suggest that to change a poorly drafted piece of Labor legislation is somehow to behave in a racist way is not acceptable. It is not about freedom of speech. It is not about anything that, in my view, should be happening in Australia or within Australian values. It is not reasonable. Senator Brandis has put out an exposure draft which will be available for a month for people to comment on, if they wish. If you do not like the way it is currently drafted—which Senator Singh certainly appears to believe—you are perfectly free to comment to Senator Brandis on the way it is currently drafted and to suggest new drafting. There is no way that there is not the ability for Australia to have legislation that both opposes racial vilification and allows freedom of speech. But it is not going to happen with the sort of nannying behaviour that we have had in the past from the former Labor government.

I do not believe that anybody could possibly see the outcome of the Andrew Bolt case as acceptable in Australia. It is not acceptable in Australia. I certainly share very few of Mr Bolt's views. But I will fight to the death—as would anybody, I would hope, in this place—for his right to express those views. Whether he expressed them accurately or not is not a matter for legislation around racial vilification. One would think that that sort of a problem could be taken to the Press Council if there were inaccuracies in the reporting. That is the body that deals with inaccuracies in media commentary or reporting. That is the body to talk to. To suggest that, because his report contained inaccuracies, it somehow becomes racial vilification is not reasonable in any way, shape or form. I did not like the views expressed in the article that was the subject of the court case involving Mr Bolt, but he has the right, in Australia, to have those views.

Whilst others might suggest that this is a very minor point to be using as the basis for changing legislation, it has the potential to be an extremely important point. I would think that anybody in this place would thoroughly respect and acknowledge that Attorney-General Brandis is someone who has the utmost regard and the utmost respect for law and for a liberal, with a small 'l', interpretation of law and the rights of the individual under the law in Australia. So I cannot believe that this opposition wants to attack this legislation. Well, I can, I am afraid, believe it. Certainly, if there were any penalties for inaccurate statements about legislation within this parliament the entire opposition—the entire non-government side—would stand condemned for the way they have misinterpreted and misrepresented this legislation.

I am a member of a very privileged group within Australia: a white Anglo-Saxon. I cannot begin to know what it is personally like to experience racial hatred or racial vilification. Nevertheless, I would not want to see that happen to anyone in Australia. I certainly have very strong views on disability discrimination. I do not want to see people attacked for their race in the same way I do not want to see people attacked because of a disability or because they are different in any way from anybody else. The opposition have a month to comment calmly and succinctly on this legislation. They should take it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:49): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Milne) today relating to the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

Senator Milne's questions in the chamber today were important. They were about green jobs and green investment in this country. Unfortunately, Senator Cormann's responses were all about risk: sovereign risk and that which has been built in this country being put at risk in terms of what that has delivered in investment and jobs. We know that the renewable energy target is important. It gives businesses certainty. It gives the installers of household solar systems certainty, and it gives investors in large renewable energy projects in this country certainty. There has never been a clearer case of sovereign risk that I have seen than what the Liberal-National government are doing to the renewable energy sector in this country. It is fine if you want to put the renewable energy target up for review. But when you do put it up for review, I think that review is going to say that if you abolish the renewable energy target—and Senator Cormann would not go on record today to say whether he would abolish the renewable energy target or whether he would combine the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target with the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme—you will put at risk 6,750 photovoltaic jobs just in the area of installing solar panels and solar systems in this country.

It is estimated that 1,200 of those jobs are in Western Australia. You will also put at risk 700 megawatts of new electricity generation and 7,000 new construction jobs in this exciting sector by 2020. The review will also tell you, Senator Cormann, the benefits of the renewable energy target: wholesale prices of electricity reduced to $10 a megawatt hour. It will also tell you that it will add 14 gigawatts of clean energy to this country's future and create more than 30,000 jobs, reduce emissions and reduce reliance on expensive gas. More than a million households around the country now have gone down the path of reducing their power bills, reducing their electricity bills, by installing household PV, photovoltaics.

If it is left unchanged, I am very confident the review will show—if it is not a sham; if it is not run by people who have an agenda against the renewable energy industry in this country—an additional $18.7 billion in new investment in an exciting and innovative industry. It is one of the few we have in this country where we have had transition from old industries to industries that have technology where there is a lot of interest in investment, and which has broad community support. One million household solar panels across this country—that the Liberal-National government are going to have to do a lot of explaining about, if they start playing around with the incentives put in place by Senator Milne and the Greens, with support from Labor, to transition this country to a renewal energy future.

One exciting example of the type of project we would like to see more of is Carnegie Wave Energy in Western Australia. I know one senator on the other side—I won't break confidences—who is very excited about this project in his home state, and he happens to be a minister in this government. That type of project, partly funded by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, is reliant on incentives in the clean energy package. It is the sort of thing that Western Australia can point to and be very proud of—a local, home-grown innovative technology using the power of waves in our ocean. They are potentially untapped unlimited energy sources for the future that do not pollute the planet and do not put the future of our environment and our communities at risk.

So who is putting those at risk? It is Senator Cormann, by today refusing to provide the certainty that the renewable energy industry needs, by refusing to provide the certainty that the million household owners of photovoltaic energy in this country need and by refusing to provide the certainty and reduce the sovereign risk that big investors need to invest in renewable energy in this country.

Question agreed to.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:58): I, and also on behalf of Senator Milne, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

   (i) Australia's co-sponsorship of the:

      (A) 2012 United Nations (UN) General Assembly Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution calling on the Sri Lankan Government to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka and to take credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans, and

      (B) 2013 UN General Assembly HRC resolution expressing concern at continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, and reiterating the call on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the commission's recommendations and to fulfil its commitment to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law,

   (ii) reports of continuing violations of human rights in Sri Lanka; intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society and journalists; threats to judicial independence and the rule of law; and a rapid rise in violence and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief in Sri Lanka, and

   (iii) the High Commissioner for Human Rights' conclusion that national mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice in Sri Lanka, and her recommendation that the HRC establish an international inquiry mechanism to further investigate the alleged violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law and monitor any domestic accountability processes; and

(b) calls on the Australian Government to:

   (i) maintain Australia's strong record of support for human rights at the 25th session of the HRC, and

   (ii) join with the United Kingdom and the United States and other co-sponsoring nations and commit the Australian Government to the strongest possible support to the draft HRC resolution A/HRC/25/L.1.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (15:59): Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator FIFIELD: The Australian government takes all allegations of human rights abuses and international crime seriously. Australia consistently raises issues of human rights' accountability and reconciliation directly with the Sri Lankan government. We continue to urge the Sri Lankan government to give the highest priority to implementing the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission process.

