The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (09:32): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Are there any such requests? There are none.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory) (09:33): The government will not be supporting the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014. I will go through first broadly what the bill does and also the Greens' proposed amendment, which we will not be supporting either. I will go through some of the reasons why we take a different approach on this issue.

The bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to repeal a sunset provision and enable the minister to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken. On the Greens' proposed amendment, I will quote from Senator Whish-Wilson:

The Greens have put up an amendment to ban supertrawlers and vessels with freezing capacity over 2,000 tonnes. That is a globally recognised tonnage of fish that is being looked at by groups right around the world.

He goes on:

We consider that we need separate legislation for any size over that.

He goes on:

We would ask that Labor, through Senator Ludwig, who brought this forward, consider a proper amendment that will ban this type of fishing activity in this country once and for all. This is what millions of rec—

recreational—

fishermen across this country want—

apparently, according to Senator Whish-Wilson.

We do not agree with the Greens and we do not agree with the Labor Party on this issue. The reason the government opposes this bill as well as the amendments is that the amendments will have no effect on the recently expired or current declaration made under the now lapsed legislation. We support commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers and are committed to the continuation of Australia's well-managed fisheries. The coalition has confidence in the sustainability of Australian fisheries managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. We will make any decisions regarding fisheries management based on the science. We will not be rushed. We will consider the expert panel report in its entirety and make appropriate decisions.

The government is aware of the concern among a range of groups, including recreational fishers, about the potential impact of supertrawlers on Australia's marine environment, protected species and local fish stocks. We intend to build public confidence in the fishery and fisheries management more generally. Commercial fishing has to be both environmentally and economically sustainable.

Agreeing to this bill would mean that the Minister for the Environment could declare any fishing activity at any time, and who knows what a future environment minister might do with that? For instance, he or she, in future, might consider that there is uncertainty associated with small rowboats and declare them, which would then mean that an expert panel would be established to investigate the matter, all at the cost of the taxpayer. Senator Ludwig is only bringing this back now, we believe, to play cheap wedge politics, and the Greens, not surprisingly, are jumping on the bandwagon.

Now I want to go back to Labor's record on this issue and their hypocrisy on this issue. It was Tony Burke, in his role as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who created this issue by inviting these types of vessels as part of his 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy. I quote:

… there are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.

That is from page 2 of the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority in 2009. Indeed, the former minister proudly trumpeted:

This is the first time a trawler with a storage capacity of 2000 tonne or more is likely to operate in an Australian fishery …

Then, as the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke completely bungled the development and introduction of the declared fishing activities bill in September 2012. This legislation was so bad that it needed amendment within hours of introduction. Labor clearly did not understand fisheries or fisheries management. Their bill initially banned recreational charter vessels. The declared fishing activities amendment was so bad that there was a 12-month sunset clause to kill it off.

As I said earlier, Senator Ludwig is bringing this back now to play cheap politics, notwithstanding that appalling history of mismanagement of this issue by the Labor Party and particularly by the former minister. But we know, in fact, that Senator Ludwig did once stand up for Australian fisheries. I quote from then Minister Ludwig in August 2012, responding to a Greens motion:

This disallowance motion is a message that the Greens political party do not support sustainable catch limits based on science.

Agreed. He continued:

It is a message that says the Greens want fisheries managed by politics, not qualified fisheries managers.

Well, we agree. He continued:

And it says that the Greens do not support the commercial operators who fish in some of the world's best managed fisheries.

He went on:

That message should be well understood, because I have no doubt that the same disregard for the science and management of our commercial fisheries will be extended to the legitimate pursuit of recreational fishing. As minister for fisheries—

this was Senator Ludwig saying this at the time—

I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country. We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them. They will continue to make decisions based on sound judgement to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and meet all the ecological requirements—and, moreover, predicated on the precautionary principle so often espoused by the Greens.

He went on:

Why? Because AFMA will continue to apply sound policy to ensure that we will have sustainable fisheries now and into the future. For those reasons, the government oppose this motion.

That was a reasonably succinct position put by the then minister as to why we should reject these kinds of moves, why we should reject this Greens view of the world, which is not based on science. It is based on their version of cheap politics. It is based on their aversion really to any economic activity using our natural resources.

We know what the Greens are on about, but unfortunately the Labor Party in opposition has moved far closer to the Greens than we would like to see and, I am sure, much closer than many Labor senators would like the Labor Party to be. Many senators, I am sure, would be concerned about the Labor Party pandering to the Greens.

Senator Whish-Wilson: That's why they're doing so well in the polls and you're doing so crap.

Senator SESELJA: All right. That is an interesting interjection there from Senator Whish-Wilson that the reason the Labor Party have had a spike in the polls is that they have gone closer to the Greens agenda. That is interesting. I wonder what Sam Dastyari might think about that when he is asked about whether or not it is good politics and good policy for the Labor Party to be following the Greens. But there is some truth in what Senator Whish-Wilson says, in that the Labor Party are following the Greens. I think Senator Whish-Wilson and I can agree on that. I think that for the Labor Party, if they do want to be back on the government benches at some point in the future, that is not the best strategy, because a party—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator SESELJA: Well, we will all have a different take on that, but Senator Whish-Wilson's position now is half right: the Labor Party are following the Greens, but I would disagree with the idea that the Labor Party following the Greens and moving further to the left on any policy, be it on fisheries management or anything else, is somehow going to be a winning formula, and I am sure that there would be many Labor senators—and I will not name names, but we know who they are—who would be horrified by that prospect.

Senator Lines: I think Labor is much better at getting the politics right than you are—

Senator SESELJA: Well, it is interesting, isn't it? The Labor government were obsessed with the politics. You are right, Senator Lines. You are absolutely right. The Labor Party in government were obsessed with the politics. They were obsessed with opinion polls. And that is one of the reasons they were such a shocking government, such an absolutely shocking government. In the end, their obsession with those things—instead of being good managers, instead of actually looking after the country, instead of showing good leadership—their obsession with those internal matters and their obsession with focus groups and opinion polls did not help them to be a good government and did not help them to maintain the support of the Australian people. So I thank Senator Lines for her contribution. She is absolutely right. They were obsessed with those kinds of things rather than good policy.