The Australian government believes that engaging Sri Lanka, not isolating it, is the most effective way to encourage and advance progress on human rights and accountability and for promoting reconciliation. A decision on whether Australia will co-sponsor a US-led resolution on Sri Lanka will be made after due consideration of the final text and the balance of issues it raises.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator MILNE: I note the government's response to this and say that it is completely disingenuous. The meeting in Geneva is taking place right now. The vote will be tonight. In the debate on this particular matter the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States are moving for an international independent inquiry into Sri Lanka. Australia has sat on the sidelines and been silent, and has allowed China, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran to add the so-called balance that the Australian government wants, to give praise to the Rajapaksas, when any number of reports out there—Island of impunity? and Can't flee; can't stay—condemn the Sri Lankan government.

Appeasing the Rajapaksas is entirely the wrong way to go for your domestic 'stop the boats' policy. It is disgraceful foreign policy to have our view represented in that. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:02): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) agrees that every Australian student deserves a world-class education, specifically:

    (i) that all Australian students deserve quality teachers and quality teaching to ensure the highest standard of education, and

    (ii) that excellence in teaching practice has a significant impact on student outcomes;

(b) notes that Australia's most recent PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] results indicate a downward trend in Australia's student performance relative to other nations across the fields of mathematics since 2003, reading since 2000 and scientific literacy since 2006;

(c) recognises that the most successful education systems across the globe have a consistent approach to education policy that has a practical focus on learning, and develops a strong culture of teacher education, research, collaboration, mentoring, feedback and continued professional development;

(d) accepts that high quality education is critical to ensuring the Australian economy is equipped with the skills and knowledge to adapt to the challenges of this century; and

(e) supports measures that improve professional development, pedagogical approaches, and mentoring for teachers in order to promote quality teaching in Australia.

Question agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (16:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WRIGHT: I rise to express support for the motion but also to express surprise about which side of the chamber this motion has come from. Although I believe that Senator McKenzie does have the future of Australian schools at heart, we must remember that it is her government which has stood in the way of achieving everything Senator McKenzie proposes here.

The coalition government has undermined the recommendations of the Gonski review panel at every step of the way. The coalition education minister still maintains that there is no inequality in Australian schools. Australia's thousands of excellent teachers do have a huge impact on students all around the country, but the biggest determining factor for student outcomes in Australia remains family wealth. Until the coalition government acknowledges this and supports genuine needs based funding to give every child a world-class education we will not see the change we need. I urge Senator McKenzie to persuade the education minister to implement the original recommendations of the Gonski review panel in all Australian schools.

Senator BACK (Western Australia—Second Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:04): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator BACK: I rise to support Senator McKenzie in moving this motion and express a degree of surprise and reject the comments made by Senator Wright. We sit on enough committees so that we all know very well that there is a very strong support for education in this country. I remind Senator Wright—she is well aware—that the pillars are, firstly, parental engagement—the expectation of parents that will ensure that children go to school at the earliest age with the highest possible expectations; secondly, the quality of training of teachers; thirdly, the quality and mentoring and capacity of ongoing professional learning by teachers; and, lastly, special attention to the disadvantaged: those of Aboriginal background, disabled students, those from low socio-economic backgrounds and those from regional and remote areas. I strongly endorse Senator McKenzie's comments and I express disappointment at Senator Wright's.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:05): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

    (i) on 15 December 2012, prominent community development and youth education leader Mr Sombath Somphone disappeared in Vientiane, Laos, and

    (ii) his whereabouts remain unknown, and statements by the Laotian Government on this case have failed to address concerns of the international community, including those raised by the European Parliament, Amnesty International and successive Secretaries of State in the United States;

(b) expresses deep concern regarding the disappearance, safety and wellbeing of Mr Somphone; and

(c) calls on the Laotian Government to undertake an immediate and credible investigation of Mr Somphone's disappearance, and willingly cooperate with the international community, including the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:05): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges:

    (i) there are people with a cognitive impairment all around the country being held in indefinite detention without trial or conviction,

    (ii) that it is unacceptable for people to be held in custody indefinitely without conviction,

    (iii) that, as of June 2013, there were 37 people being held without conviction in Western Australia, and

    (iv) an overwhelming number of people being held indefinitely who have a cognitive impairment are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders;

(b) notes the failure of state and federal governments to provide suitable accommodation and support services for people with cognitive impairment that come in contact with the justice system; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to take leadership and negotiate with state and territory governments to provide appropriate accommodation and support services for people with a cognitive impairment who have contact with the justice system.

Question agreed to.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (16:14): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) a controversial development application on Commonwealth heritage land at Sydney Harbour's Middle Head is currently being assessed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust,

(ii) Middle Head is the land of the Ku-Ring-Gai people and provides habitat for a wide range of native species,

(iii) the development application is unanimously opposed by the National Trust NSW and Mosman Council,

(iv) the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has two more development sites in the Headland Park which are being marketed by NSW Trade and Investment in China,

(v) under federal heritage laws the proposed development in the Headland Park requires the approval of the Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and

(vi) the proposed development is in a bushfire prone area; and

(b) calls on:

(i) the Minister for the Environment and the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to not approve the proposed development application and to not accept any new or amended application for development on the Ten Terminal site,

(ii) the Government to properly fund the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust so that it can fulfil its duties under the Act to preserve, conserve and interpret the heritage values of all Sydney Harbour Trust lands, and

(iii) the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to fully consult with the public and the local community on:

   (A) the most suitable way to welcome people to Headland Park, and how to re-use a suitable site for a visitors centre to interpret the natural and cultural values of the site, and

   (B) alternative uses for Ten Terminal which interpret the heritage values of Middle Head.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) (16:15): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: The government will be opposing this motion. Even by the usual standards of the Australian Greens this is an excessive and extreme anti-development motion. The motion describes a 'controversial development'. For the benefit of the chamber, that controversial development is a proposal to use some disused former Defence buildings as a potential aged care facility. This is obviously a potentially valuable piece of public infrastructure for the local community. The motion is also erroneous in terms of calling for the government to properly fund the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The trust was established as a self-funding entity. It leases buildings out and, in return, reinvests those funds in providing enhanced public access. I assure the local community in this area that the government will make sure there is no net loss of public space from this development, that it does improve local amenity in the community and that we will undertake full and proper consultation in this consideration.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:19): A letter has been received from Senator Moore:

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

The right of every Australian to be protected from hate speech including speech that offends, insults or humiliates on the basis of race.

Is the proposal supported?

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

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:20): I rise to speak on a matter that is indeed of great public importance. It is Labor's belief that every Australian has the right to be protected from speech that offends, insults or humiliates on the basis of race. By contrast, the Abbott government believes in the rights of the bigots. The Abbott government wants to legitimise, encourage and empower bigotry. The Attorney-General's stated rationale for the government's proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act is to protect the rights of the bigots. As he told the Senate so famously already on Monday of this week, 'people do have a right to be bigots'. Even for a government which seems to specialise in backward-looking policy, in aggressive and bullying politics, this was an extraordinary and retrograde step.

We in this country have built a remarkably tolerant, democratic and free multicultural Australia. But we all know that there are still the bigoted and the prejudiced amongst us. We all know that their conduct can humiliate, belittle, hurt and damage people. That is why, collectively, we have agreed to the protections contained in the Racial Discrimination Act and that is why those protections are needed. It is also why people in leadership positions have a responsibility to stand up to bigotry and prejudice, especially in this place. We in this place have a responsibility to denounce racial prejudice, not to defend it on specious grounds, not to encourage it by our actions or our silence and certainly not to legislate in its interests.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister proclaimed that reinstating the British honours would add a grace note to Australian society. On the same day, the government released legislation to allow Australians to be insulted and humiliated on the basis of their race. That is not a grace note. It is an ugly note—a jarring note of discord. It will encourage bullies and create division and intolerance. It will damage the fabric of our society and, most importantly, it will hurt real people, individuals who will experience real pain.

This week in the Senate, as I have said, we saw the first law officer of the land stand up, loudly and proudly defending the rights of bigots. This really revealed the ethical framework that lies behind this legislation. It reveals the philosophy which is driving this government to seek these changes—a philosophy which prioritises the rights of bigots to say what they will, ahead of the rights of individuals to be free from harassment. It puts the rights of bullies ahead of the rights of victims of bullying. It gives the professional loudmouths, the prejudiced and the ignorant a licence to trample all over the marginalised, the powerless and the vulnerable. This is a warped set of priorities and a walked philosophy. Professor Andrew Lynch, from the centre of public law at UNSW, said today:

Law is an instrument through which a community's values and rights may be given effect. In Monday's debate, Brandis came down firmly on the side of those who would give voice to racially motivated insult and offence, over those who are targeted by such comments.

I acknowledge that there are many good people in the Liberal Party who have taken a stand and who show leadership against racism and discrimination: people such as former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and people inside the Abbott government who have spoken against changes to the act, such as Mr Wyatt and Mr Laundy. But the Prime Minister and this Attorney-General have, with this legislation, revealed that they are ideological throwbacks. They are prosecuting the agenda of the narrowest of sectional interests imaginable—the sectional interests of a single powerful columnist whose opinions are amplified daily by the resources of one of the world's biggest media corporations and who evidently wields considerable power over this government. His interests are to be put ahead of the interests of so many Australians—ahead of the interests of Indigenous Australians, immigrants and the children of immigrants. One person's agenda is being allowed to trump the interests of Australians who seek to live in a decent and tolerant society.

We have previously seen this failure of leadership on race from the most senior figures in the Liberal Party, because when the Attorney-General responds to criticism of this legislation by saying, 'People do have a right to be bigots, you know,' he is echoing someone we all remember. He is doing exactly as former Prime Minister John Howard did at the time when Pauline Hanson called for multiculturalism to be abolished and claimed Australia was being swamped by Asians. What was the response from the then Prime Minister? When he was asked whether Asian Australians should be protected from people like her, he said:

Well, are you saying that somebody shouldn't be allowed to say what she said? I would say in a country such as Australia people should be allowed to say that.

He defended her right to speak freely, but who did he not defend? He did not defend the rights of those she attacked, to be free of vilification. When senior political figures in this country engage in this kind of manoeuvre it sends a bad message. It sends a message that it is acceptable to rail against those who look different, and that is a point I made in my first speech to this place in 2002.

I am distressed and angry that this is a point that still needs to be made today, because we always need leadership on issues of race. It is not about denying free speech; it is about asserting the harm done by racist speech. It is not just about laws and legal protection; it is about the message influential people send to the community. And the message our Attorney-General has sent is that those who are marginalised, victimised and harassed are not a priority for this government. So when he says to Senator Peris, 'People do have a right to be bigots, you know,' he is empathising with the bullies and showing callous disregard for the vulnerable. It is moral equivocation and dog-whistle politics, masquerading as support for free speech. This remark from our Attorney-General shows he does not appreciate the need for leadership in a society where people experience bigotry.

I have seen bigotry face on and it is not a pretty sight. Words have an impact. They hurt and do lasting damage—not only the words of bigots but also the words of those in leadership positions when they defend the rights of bigots and stand by silent.