Senator Lines interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator SESELJA: I am very much enjoying this because I enjoy any time we can get political advice from the Greens party, because the Greens party, with their eight per cent of the vote—their eight per cent of the vote that they consistently attract—show just how much they represent mainstream Australia.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator SESELJA: Sorry, what was that? I missed that from the eight per cent party. I could not quite hear. But, unlike the Labor Party, we will not take our policy advice or our political advice from the Greens.

That is at the heart of this issue. What Senator Ludwig said when he was in government was right: we should rely on the science; we should not go for cheap politics on this issue; and the way we have managed our fisheries over a long period of time is world's best practice. It is world's best practice. You could look at instances where we have gotten things wrong, of course, but, if you compare our record to that of most nations around the world, we do a great job of maintaining a sustainable industry, of feeding millions of people right around the world through our fisheries and of having the highest environmental standards. Ask yourself. I often think about this when we discuss the issue of fisheries. We saw attempts by the former government to really scale back the amount of fishing that could take place in our waters. You often say to yourself: well, we are still going to be getting fish, but if we are not getting it from Australian waters, if we are not doing it with the best environmental standards here in Australia, we will be getting it from other places that have far lower environmental standards than we do in this country. I think we fundamentally have to ask ourselves the question about what would happen if we were to take the Greens view of the world and part of the Labor Party view of the world and say, 'Look, we're just going to ban it more and more and make it more and more restrictive for commercial fishing.'

We understand the need for balance. We absolutely support recreational fishing and we know that, if you overfish, that is negative in the long term for commercial fishing, it is negative for recreational fishing and it is not sustainable. So we have always taken a scientific approach to this, but you ask yourself: if you ban it more and more, it will happen in other places where there will not be the same kinds of environmental standards. We will not have the jobs in this country that flow from the industry. We will not have the ability to feed not just ourselves but the world, as we should. What will happen is that we will be importing more and more of the stuff, with no real knowledge of the environmental standards that apply in other places. That, to me, is the fundamental when we look at these issues.

Regarding this bill, let us go to the expert panel report. The independent expert scientific panel has completed its assessment of the potential impacts of supertrawlers, boats greater than 130 metres, on our marine environment. The panel focused on assessing the potential impact of supertrawlers on the marine environment and protected species, including seals, dolphins and seabirds, and the potential for localised depletion of target species. The panel provided the Minister for the Environment with a report on its findings in mid-October, which was published on the Department of the Environment's website on 19 November. The report gave a big tick to the existing risk based fisheries management framework used in Australian fisheries management. It is this framework that has resulted in Australia's fisheries being recognised as among the best managed anywhere in the world. This risk based management framework is already in action in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The harvest strategy exceeds internationally recommended standards such as those made by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force in the report Little Fish, Big Impact. The report also highlighted that there are risks from the proposed fishing operation, as there are with all fishing, be that commercial or recreational. The government believes that scientific evidence must continue to underpin the management of our fisheries.

That sums up our objections here to what is being driven, and is consistently driven, by the Greens—and that is that we will do it in a scientific way, not in an emotive way and not based on whatever scare might be out there at the time. It is based on the best scientific evidence around how we can continue to have a vibrant fishing industry, which we on this side of the parliament certainly want to see. We want to see a commercial fishing industry in this country that is viable, creates jobs, feeds Australians and creates an export market. That is a great thing for Australia. We also want to manage threatened species. We also want to make sure that it is commercially sustainable, which means that overfishing is not only bad for the environment; it is not commercially sustainable in the long term. We also want to see strong Indigenous recreational fishing opportunities.

All of those things do operate in this country. In large part, they operate quite well. We believe in taking a scientific approach, accepting the expert advice, rather than having this ad hoc approach that we are seeing in this kind of legislation. For all of those reasons, the coalition will not be supporting the bill.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (09:48): I rise today to speak in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014. The debate about supertrawlers is an ongoing issue of concern, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, but I do know that many senators have received emails on this issue regardless of which state or territory they represent. There is concern throughout Australia about the operation of supertrawlers in our waters.

Only this week, the Mercury newspaper, based in the southern part of Tasmania, reported on the findings of the report from the Expert Panel on a Declared Commercial Fishing Activity, the Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012. Now that the government has been given the expert panel's report, it must make a decision and end uncertainty for Tasmanian fishers.

Senator Whish-Wilson: They have been very silent on that point too, Senator Brown.

Senator CAROL BROWN: Absolutely, but that is not something that we would be surprised about, Senator Whish-Wilson. On page 302, the report concludes:

… direct interactions with protected species and localised depletion, as defined by the panel, will occur under the DCFA—

declared commercial fishing activity—

The panel’s assessment has confirmed that there are considerable uncertainties relating to the extent of those impacts and the level of impact that would create adverse environmental outcomes.

As in other fisheries facing similar uncertainties, a precautionary and adaptive, risk-based approach to management of the potential impacts of the DCFA is required.

It is clear that Tasmania's fisheries, including protected species, will be depleted if supertrawlers are allowed to operate. Dolphin and seal numbers may also be affected.

We know that the Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012 ended at midnight on 18 November this year. The Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration (No.2) 2013 will end at midnight on 24 April next year. We must act now to protect our environment and our fisheries. The factory fishing boat Meridian 1 has had approval to trawl Tasmanian waters. It will be the largest freezer trawler to fish in Australia. The Meridian 1 is expected to operate for only a few months to catch its quota of blue grenadier.

In Tasmania, news of the return of a large factory freezer trawler a few months ago put the issue of supertrawlers firmly back in the news and raised fears among the fishing industry. I want to refer to an editorial on 6 June in Hobart's Mercury newspaper on this Ukrainian owned trawler. The editorial states:

The operators of these types of trawlers that can stay at sea for long periods of time, catch enormous amounts of fish, and process their catch while at sea would do well to keep the community properly informed. Fear of the unknown brings an instant and predictable reaction.

The Mercury editorial goes on to suggest that the operators of the Meridian 1 should tell the public of their plans. It is possible that this trawler will not pose a possible risk. However, it is obvious that Tasmanian waters are attractive to large trawlers, and I believe we need to be always on our guard. It also is apparent that we need legislative protections against these supertrawlers.

At the heart of this bill is the government's inaction. In the face of the government's failure to act to protect our fisheries, stand up for recreation fishers or provide the community and industry with certainty, Labor is again taking action. Federal Labor is committed to the sustainable management of Australia's marine resources and, when in government, we were strong defenders and managers of our oceans and those who use them.

Australia's fisheries are among the most sustainable and best managed in the world. Labor is committed to ensure that this remains the case. This bill restores a power to the environment and fisheries ministers to declare particular fishing activities that have not previously been used in Australian waters and require up to two years of additional scientific review where uncertainty exists. This will enable the government of the day to review fishing methods and vessels such as supertrawlers that have not been used in Australia before.

When these powers were introduced by Labor, we put in a sunset clause of 12 months to allow a fisheries review to be implemented. To ensure that Australia's waters were adequately protected from the risks associated with the use of supertrawlers, the Labor government amended the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in September 2012 to include these powers. The power was used once by Labor in government to declare a type of fishing activity that matched the specifications of a supertrawler. At the time this picked up the vessel the FV Abel Tasman, which was formerly known as the Margiris. In April 2013, we extended these restrictions, which means that these supertrawlers cannot operate in Australian waters until at least April 2015. At that time we also established an independent expert panel, which I referred to earlier, to provide an objective impact assessment of the environmental impacts of this activity.

The use of supertrawlers in Australian waters has been a long-running issue that has generated passionate debate and high levels of concern within the community around the country. It has seen Tasmanians take to the street in large numbers to protest about supertrawlers. Tasmanians who would not normally attend public meetings have taken part in protest action. It is an issue that a large number of constituents regularly raise with me and many others, I am sure. Concerns have been raised about the bycatch of other fish, birds and marine mammals, particularly dolphins and seals. Communities need confidence that the environmental controls in place are reflective of their expectations. Re-establishing the power of the minister to establish an expert panel that will be able to assess the science is important in ensuring that communities can have this confidence.

Another concern often raised by my constituents in Tasmania, particularly those who are recreational fishers, has been the potential for localised depletion of fishing stock. In fact, Tasmanians were the first to raise their concerns about the impact of supertrawlers in our waters, at rallies and public meetings across the state. That is why I, along with my colleagues—and, I know, many others in the Senate—the member for Franklin, Julie Collins MP, and former Labor senator, Lin Thorp, lobbied the former Labor government to stop the supertrawler FV Abel Tasman from operating in Tasmanian waters in 2012.

Labor listened to the concerns and amended the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure Australia's waters were adequately protected from risks associated with the use of supertrawlers. It was Labor that put a stop to the Abel Tasman, with a ban which turned the supertrawler around before it had started trawling Australia's oceans. However, the threat of other supertrawlers has not gone away and it is up to Labor, again, to take action.

In September 2012 when the powers were originally introduced, the Liberal and National parties opposed the amendments. Then opposition members used every reason under the sun to oppose the bill, but none of those reasons were very convincing. Senator Abetz said it was a 'very dangerous precedent that it sets'. And Senator Scullion stated, 'science of the specific fishery in question didn't require additional reviews'.

In September 2013, when asked whether the new government would lift the ban, Senator Colbeck said that the government would 'consider it, based on the science'. This statement contrasts with Senator Colbeck's previously definitive position on the ban. In September 2012, Senator Colbeck called banning the supertrawler a 'serious embarrassment'. Then in June 2013 he said actions against the trawler were a 'dishonest campaign'.

However, when the now Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, was questioned on March 4 2014 about the supertrawler he said:

It was banned with the support of members on this side of the House. It was banned; it will stay banned.

I welcome those statements and I welcome the support of the Prime Minister, albeit belatedly. I would suggest that the Prime Minister and Senator Abetz, who supported the Prime Minister's statement when asked about it in this place, refresh their memories by reviewing the Hansard records.

For the record I can quote from the Hansard of 6 March 2014, when Senator Abetz said:

The answer the Prime Minister gave was very clear. The supertrawler was banned, it remains banned and, as I understand it, the company involved has no interest in bringing its supertrawler back to Australia.

But then, of course, we know that the Liberal and National parties voted against the ban in both houses of parliament. They did not think that any more science or research was needed and they did not want to stop the supertrawler. We have to be very clear here, because the Prime Minister appears to be rewriting history: they did not want any more science or research and they did not want to stop the supertrawler. The Liberals voted against banning supertrawlers when they were in opposition, and now they are in government they have failed to take any action to protect our environment and our fisheries.

This bill will force the government to choose whether to honour the Prime Minister's own words and the actions of the government when in opposition. This bill will make the government put their money where their mouth is. The government is yet to do even the most basic work required to implement sensible root-and-branch reform of fisheries management, as recommended by the Borthwick review and responded to by Labor in March 2013.

As the government refuses to act to protect our fisheries, stand up for recreational fishers or provide industry with any certainty, it is up to Labor to act. In government Labor supported strong powers to protect the environment, to respect the rights of recreational fishers and to provide certainty to business. Under the bill we consider here today, new supertrawlers will have to face the same tough response faced by the original supertrawler. The amendments give the government of the day the power to declare a particular type of fishing activity prohibited. This declaration will be made where the activity has not been used in Australia and some uncertainty exists around it. The prohibition will allow proper and thorough expert scientific work to be conducted.

The bill restores the powers to enable the environment minister, with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister, to make an interim declaration that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity' while an expert panel assesses the potential environmental impacts of the activity. The bill also restores the power of the environment minister—again with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister—to make a final declaration, for a period no longer than 24 months, that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity'. Further to this, the bill provides for the establishment of an expert panel in the case of the making of a final declaration. The bill also specifies the terms of reference of the panel and arrangements for reporting, with a requirement that a copy of the panel report be made publicly available.