As Australia's first law officer, the Attorney-General has a responsibility to show leadership on these issues. Instead, we have seen him fail the test of leadership by bringing forward these retrograde proposals. We have seen him fail the test of leadership in choosing to defend the rights of bigots rather than standing up for victims. We also see him fail that test in the way he conducts himself in public debate, because he has a predilection for getting personal—a predilection for personal attack, denigration and denunciation. We all remember his disgraceful claim in this place about there being a criminal in the Lodge.

Then, this morning, when he was asked to respond to the shadow Attorney-General's argument that the exemptions in the government's proposed section 18D were so wide that you could drive a truck through them, he responded:

I doubt the Shadow Attorney-General could drive a truck through anything frankly.

That is personal denigration rather than principled debate, abuse rather than analysis. And I will not even deign to respond to his accusation of me of bigotry. It is extraordinary and false. Frankly, Senator Brandis's predilection for going personal are the tactics of a bully stuck in the sandpit of student politics, not those of the Attorney-General of this country. What is the public benefit in removing legal protection against hate speech? There is no conceivable public benefit in enabling blatant racial attacks. How does it benefit our Australian community to make it easier for people to vilify others because of their race or ethnicity? How does it benefit our community to defend bigotry instead of tolerance? It does not benefit our community. In fact, it damages and divides our community. It is very clear that there are really two sides in this debate. We on this side—the Labor party—stand with the community, the ethnic groups, the Indigenous Australians, and the hardworking migrants who have come to Australia and who helped build this nation because it is a fair and free society. And on the other side of this debate, we have an Abbott government who stands with a powerful journalist, with libertarian ideologues, and with the defenders of bigotry. I have said before in this place: prejudice and distrust cannot build a community, but they can tear one apart.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (16:30): I have said before that I am a first amendment type of guy. I have long admired the American culture that values freedom of speech as a critical, non-negotiable and—I think even more importantly—virtually unconditional component of a free society. Senator Wong talks about people being attacked. I should probably declare at this point that I am a longstanding member and a former research fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs. What we have heard from the other side of this chamber—and from my good friend Senator Cameron, who has just left—over and over again is the vilification of people merely by virtue of the institute at which they work. There is a reason why the Greens and the ALP hate the Institute of Public Affairs—it is because it is not part of their public sector mentality. It challenges the precepts that they put up, and it cannot be bowed by the fact that it is not on the public sector drip, the way they wish all civil society was.

What we have just heard from Senator Wong and what we have heard constantly from those opposite, including the Greens, relies on a profound misunderstanding of what our society is. They seem to view our rights, particularly our right to speech and our right to discuss—our right to participate in democracy and in a free flow of ideas—as coming to us via a licence from politicians or judges. They seem to think that, somehow, the laws in this place determine what we are allowed and not allowed to say. That is a profound misrepresentation of our constitutional and legal history. It is only in recent times that there have been such limits on things like speech. This is a profound fissure in what we view as the role of the state, and what we view as the role of the government and its relationship with the citizens of this country. Senator Wong accused Senator Brandis of celebrating the rights of bigots. What I will say is that I condemn the bigot, but I celebrate the rights of every citizen. And that is important, because a commitment to freedom of speech only really counts when it is tested. A commitment to freedom of speech only really counts when it comes to defending something you profoundly and viscerally disagree with—and that is where my commitment to free speech lies.

It is not about the public funding of artists. I do not have to fund someone to support their right to say something. There is a profound difference between the allocation of taxpayers' resources to give someone the right to do something, and the question of whether or not they are allowed to say something. I will defend the right of someone to speak, but that does not entail and should not be confused with the idea that I should resource them to speak.

We have heard the constant complaints of those opposite over the last 48 hours about ethnic community leaders, multicultural community leaders, and their views on this particular proposal. I said at the start that I was a first amendment type of person: I view the proposal put up by the government and Senator Brandis in the exposure draft as a compromise. I accept that my views are not typical of all those in this place, or indeed all those in this country, in supporting a very strong and almost unlimited commitment to freedom of speech. The problem I have is that those opposite seem to see us as a nation of tribes; as a nation where self-declared leaders of communities—communities defined by race—should somehow have a special place in the consideration of legislation that any other Australian citizen should not. Every Australian's view has an equal standing in this place—every Australian's view, no matter what community they declare themselves to be from; whether it be one or many; and whether or not they declare themselves to be leaders of communities. The elected bodies in this country are the elected representatives of the Australian people. We do not believe in a corporatist society, or in one where there are a series of tribes where, somehow, some people have more rights than others.

The ALP and the Greens seek to define this as a debate about racism when it is not. It is a debate profoundly about speech, its limits, and the role of governments, politicians and judges in limiting the rights of our fellow citizens to express ideas. How is it our role to empower certain people in Australia, in this case judges under the current law, to determine whether another opinion is arrived at or expressed in good faith? That is the current provision in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. What happened to Andrew Bolt was that a court said that his opinion was not expressed in good faith. It did not just ban the expression of that opinion; it banned its re-publication. It had to declare an Orwellian moment—that it never happened. The point being that, of all those in this place, it was once the centre and the left of Australian politics who campaigned against censorship, yet it is the left of Australian politics who are now its greatest advocates.

Those opposite are confused between legality and licence. To not make activities illegal is not to approve of them. The great problem with speech being banned is it denies people—community leaders, as Senator Wong pointed out, and people like me, you, and others in this chamber; it denies us the opportunity to repudiate. Some speech should be repudiated. Some speech should be humiliated. Some speech should be ridiculed. But by banning it, it goes underground. In this technological world, where we cannot control the sources of news, that threat is even greater than when these laws were first passed just under two decades ago.

Those opposite confuse this with defamation law. It is an attempt to fudge the point, because defamation law often deals with issues and imputations of fact, not opinion. But this law can ban opinion. They ask why we are concerned that one journalist who they say is powerful had their opinion banned. I say, the idea that a court said that an article had to be stripped from a major newspaper's website, and banned the expression of an opinion, is something we should all be concerned about. I remember the days when we would all have been concerned about that.