The former Labor government has a strong record when it comes to supporting our fisheries and making them healthier, sustainable and more resilient. Labor understands that Australia's fisheries are a valuable natural resource and that we all have a role in ensuring the future of an industry that contributes more than $2 billion to our economy each year. It was the previous Labor government that announced the first major review of Australian fisheries policy and legislation in over 20 years. In fact, it was Senator Ludwig, whose bill we discuss here today, who as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, commissioned an independent review of the policy and legislation governing the Commonwealth's fisheries management system in September 2012. The fisheries management review examined a range of issues to identify any improvements needed to ensure community and industry expectations of the Australian fisheries management regime can be met into the future.

In March last year the previous government released the report Review of Commonwealth fisheries: legislation, policy and management, also known as the Borthwick review. The findings of the review highlighted current management strengths and identified potential improvements to make Commonwealth fisheries more sustainable and to meet industry and community expectations into the future. On releasing the report, then Minister Ludwig stated:

The Borthwick Review concluded that greater transparency, a broader policy framework, and the clarification of objectives and roles could build on what is already a very effective system.

Senator Ludwig also indicated that the government's response to this report was to accept the direction of all 15 recommendations. The Labor government committed to engage with industry, recreational fishers, supply chain participants, environmental organisations, consumers and the general public on how best to implement the findings of the review.

Since coming to government, those opposite have done nothing to act on the findings of this review—nothing. The government is yet to do even the most basic work required to implement sensible root-and-branch reform of fisheries management Those opposite, under the leadership of Mr Abbott, have had over 12 months to do something to stop future supertrawlers and protect our oceans—but they have failed; they have failed to do anything. It should come as no surprise to anyone on this side of the chamber that they have not acted; in fact, it should not come as a surprise to anyone in the community who may be listening to this debate.

We know that those opposite have no interest in protecting our fisheries and oceans. They proved this when they rolled back marine protection around the country. We on this side are proud to have delivered the world's largest marine reserve network. In government we added 2.3 million square kilometres to the system of Commonwealth marine reserves, expanding the overall size of the Commonwealth marine reserve estate to some 3.1 million square kilometres. Under Labor the number of marine reserves expanded from 27 to 60, covering more than a third of Commonwealth waters. However, the Abbott government has scrapped the comprehensive management plans that would have secured the long-term conservation and sustainable use of Australia's precious oceans. It scrapped them without parliamentary scrutiny, against expert scientific advice and in spite of extensive public consultation and the accumulation of more than 20 years of work which began under the Keating government. However, Labor will continue to take action to ensure that we protect Australia's ecosystems and fishing stock.

Our decisions must be based on evidence. As there is uncertainty about the impacts of fishing vessels and the size of super trawlers, it is appropriate that we pass this bill to ensure that appropriate restrictions and assessments are undertaken. We must also act today to ensure that we have viable fishing for tomorrow's generations. The Abbott government have shown no care about our fisheries and our oceans but Labor have. Today I stand by the comments I made when I spoke on the 2012 bill in this place, and I repeat those words: marine environments once wrecked take generations to recover, if they ever do. A precautionary approach is not only good policy but also the only decent option.

As the government refuses to act to protect our oceans and our fisheries, to stand up for recreational fishers or to provide local businesses with any certainty, it is again up to Labor to act. We know that only Labor will ensure that sustainable action is taken for the ongoing health and integrity of Australia's marine areas. I will end with a quote from Senator Ludwig's speech:

Australia has some of the best managed fisheries in the world. There is, however, a gap in the system in considering the powers of the environment and fisheries ministers to consider new commercial fishing vessels before they arrive and begin to fish. Given the government has failed to act, it is sensible for these powers to be restored. Labor is standing up for the oceans, recreational fishers and local businesses.

I commend this bill to the chamber. I urge all senators to support it, and I urge the government senators to support the Prime Minister's statement that super trawlers are banned and will remain banned. This will determine whether you are supporting your Prime Minister—or will you turn your backs on the statements he makes? We know that he tends to shoot from the hip, but it is now up to you to say whether or not you support your Prime Minister's words. (Time expired)

Senator EDWARDS (South Australia) (10:08): I rise to speak against the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014, despite the appeals from Senator Brown on the other side. Her closing remarks, where she tried to illustrate the position of the Prime Minister, were somewhat mischievous. I know that the Prime Minister is a great supporter of commercial and recreational fishing in this country, and we have some of the most well-managed fisheries for recreational and commercial shell and fin fishers in the world.

In speaking against this bill, I am highlighting the fact that this issue continues to be a gross Labor hypocrisy. As a senator for the state of South Australia and a strong supporter of a well-managed fisheries industry, I oppose the cheap wedge politics being peddled by Senator Ludwig. As we know, Senator Ludwig had a very low point in his ministerial career, when in June 2011 he put an overnight ban on the export of live cattle. We are still feeling the reverberations economically and socially of that knee-jerk, ill-considered decision of that time. This again is populist. I suspect that the CEO of GetUp! is often on the phone telling Senator Ludwig that the funding of his next campaign is probably in peril if he does not put this back on the map. I assume Senator Ludwig is a very good industrial union lawyer and I am sure he was in the past, but in matters of primary industries and fishing he gets an 'E'.

Remember the mess Tony Burke created around the Abel Tasman and supertrawlers in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy? I recall there were four amendments in four days to his declared fishing activities bill. The Labor government response to the Abel Tasman—which I have been on and have toured; I will come to that later—which our party opposed at the time, has made us an international laughing stock. It has effectively tarnished the reputations of leading scientific and industry figures who have been acting in the interests of sustainability and good management of our marine natural resources.

But you do not have to take my word for it; you can read articles with headlines such as 'World mocks ban on trawler' by Philip Heyward in the Mercury, or 'Expert labels trawler ban "embarrassing"' on the ABC, or 'Opposition to the Margiris "super trawler" not evidence based' by Bob Kearney in The Conversation. Then-Minister Burke's commercial fishing policy was more shambolic than a set of tangled crab nets, and Senator Ludwig needs to withdraw this bill for fear of getting caught in the same trap. He needs to allow the correct bodies to administer fishing activities in Australia. The issue is much bigger than just the trawler; it is about how we do business in Australia and how we manage a resource in a sustainable and profitable manner.