The most extreme left-wing activist lawyer in the United States's ACLU would not tolerate this legislation. It shows how far the Labor Party and the Greens have moved from respect for basic individual rights for this law to even be considered, to say nothing of the laws proposed by the former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon which were going to expand the grounds for legal action of one citizen against another to an almost limitless number. Again, she confused our role of setting the boundaries as to what is illegal with regulating and proscribing the expression of opinion and expression of ideas.

I am proud to say I know Andrew Bolt. I would not necessarily describe him as a friend, only because I do not know him that well. The vilification to which he has been subjected by the professional left in this country over the last two years and the use of the law to ban him from expressing his opinion has been unprecedented. It is unprecedented in Australia's past to ban people from expressing political opinions. I know Andrew, and he does not have a racist bone in his body. But those opposite who disagree seek to use the law to suppress his views.

More harm was done to the views of those who oppose racism by this case and the ruling by Justice Bromberg that a member of the victim group shall be the standard by which racism is measured. So there was no arbitrary test that any Australian could be certain of to know when their opinion would be legal and when it would not be legal. More damage was done by the professional left activists and the legal censors who think it is their right to regulate speech in Australia. While I have always opposed these laws, they were not on the public agenda until the laws that those opposite are supporting here today meant for the first time the court was going to ban the expression of opinion. We were going to censor newspapers—and we did, because republication of Andrew Bolt's views was banned.

I was invited a couple of years ago to give a speech to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry on this point. I know Colin Rubenstein and Jeremy Jones. I know their work against racism is profound. I know they have done a lot of good work, but I respectfully disagree with them on these laws. I cannot recount all of my reasons in the time available today, but one is that in places where these laws exist, particularly in the old world of Europe where there are speech codes, there are things such as, for example, the armoured personnel carriers that I saw outside the new synagogue in Berlin just over a decade ago. They are the places with all the racial problems. It is the new world—such as Canada, which has recently repealed some of these laws, Australia, New Zealand and the United States—which has provided a home, refuge and sanctuary for people from all around the world. In particular, the communities that have been oppressed in those countries of Europe have often found refuge in the country with the freest speech on earth—and that is the United States. I have faith in my fellow citizens that we will debate this and come to the right resolution. Those opposite, sadly, do not. I do not know where it went.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (16:40): Yesterday I was gobsmacked as I watched the Attorney-General unveil a proposal that he described as 'the strongest protections against racism that have ever appeared in any Commonwealth act'. I was gobsmacked because as I was listening to what he was proposing the reality of the proposal bore absolutely no resemblance to that claim. George Orwell would certainly recognise the doublespeak that we are hearing here: 'Weak is strong. Racism will set you free.'

These proposed changes from the Attorney-General will actually see a fundamental weakening of the laws which prevent racism in our society—and the Greens will have none of it. Firstly, the Attorney-General proposes to take away the current protections in the Racial Discrimination Act set out in section 18C which make it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' a person on the basis of their race. Instead, he will substitute a much higher bar to be met before someone can claim protection from the law. He will require 'vilification', which is narrowly defined to mean only inciting hatred against a person or group of persons. It is about inciting hatred of others; it is not about the effect on the person being vilified. He will require 'intimidation', with that only meaning a fear of physical harm. Therefore, he is leaving out psychological and emotional abuse, which we know from people who experience these things is often much more damaging. In these so-called strongest protections in Commonwealth law such behaviour will not even be caught up as a criminal offence. It will remain a civil offence. So the bar will be higher but the penalties will be no tougher.

Finally, just in case someone may get caught up in this scheme, there will be extraordinarily broad exemptions which will make it virtually impossible to take action against anyone who does meet this high threshold anyway, because the section will not apply to:

… words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated—

it is hard to imagine how you could communicate words that do not fit within those categories—

in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.

I think the exemptions have left no stone unturned.

These exemptions are so broad it will be impossible to distinguish between legitimate debate and hate speech. There is no requirement for reasonableness or good faith. And there is no requirement to consider the effects of the vilification from the point of view of the person being vilified. Without any definition of public discussion, these exemptions could even include a water cooler debate at a workplace. Yet we have the Attorney-General's constantly repeated claim that he is offering the 'strongest protections against racism that have ever appeared in any Commonwealth act'.

The Human Rights Law Centre has said this claim is astonishing and not backed by any basic analysis. They say that 'these changes substantially weaken the existing protection'. That is what the community is also saying. That is why people are up in arms and so are organisations like the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, along with representatives from Australia's Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities, to name just some of them. That is because they know the experience of racial abuse and discrimination on a daily basis. They know the consequences—eroding of sense of self, wellbeing and worth—in Australia.

Let us remember that Justice Bromberg, in the celebrated Eatock v Bolt case, said that it was significant that young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity may be apprehensive to identify as Aboriginal or publicly identify as Aboriginal as a result of witnessing the ferocity of Mr Bolt's attacks on the individuals dealt with in the articles.

This change would ensure that similar attacks will happen in Australia in the future and there will be many more of them, with devastating consequences for the people targeted. The Australian Greens are proud to stand up with multicultural groups to say no to these proposed repeals. We can reconcile freedom of speech with the freedom to participate fully and safely in our community without being racially abused. The Australian Greens will reject this shameful proposal.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (16:45): Last week, many members of parliament celebrated Harmony Day. But this week, this government has given a slap in the face to that day. It has given a slap in the face to multicultural Australia. Why is that? That is through the proposed changes that Senator Brandis has introduced into this place that give people in a position of privilege—people like Senator Brandis and people like Andrew Bolt—a platform to be racist.

Is that really the kind of society that we want to live in in Australia? After nearly six months, the first piece of legal reform that our Attorney-General in this country wants to bring into this parliament to become Australian law is the kind of law that will allow more racist activity and more bigotry in this nation, with little recourse for those who are being abused and vilified to have any resolve.

The victims of racial abuse do not have the same position of power or the same position of privilege that those like Senator Brandis and Mr Andrew Bolt have. They are not in that same position to defend themselves. This is not a level playing field. There is a clear power imbalance and that is why we have the Racial Discrimination Act providing some recourse for addressing that imbalance. The current laws in question, sections 18C and 18D, work perfectly fine. The majority of disputes brought before the Human Rights Commission are resolved through mediation. The law works. It is there working perfectly fine.

I understand that Senator Brandis knows the law all too well. I am sure that his understanding of the law is very fine. But while he may have an understanding of the law, I believe he would have little understanding of racism. If he did have an understanding of racism, he would know how these changes do not provide protection to people from racial abuse. He has narrowed these new racial discrimination amendment proposals so that they are so narrow that anyone being racially abused has little opportunity or recourse for what has occurred to them to be addressed. He has narrowed the laws so that the word 'vilify' only means to incite hatred against a person and that 'intimidate' is narrowed to causing fear or physical harm.

If that was not enough, he has then put a huge range of exceptions to all of that in section 4. Despite the outcry from various sections of the ethnic and broader community—some 150 organisations; some of which Senator Brandis has met himself—he has chosen to ignore them entirely and instead adopt what Andrew Bolt and the IPA have wanted all along.

I am all for freedom of speech but not at any cost, not at the cost of people being racially abused and not when it comes to issues of race. They are some of the views that have also been put forward by a number of those ethnic organisations. They are organisations including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Chinese organisations, Korean organisations, Arab organisations and the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples.

These changes are before us. I encourage the community to put their views forward and their objections forward, because thus far I have seen no one standing up for any changes that Senator Brandis has put forward to our Racial Discrimination Act other than his mate Andrew Bolt.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) (16:50): I start by agreeing with the remarks of Senator Singh that she made at the end. I encourage the Australian community to participate in the consultation process around these changes too. That is the entire reason that a consultation draft of legislative changes proposed by the government has been released, because it is a consultation draft, it is open for people to give feedback and it is open to improvement. I welcome the fact that that is the process that the government has undertaken. I have confidence that through that process the views of the community will be heard and the right balance will ultimately be found in legislative changes that are brought to this place.

I abhor racism, I abhor homophobia and I abhor religious intolerance. I believe deeply that the vast majority, if not every single one, of the members and senators in this place shares those sentiments. This debate around the Racial Discrimination Act is not a debate about whether or not some views are offensive. It is not even a debate about whether or not we should speak out, as leaders of the Australian community, against some of those views that we find to be offensive. Of course we should speak out, of course we should argue against those views that we find offensive and of course we should take a leadership role in that regard.

This debate is about law. It is about the laws of this country and it is about when it is that someone should have recourse to legal proceedings because of what someone else has said, when it is that someone should be able to engage through legal action purely because of what someone else has said. Ultimately this is, of course, about drawing lines in the sand, and there will always be grey areas in an action like this on either side of those lines. We discovered a couple of years ago that, for much of the community, there was concern that the way the laws were currently structured inhibited political debate to too great an extent. As a nation that treasures its freedoms, we should be respecting the freedom of speech just as much as we respect the right to protect those minority groups, those Australians who may be subject to racism, to homophobia or to religious intolerance from activities that would bring harm to them.

As a believer of free speech, I am one who looks back on the quotes of some of those in the past and at the often misquoted, or misattributed, quote of Voltaire which said:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

As I said, that was a slightly misattributed quote and is, in fact, an interpretation of Voltaire's views. The accurate quote from 1770 is:

I detest what you write, but I will give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

In this day and age we recognise that some things cross the line, which are unacceptable to have published, that can indeed incite hatred and can indeed vilify individuals or groups of people. We should rightly draw a line around those issues, but we must make sure that in drawing that line, in providing those protections for individuals against racism—as we should seek to do—we do not do so at the expense of genuine political debate, at the expense of genuine free speech, and at the expense of genuine artistic freedom in this country.

These are matters that we should stand up for. When somebody says something that we, as leaders of Australia, find to be offensive we should speak out against it. We should, as leaders, take up the challenge, which Senator Singh highlighted, in relation to people who may not have the same power of voice and make sure that their voices are heard through this place and through the media, and that we take a strong stand against intolerance. Taking a strong stand against intolerance, setting the right example for the community and trying to drive a change in community attitudes does not necessarily mean that we must always outlaw an action. It does not necessarily mean that we must always provide recourse to the law to do so. Oftentimes we will achieve the cultural change that we seek. We will achieve the change in community attitudes through leadership, through better behaviour, through better arguments, and through a sound adoption of principles and principled arguments against those who may apply racist activities.

Much has been made in this debate about the word 'bigotry' and whether or not bigotry is acceptable. Just as laws are made of words, words have meanings and in law the meaning is exceptionally important. The Oxford Dictionary defines bigotry as:

Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines bigotry as:

A person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same belief is wrong.

One would be forgiven for thinking, on occasion, that there is much bigotry because people in this place hold very strong opinions and often think that the opinions of others, which are equally strongly held, are emphatically wrong. I think most of us in this place are tolerant towards each other's beliefs and opinions, even if we disagree with them vehemently. But, of course, bigotry itself, though not an admirable trait, is not something that the current laws make illegal nor something that the proposed laws would make illegal, and nor should it be. People should be free to hold views that are different from one another, even where those views may seem to be unreasonable to many others in the community.

We should not allow this debate to be sidetracked by the misinterpretation of a word like 'bigotry' or by misunderstanding of what a word like that may mean. We should be clear that this debate is about that extreme level of unacceptable conduct, behaviour and language that we decide is appropriate to write laws about, to draw that line around and say, 'That is too far for the Australian community to accept and for the parliament of Australia to accept.' In doing so we must ensure that we balance that against the free speech objectives that we should, as a nation, seek to stand by.

As I emphasised at the outset, the government has released for consultation draft changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Those draft changes have what some in this debate should all be warmly welcoming. The changes have, for the first time, prescribed racial vilification as being inappropriate behaviour. The changes have singled that out as an activity that will never be acceptable in this country. We should welcome the fact that there will be, over the coming months, a proper debate about racial vilification, about how it is defined, about whether it is appropriately defined in current law or about whether it is appropriately defined in the proposed law. Of course, it is not defined at all in current law. It is not even mentioned in the current law. But it is mentioned and it is defined in the proposal that is being released for public commentary.