The Labor-Green approach is dangerous to the fisheries industry, an industry which, I might add, is worth over $2 billion annually. It employs around 11,600 people—7,300 directly and 4,300 indirectly—according to figures of just a few years ago, and we know that the industry has had growth since then.

The coalition government has confidence in the Australian Fisheries Management Authority regarding the management and sustainability of fisheries. Actions taken by AFMA have already led to a reduction in bycatch and sustainable ecosystems. Catch limits based on appropriate biomass percentages mean that the fisheries industry is already appropriately managed without any unnecessary ministerial intervention.

Currently, small pelagic fishery is productive and environmentally stable. In fact during July in my home of Adelaide the Small Pelagic Fisheries Workshop, a technical workshop and stakeholder forum, was hosted by the South Australian Research and Development Institute. The forum determined that Australian fisheries science and management was the world benchmark, with policies and practices for other nations to aspire to. Dr Patrick Hone, Executive Director of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, said at the forum:

A key finding was that the science underpinning Australian fisheries management was robust and that our harvest strategy and rules were clearly precautionary and very much in line with the best practice guidelines put forward by the Lenfest Working Group and the Marine Stewardship Council.

The harvest strategies which Dr Hone speaks of started in 2007 under Minister Abetz as Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation. These strategies outline management actions needed to achieve biological and economic objectives. With the harvest strategies in place and operating uninterrupted, the fishing industry can work with greater confidence and management decisions can be made with transparency and forewarning.

Only this government, not Labor and certainly not the Greens, understands the main factor in commercial fishing management—that the industry be economically viable as well as environmentally sustainable. Removing the sunset clause, as Senator Ludwig is attempting to do, would allow the environment minister to declare any fishing activity, requiring the establishment of an expert panel to investigate each declaration. This is dangerous to the industry and, given our best-in-practice policies, completely unnecessary for the purpose of fisheries management.

The coalition continues to do what it said it would do during the election campaign regarding commercial fishing. Our commitments were to: make decisions based on science; wait for the expert panel report on declared fishing activities before making a decision on the declaration of larger vessels; and seek more data to address criticisms regarding the age of data used to establish fish stocks. Further to that, in late October, Minister Colbeck welcomed the ABARES fishery status reports, which showed that, for the first time in eight years, no Commonwealth managed fisheries were subject to overfishing. In fact, under this coalition government, fisheries stocks are on the improve.

To return now to marine parks and a sensitive matter in my home state, I note worriedly that Labor has introduced 19 marine parks with 80 no-take zones within South Australia. These laws came into effect on 1 October this year and impact commercial and recreational anglers alike. Not only will this affect the enjoyment of our marine areas but it will hurt the fragile economy of our regions. If it were not already obvious that Labor do not understand the science behind fisheries management, it is even more evident that they do not understand their own policy. South Australian Labor spent $1.8 million filming and promoting an awareness campaign for their unwanted marine parks. In these ads, a family is seen crabbing on the Port Noarlunga jetty. If the Labor Party had half a clue, they would have known that the area depicted in that advertisement has already banned crabbing. How ironic and cruel is that?

Senator Back: Breaking the law.

Senator EDWARDS: To add insult to injury, Senator Back—I note your interest in this matter—the South Australian environment minister, Minister Hunter, proved he was nowhere near being across his brief on ABC breakfast radio on 1 October, the same day as these new laws came into effect, when he could not indicate what sanctions existed in the highly controversial Port Wakefield zone. By contrast, my state Liberal counterparts introduced an amendment bill, which sensibly proposed the reintroduction of access to 12 of those zones. The policy was supported by the commercial and recreational fishing industries and provides a sustainable base from which to fish. Just remember that none of these fishing zones is under any pressure.

The bill was defeated by one vote, the vote cast by the so-called minister for regions, Mr Geoff Brock, the member for Frome. There is a famous YouTube video of the independent member for Frome, Mr Geoff Brock, telling recreational fishers just one month prior to the March state election, 'I'm here to fight for you guys.' What a turncoat he turned out to be. He has sold his independence—he is supposed to be an independent—and his word to his electorate for a shot at the ministry which he now holds, and I think he is yet to realise the damage that he has done to the state, let alone to his career and to all those in the political environment.

South Australian fishing and aquaculture industries are worth $217 million annually and South Australia is a very big employer, with some 6,000 people in the seafood industry. If you look at all those numbers I gave you earlier, South Australia's industry represents a very large percentage of the Australian seafood output. All of this hangs in the balance with the introduction of Labor's unnecessary, overregulating policies. We have confidence in the sustainability of Australian fisheries, currently managed by AFMA and recognised as some of the best practice in the world. To reiterate, policy must be driven by sound scientific advice and not knee-jerk reactions.

I said I would refer to the time when I visited what was then known as the Abel Tasman and went on to become known as the Margiris. Some people call it the supertrawler. I visited this ship—I was invited to go and have a look at it and I did so when it was located in Port Lincoln and subjected to that controversial ban. I took up the invitation and, I must say, that ship and its equipment are world-class. Senator Back, as you well know, to put to sea on an ocean-going global fishing boat you have to be highly technically trained, and the crew were. All of the equipment was first-rate, up-to-the-minute technology. The fisheries that they were to fish are already being fished. These were not extra fish being taken; these fish are already fished by numerous other, smaller boats. Imagine 24—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator EDWARDS: Oh, and now we hear from the Greens. All of a sudden, we hear from the Greens. They do not want to hear the truth. They just want to perpetuate all their lies. These fish cannot be taken outside of quotas. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, if Senator Whish-Wilson wants to make a contribution to this, he can refute my claim. Are you suggesting that all the fish taken by any supertrawler are illegally taken, outside of a quota? All of these fish are taken within quotas. Imagine 24 small boats being put to sea with 24 crews taking the same fish that one boat would possibly take. The nets have escape hatches. Dolphins and seals can escape and do escape. This myth that all the sea is going to be vacuumed clean of all fish is hysteria peddled by those on the other side, who want to go and live in caves with no power and just wear bearskin rugs.

Senator Whish-Wilson: The coalition loves supertrawlers.

Senator EDWARDS: Mr Acting Deputy President, if you are not going to protect me from this barrage of nonsense that is coming from the Greens—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dastyari ): Order! The Senate will come to order!

Senator EDWARDS: This is an economical way in which to fish. It is an environmentally sensitive way in which to fish. People think that these fish are extra fish. They are not extra fish—they are already being fished. And do you know what? When they are fished by the 24 boats that put to sea, they have not got refrigeration. So that fish—the brown-fleshed fish, the pelagics—all go into a hold and do you know what they are used for? Fertiliser. Do you know what happens to the fish that are caught with these large harvest vessels? They get snap frozen and they are food grade, and they feed the nations of Africa. Mr Acting Deputy President, the Greens and Senator Whish-Wilson over there will not tell you that—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator EDWARDS: Yes, that's what they turn it into.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dastyari ): Senator Whish-Wilson, the senator will be heard in silence.

Senator EDWARDS: That is what you have when you put to sea with 24 boats fishing for the same fish. But what happens is that we turn it into food grade—if we were to allow this. We are going to turn it into fish for human consumption. We are going to try to feed the world. We do not want to feed the cats of the world; we do not want to fertilise the gardens of the world. We want to turn this into food grade fish. If you do it on a ship of the likes of the Abel Tasman or the Margiris, because they are big enough and have freezers, you snap freeze it and it is food grade. The Greens would deny the African nations a food source, a protein source. That is okay if you live in the leafy suburbs down there in Tasmania and you drink your lattes and have your sponge cakes on a Saturday morning after a nice pleasant week in the Senate. It is nonsense.

This is not about environmental sustainability. This is about taking fish that is already taken and, quickly and efficiently, turning it into food grade. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will be very interested to hear Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution and to hear how he can refute my claims of this efficient way of gathering.

Senator Ludwig's bill is just another intervention into everybody's lives. It is an absolute irony. In South Australia we have got these protected zones now. And when you question government officials about why they are doing it, they say, 'because they are pristine environments.' What? We are putting in marine parks because they are pristine environments? Do you know why? Because they are well managed already. Recreational fishers and commercial fishers abide by the laws. But no, the dead hand of bureaucracy has to come in and lay itself over the fishing industry. Here we are: once again the Labor Party just wants to pull back all of that and get hold of it again. Just put that uncertainty into it so that the banks will not invest. You can have your livelihood taken—like you did with the live cattle export. You can have your livelihood taken away from you overnight. If you let this bill pass in this place, that is exactly what will happen. You will have another layer of uncertainty. I conclude: I support sustainable fishing industries in South Australia and I do so today by opposing this bill.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:28): We have just heard the coalition arguing and denigrating, instead of being able to address the science. They are denigrating the arguments by having a go at people, calling people 'latte sippers'—the usual silly attacks that the coalition make when they cannot actually argue the point. The point here is that super trawlers around the world have actually broken our oceans and broken our fisheries. The reason we are getting better at managing our fisheries now is because we are in fact putting in rules and enforcing them for effective management of our fisheries. When we did not have that, we had our oceans being overfished.

As for this ludicrous argument that we will be feeding Africa, this supertrawler has been in the seas and oceans off Africa and has raped those oceans of fish for fertiliser, the very thing he has just said that we support. That is what they have been doing with supertrawlers—taking away the fish from Africa. Now he is saying that a supertrawler has to fish in our waters so that we can feed Africa when those very same supertrawlers have been taking the fish out of the oceans and depopulating those oceans. That is a ridiculous argument to make, just so he can make people feel sorry for the Africans, when he should be arguing for better regulation of supertrawlers there too, so that African people can feed themselves from their ocean supplies, not have fish stripped out of their oceans and taken elsewhere simply for the superprofits of the supertrawlers. I might add that supertrawlers also get well subsidised and try to access every subsidy they can get around the world.

This legislation is a step, but it would not ban supertrawlers as the ALP would like to suggest, as when they brought in legislation regarding supertrawlers when they were in government. It is fallacious, as is being implied, that this legislation bans supertrawlers. This is why Senator Whish-Wilson proposes an amendment that would ban supertrawlers with a freezer capacity of over 2,000 tonnes. His amendment would actually ban those supertrawlers and strengthen and give backbone to this legislation to achieve what the ALP claim that this legislation does. This legislation was introduced by Senator Ludwig, a former minister for fisheries. The original bill that was brought in by the previous government allowed the minister to declare a prohibited fishing activity, but it had a sunset clause of 12 months.

The aim of the legislation that we are currently debating is to remove that sunset clause, meaning the environment minister's powers to respond to new fishing operations would remain in place. Of course, we are hearing that people want to have another go at letting the supertrawler slip through so it can start fishing in our waters. Currently, the government does not have powers to declare a prohibited fishing vessel and implement a review. As I said, the clauses of this legislation do not ban supertrawlers, and that is why we need to amend the bill—so that we do have the capacity to fight industrial-scale fishing, because that is what it is. This is industrial-scale fishing. There are significant problems with this legislation in that, as I have said, it does not ban the introduction of industrial-scale factory-freezer trawlers, the so-called supertrawlers, into our SPF. Labor's proposed legislation puts the discretionary powers in the hands of the Liberal-National ministers, instead of the people having a say through their representatives in parliament.

In fact, the Greens pointed out this failure to Labor in 2012, while they were in government and were claiming to be dealing with the threat of supertrawlers to our fisheries and ecosystems—because supertrawlers not only threaten our fisheries; they threaten our ecosystems. Yet Labor did not take on board our amendments when we very clearly pointed out the holes in the legislation. While Labor are now trying to fix this failure, it is misleading to say, as they have been claiming to constituents, that they are banning supertrawlers. This legislation clearly does not, unfortunately. They did not do it while they were in government and they are not doing it with this legislation—again, that is why we need the amendments that Senator Whish-Wilson has proposed, which actually do deal with it by banning trawlers with a freezer capacity of over 2,000 tonnes.