I hope that all members of the community with an interest in this topic do actively participate in this debate. I hope they do so by looking very precisely at the words in the proposed laws, at those laws themselves and at the effect they will have. I hope they do so under the guiding principle of ensuring that we are as tolerant a nation as possible—but with as much opportunity for free speech as possible. That is a line that will be drawn somewhere at the end of this debate. I hope we draw it successfully in a manner that meets those dual objectives and ensures we end up with a law that is more workable than the one we currently have has proven to be.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (17:00): Before we pass any law in this place, we should ask ourselves a pretty basic question. I am sure my colleagues on the coalition side will be pleased to hear me put this proposition. The question is: what is the problem we are trying to solve? Let us not waste the parliament's time. Let us not pass more legislation—which is what is being proposed here—if we are not solving a serious problem.

I do not remember being bombarded with lots of correspondence about the need to get rid of section 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act. I do not recall, over the past 20 years, people protesting in the street because they felt their freedom of speech was being impinged upon. I do not remember seeing protests about this issue. Most people understand that it is not appropriate to hurl racist insults at people and that, if they do, there are consequences.

The only clamour for a change to this law is coming straight out of Holt Street, straight out of News Corp, whose version of free speech is, 'Anything I say is okay and we will be the arbiters of what is right and wrong in this area.' And News Corp's poster child is that right-wing wacko Andrew Bolt. That is where the clamour is coming from to change these laws.

We need to understand what these laws actually do. I listened to an esteemed presenter on the ABC this morning implying that people who express an extreme bigoted opinion should be sent to jail. That cannot occur under these laws. It is not a criminal offence to express such an opinion. I think people do not understand how this legislation actually works. If you use racist, hateful language that has an impact on another individual, they have the right to seek mediation. That is a good thing. Most of these cases are settled through mediation and someone learns a valuable lesson about the impact of hate speech on other people. Occasionally, as in the Bolt case, it can end up in court. What does the court do in those situations? They might order an apology, which is what happened in the Bolt case. He was issued with a court order to apologise, he was forced to retract his article and he was ordered not to publish it elsewhere. That is a small price to pay when you consider the impact of this behaviour on other people.

All of us in this place support freedom of speech. But what about the freedom of a young Muslim woman on a tram—being free to travel without having people hurl racist insults at her? What about the right of an Aboriginal man to be served at a venue without having racist insults hurled at him? What about the freedom of a young Asian boy in the classroom to get about his business without being the subject of racist taunts? That is what this legislation is about—nothing more, nothing less.

Senator Brandis talks about the 'chill effect' as though there are teams of writers and lawyers poring over work that cannot be published because—God forbid—there might be something in it that might be racist towards others. He says that without being able to cite any evidence of it occurring. If these laws give journalists pause to think that the impact of what they are writing may in fact cause harm to others, that is a good thing. If they are forced to apologise because they do cause harm to others, that is a good thing.

Far from having a chilling effect, this action by the government will have a heating effect. It will flush out the racists and the bigots and give them, to use the Prime Minister's words, the 'green light' to use their hate speech against others. There has been a lot of talk about green lights, amber lights and red lights, but this government is putting this sign up in flashing lights—'Racists and bigots, you are welcome in Australia'. Well, you are not. These laws exist because we as a government have a role in protecting people from hateful speech.

Senator PERIS (Northern Territory) (17:05): I rise to speak in support of this matter of public importance. This issue highlights the difference between Labor and the Liberals. Labor believes racial abuse and hate speech is never okay. The Liberals believe, as the Attorney-General said, that the rights of bigots need to be protected.

On Monday in this house I asked whether his changes to the Racial Discrimination Act would facilitate vilification by bigots. In response the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of Australia, said

People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive, insulting or bigoted.

It was a disgraceful statement and it is disgusting. His statement is a green light to racism and hate speech. What message does this send to our young Australians at a time when we are trying to stop bullying? This is an admission from the Attorney-General that his changes to the Racial Discrimination Act will provide for bigotry.

For the record, I am not against free speech, not at all. What I am against is promoting hate speech. I am extremely disappointed that we are even having this debate. It upsets me that we are having a debate about whether the law of the Commonwealth of Australia makes it okay to be a bigot. We are having a debate about whether it is okay to attack someone based on their race or religion. I thought we had moved on. What happened to, 'In history's page, let every stage advance Australia fair'?

You do not have to be Aboriginal or from one of the many international cultures that make Australia so fantastic to be appalled by the Attorney-General's position. You do not have to have been personally subjected to racial abuse to oppose his views. You do not have to be a victim of hate to be offended by the changes proposed to the Racial Discrimination Act by the Abbott government. But I have been personally vilified by bigots. It is a horrible feeling, it is shattering and it hurts to the core of your existence. I played sport at the highest level and at times I was exposed to a mentality that anything that happens on the field stays on the field. But I really thought we had moved on in society. But some of the language I have heard from the Attorney-General in his attempts to defend his position remind me of the attempts by some people 20 years ago to defend racism on the sporting field. In relation to this debate in this parliament, he said:

… we offend and, I dare say, we insult each other every day. That is part of the robustness of the discussion of public issues.

But we are not attacking or offending or insulting each other every day based on race, religion or ethnic background. The Attorney-General simply does not understand or get racial abuse. He does not understand how much it hurts. Racial vilification and political criticism are two completely different things. The Australian of the Year, Adam Goodes, an AFL champ, could not care less if people criticise or abuse him for the way he plays football, but we have all seen the devastating effect racial abuse has on people. They are not the same. During my sporting career, I did not care if people attacked or criticised me for my performance on the field, but I did care when I was attacked and criticised for the colour of my skin and called a 'nigger' by my own Aussie team mate, and I took action against it. Racism hurts.