All parties at various stages have said that they support a ban on supertrawlers. Well, this is the opportunity to prove it. This is the opportunity to prove that you do actually want to ban supertrawlers, by supporting the amendments that we are putting, which fill that hole in the legislation.

Labor justified the sunset clause at the time by stating that, because the Borthwick inquiry—the so-called root-and-branch inquiry into fisheries legislation processes—was underway, it was appropriate to have a sunset clause. Senator Ludwig at the time quoted Minister Burke as saying in his speech on this bill:

By that time the root-and-branch review of the fisheries management processes should be in place, but we will have this legislation to be able to fill that gap in the interim.

Now we have the Borthwick review, a root-and-branch review, which has made a number of recommendations. The government need to implement these recommendations. They do not seem to have done anything with it. A particularly important point is that the Borthwick review has recommended a new third pillar to the legislation and management of Australia's fisheries, and that is one that directly addresses ecosystem impacts in the fisheries context. They say that for this ecosystem approach with a goal of minimising the impact of fishing effort on ecosystems, the government needs to address the balance between funding for private industry research and research for the public benefit of conserving the common and related ecosystem values. In other words, we need to include that in our legislation, and we do not at the moment and we have not seen a sign from the government of what they are going to do about it. That root-and-branch review showed that we have not quite got things right here. We do need to look at the impact on our ecosystems and at ecosystem science.

With this bill the ALP are trying to make people think that we are banning supertrawlers. As I said, supertrawlers will not be banned by this bill. While the opposition calls this tough legislation, it is not tough enough and it needs toughening up. We have heard a number of people quoting the expert panel review of the processes put in place under the previous legislation, introduced by the ALP when they were in government. I find it fascinating that the government has been quoting that review to justify their opposition to this legislation. It is really quite bizarre.

The review actually vindicates the position that the Greens, recreational fishers, environment groups and the broader Tasmanian community took when the supertrawler first appeared on our horizon a couple of years ago. The report found that, even if protective measures were put in place, the supertrawler would impact on protected species like seals, dolphins and seabirds and would potentially lead to localised depletion of fish stocks. As my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson said recently in response to the release of the expert report, the Greens have long argued that the science on the wider impacts were too uncertain for the minister to make a call on allowing this gigantic floating factory into our waters—in other words, to allow that industrial-scale fishing. We are still a long way from the point where we would be confident that industrial-scale fishing from a supertrawler would not have these impacts. That is one of the reasons that we need to amend the private member's bill before us—because we know that we need to do further work to ensure that industrial-scale fishing is not impacting on our marine ecosystems.

It is time that we acknowledged that supertrawlers are not the way to manage our oceans. The Greens have long been concerned about fisheries management. People from the government will claim that it is because we do not support fishing. That is absolute bunkum. It is simply not true. We want sustainable fisheries management because we want fish in our oceans for the future. Not only are they a critical part of our ecosystem; we know that many communities rely on fishing. But we do not want to see our oceans in a state where whole ecosystems have collapsed and we are no longer able to fish, because fisheries have collapsed.

Australia does have a proud record of good fisheries management—better than most other places in the world—but that does not say that we have it perfect. Quite clearly, the Borthwick review and the expert report show that we have not got it perfect. The Borthwick review shows that we need to change our legislation so that we do incorporate better science on ecosystems. We do need to understand the impact of fisheries better, and we do need to keep ensuring that Commonwealth managed fisheries do not go backwards. It has taken quite a lot of effort to ensure that those fisheries do not go backwards. When I first started working on fisheries management many years ago, the Commonwealth could not claim that some of those Commonwealth fisheries were not going backwards, and it has been a lot of work to get them to the point where they are starting to improve. That is not to say that we should rest on our laurels; that means that we need to keep working to make sure those fisheries are protected.

Supertrawlers have broken our oceans around the planet. We should not be supporting supertrawlers. We support legislation that bans supertrawlers so that we do not have to keep fighting this issue every couple of years. If this private member's bill is not amended along the lines proposed by Senator Whish-Wilson, we will have to keep fighting this issue every couple of years, every time a supertrawler wants to sail over our horizons to start fishing on an industrial scale in our waters. It is simply not appropriate to compare numbers of boats to a supertrawler. A supertrawler can stay out at sea for a very long time. That is why we are proposing the limit of 2,000 tonnes—so that supertrawlers cannot stay out for weeks and weeks depopulating our oceans.

One of my passions is marine protection. There have been decades of work done on the need for better marine protection. The way that the Abbott government essentially got rid of the world's leading marine parks and reserves system in this country, after over a decade of work that did all the science, was disgusting. It did all the science, it did the consultation and it put in place that world-leading system of marine protected areas. We have just had the World Parks Congress in this country, and I am so disappointed that I missed it. It only happens once every 10 years. All the leading experts on nature conservation from around the world come to one place and talk about protected areas, national parks and nature reserves around the world. I was so embarrassed that we no longer had what was, for a short length of time, the world's leading system of marine protected areas, which not only ensured biodiversity protection and ecosystem protection but fishing into the future. The science is there about the roles that marine protected areas play in protecting fish stocks and ensuring that they are there for the future. And what does this Luddite government do? One of their first actions on coming into government was to wipe that system off the face of our maps. They took away the management plans, which essentially means that now all you have is a system of lines on a map. Now the government are spending millions of dollars doing their review, when it is quite clear that the science was done and that the consultation was carried out. Because they are bowing to some of their noisy constituents who want to do whatever they want in the marine environment, they have got rid of those areas.

The support for marine protection in this country is very high. In my home state of Western Australia, surveys show that over 70 per cent of people consistently support marine protection. Those areas need to be restored. The government talks about wasting money and red tape. Well, the government are wasting money in their review of those protected areas. They are simply doing it so that they can find an excuse to wipe out those areas permanently. It is a disgrace, and how the government could show itself at that World Park Congress and pretend it is doing something about marine protection is a complete joke.