The changes announced yesterday by the Attorney-General water down the Racial Discrimination Act. Pretty much anyone and everyone can say anything at any time. All they have to do is claim that it was part of public discussion. It is shameful. Darwin, my home town, is a wonderful multicultural city and I know many people will be appalled and personally hurt by these changes. Tony Abbott said he would be the Prime Minister for Aboriginal people. As an Aboriginal Australian, I urge him to listen to Aboriginal people and abandon his changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Listen to Adam Goodes, our Australian of the Year. Listen to Warren Mundine, the man who heads up his council. Listen to the people in our community who are fearful that these changes mean that they will be subjected to more abuse, more insults and more humiliation.

The Prime Minister says he is opposed to racial vilification, but you cannot be opposed to racial vilification while supporting the right to bigotry. I condemn the comments of the Attorney-General, George Brandis; I condemn the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act; and I condemn those opposite who support the Attorney-General's comments and his backward legislation.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (17:10): This is an important debate. It goes to the heart of how far we think we have progressed as a democratic nation. It goes to the heart of how we balance those freedoms that set us apart from so many other citizens in our global community. It is clear from today's debate that there are a variety of views, and that is why the government's decision to have an exposure draft, to invite community opinion and to encourage community discussion on this is a good process. It would have been very disappointing—it would have been indefensible—if the government had come to a position and not provided an opportunity for the community and the parliament to debate it in a calm and measured way.

I do not doubt for a moment that the views of others that are different from mine are genuinely held, and I give them great generosity, because I understand that my lived experience will be very different from the lived experience so far of many others. I cannot comprehend the shattering hurt that people may have felt over their lived experience so far as a result of racism. From my own personal experience, I know the shattering hurt that can come from homophobic thoughts and actions. But my lived experience means that I will be listening carefully to the views of many Australians—not just elected representatives but others across the community—on this sensitive issue.

But I start from the position of supporting freedom. I start from the position of trusting Australians. I start from the position of saying that bigotry, homophobia and religious intolerance should be pulled out of the darkness and put in a public place and that we should educate with speech and discussion to deter people from those ill-founded thoughts. Of course, in a nation as big as ours, we will not always be able to put hand on heart and know that 100 per cent of Australians are free from ignorant or ill-considered thoughts, but the debate that we are engaging in is one about whether or not we think the community can step up, the government can step back and, as a result of that, our democratic fabric can be strengthened over time and not weakened. I am sure I speak for many, many Western Australians who believe that racism is not tolerated in our country and should be combated, but many will argue that part of our democratic evolution is for government and laws to step back so that communities can step up to the challenge.

I believe that this matter of public importance is based on a false premise. If I understand the opposition's position correctly, it is that racism is festering and contagious throughout Australia and the only thing holding it back is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Senator Cameron: That's a straw-man argument. Nobody said that.

Senator SMITH: I do not think that is true. Excuse me, Senator Cameron. You will have an opportunity to debate this.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Senator Smith, please address your comments to the chair.

Senator SMITH: To put it more bluntly, I believe that the coalition has a little more faith in the basic decency, not to mention the intelligence, of Australians than others in this place may do. I am confident that that faith is not misplaced. This MPI highlights the basic problem with those who are critical of the government's exposure draft. At their core, I do not believe they trust humanity; I do not believe they trust human progress.

Why is Australia a tolerant and open society today? I would argue it is because Australians are of themselves open and tolerant, are decent to their core, do not need to be told by bureaucrats or politicians that they need to introduce— (Time expired)

Senator TILLEM (Victoria) (17:15): I rise to address a pressing matter of public importance—that being the Liberal Party's determination to open the door to racial vilification in this country. I have a message for Senator Brandis: you should not be the cheerleader or the poster boy for racial vilification in this country, particularly under the unconvincing guise of freedom of speech. We have heard Senator Brandis claim this week that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act fails to protect individuals or groups from vilification on the basis of race. This is not true.

We have heard that he intends to demolish this section of the act and, perhaps most alarmingly, that everyone has the right to be a bigot. Our history is littered with moments we can look back on and wish had not happened. This is one of those moments. On an issue as vital as this, it is critical that the government show some leadership. Perhaps Senator Brandis's comments were a slip of the tongue or a deliberate dog whistle to the ugly face of Australian society. Either way, Senator Brandis and his party have been exposed for what they are. They keep talking about an exposure draft, but they themselves have been exposed. They have been exposed as grotesque apologists for racial hatred and as defenders of racism under the thin and tiresome veneer of their misguided interpretation of free speech.

Senator Brandis's claims that the Racial Discrimination Act fails to protect people from racial vilification are false. Section 18C makes racial vilification unlawful. It provides those who need it a necessary recourse under the law. This is exactly what happened in the Federal Court case against Andrew Bolt a couple of years ago—he failed to take the opportunity to appeal that decision. Considering this, it is obvious that Senator Brandis has misled the Australian people. He has been condescending to senators who have asked legitimate questions about his intentions to dynamite section 18C, arrogantly acting as though anyone asking a question does not know what they are talking about. As the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis is the highest law officer in this country. He should not be fanning the flames of jingoistic nationalism and racism or offering platitudes to a handful of coalition sympathisers.

As someone from an ethnic background, from a minority and from a group that has been persecuted in this country, I know what racism is all about. Coming from Victoria, the most diverse state and place in the world, we know what it is like, but there are thousands upon thousands of success stories of multiculturalism which have undeniably enriched our community. The fabric they have woven throughout the community is strong and has endured. It is strong because it was woven through adversity. Language barriers, social exclusion and economic disadvantage were all mountains that people have overcome. Each fibre of this fabric is a testament to the challenges that these people have faced and overcome to make a better life for themselves. It is a story of determination. Theirs is a story of finding a piece of Australia through honest hard work and a can-do attitude, yet what Senator Brandis is proposing to do will unravel this.

Despite the shining success of Australia's multiculturalism and steps taken to reconcile our past with our first Australians, there are still disturbing elements of racial hatred in this country. It is incumbent upon this parliament—this Senate and those in the other place—to show leadership. That is not what has come from those opposite. Racial vilification is intellectually flawed, morally bankrupt and socially divisive. Australia deserves better from this government.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Order! The time for this discussion has expired.