This bill needs to be strengthened. Supertrawlers will be yet another impact on our marine environment, a marine environment that is under pressure from overfishing, from extraction, from run-off from land-based sources of pollution and from climate change. We are already seeing the impact of climate change on our marine environment, and, in particular, in some of those colder water temperate marine environments that are getting warmer. This is disturbing the ecosystems around Australia, in particular, in some of the southern areas, with some of the waters warming.

You are seeing, in my home state of Western Australia, marine species turning up much further south than they have ever been before. As I have said in this place before, that means that we need to change the way we are managing our marine environment and managing our fisheries because we are getting species that have not been there before. You are seeing invasive species that have never been seen before. They are taking off and invading marine environments and having an impact there that we have not seen before. That adds to the pressures on our marine environment.

What this government obviously wants now is to enable supertrawlers to come in and add another impact to that marine environment. The science that they were using to justify the supertrawler previously—the Abel Tasman or the Margiris, whichever name you want to call it—was not done on that specific pelagic fishery. It was not done on those species. It was done on jack mackerel, and marine scientists have shown the flaws in that science. The expert panel says that there is a great degree of uncertainty there and that we should be using the precautionary principle. The Borthwick review says that we need a third arm to the research that we do, looking at ecosystem science.

It is time that we took marine protection seriously. We have a short window of time to get this right. We need a series of marine protected areas. Just restore it. The work is done. Just restore those marine parks. Change the legislation so we can have a genuine, quality look at ecosystem science when we are doing fisheries management. Build on our international reputation for good fisheries science. We are some of the world leaders in our fisheries management. We do not want to see that go backwards. We want to keep progressing. It is another area where we can help regionally as we build our scientific marine expertise on the already excellent science that we have got here and the quality of our scientists. It is excellent. We need to build on that, and we can be helping the regions.

I know some of that has been done. But as the climate impacts on our marine environment we need to make sure that we are building that science and also helping regionally because the oceans are that key thing that link us all together. So we need to be making sure that we are getting that right, that we have our science up-to-date and that we have our processes in place that protect and sustain our marine environment. The supertrawlers do not do that. They have broken the oceans elsewhere. We will not stand by and let them break our oceans. We believe this legislation needs to be improved. It needs to genuinely ban supertrawlers because it does not do that. Once this amendment is in place we would be able to support this legislation.

Debate adjourned.

Senator BACK (Western Australia) (10:48): I rise to speak to the Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013 as it has been proposed by our colleague Senator Madigan. I wish to put on record that I do not support the bill as it has been presented by Senator Madigan. But, at the same time, I do want to express my support for the sentiment that has been expressed by Senator Madigan and his deep interest in protecting Australian industry, protecting Australian jobs and protecting Australia's place in the world. The situation is that the bill, as it has been presented to the Senate, will do nothing to advance the interests of Australia or Australian consumers or, indeed, the Australian economy. But it would leave our exporters vulnerable to retaliatory action by other countries.

It is important that we are very clear on the circumstances of Australia—its economy and its place in the world—and why Australia enjoys such a high per capita income and why we are regarded as such a wealthy country. We are only 23 million people in the same land mass as the United States of America, which has some 350 million people, and we have the same population, indeed, as greater New York. When you have a look at China, with 1.2 billion people, or you look at India, which is rushing towards 1.2 billion people and which has the same land mass as Western Australia—only one third of our continent—it is interesting to reflect why it is that we actually do enjoy such a high per capita income.

There are a number of reasons. One has been, and hopefully will continue to be, cheap energy. But the other point that has got to be made very strongly, relevant to this debate, is that we are an exporting country. We cannot consume anywhere near what we produce. My own home state of Western Australia is an example when it comes to grain production, particularly wheat production. We export about 95 per cent of everything that we produce. The point is that Australia must observe its obligations under World Trade Organisation agreements, its commitments and its commitments to free trade. We must be able to regulate goods that are sold in Australia and prevent the import of goods that do not meet our mandatory standards.

Of course, it is necessary for people to understand that there are elements within Senator Madigan's bill, the Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013, that will adversely impact on our capacity, impact on our reputation and impact on our compliance with world trade and other agreements, and I want to go through some of those. The point I want to leave the chamber with is that Australia is a major beneficiary of World Trade Organization agreements and, indeed, the other trading agreements to which we are a signatory.

There are times, I have to say, when these agreements are frustrating. I think back to the debate that we had over the importation of apples from New Zealand. An enormous amount of argument went on, and I led the arguments with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The sequence of events was that the then Prime Minister Gillard in Wellington, New Zealand said, 'We're going to allow the importation of your apples into Australia,' and all of a sudden the very DAFF officials who had argued so eloquently against apples from New Zealand coming into Australia had to change horse midstream, or 'change stream midhorse'—whichever you want to take on board. Then they had to argue to our Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee why, after all the reasons that they had previously given for why apples should not be able to be imported from New Zealand into Australia, they now could be. I am one who argued vehemently, but the point that I need to make is that it went to the independent international arbiter, the umpire, the World Trade Organization. We put our case, the New Zealanders put their case and it came down in favour of New Zealand. To this day, I still argue about the risk matrix that was adopted. Nevertheless, we are in a global trading environment. We must accept the rules of the umpire if we want to play on the oval, and that is exactly where we are. We cannot pick and choose. We cannot have a set of circumstances in which we place greater burdens on the importers of products coming into this country than we would expect to be placed upon us.

Once again, by way of practical illustration, I think of the move made in 2009 when the then Prime Minister Rudd and the then trade minister Crean put pressure on the then agriculture minister Burke to allow, in a cursory way, the importation of beef from the United States and Canada—Japan was also an applicant in the process—without going through an import risk analysis process. It was largely Senator Heffernan, supported at that time by Senator Nash and me, who led a very spirited campaign over an extended period of time in which we were able to prove to Minister Burke that he should indeed require a full import risk analysis.

Because it is absolutely relevant to this legislation, I want to share with the chamber some of the background. One of the precepts, one of the absolute rock hard conditions associated with world trade agreements, is that you cannot impose on another country that which you do not impose on your own producers. We had a circumstance where Japan, Canada and the United States of America all wanted a lifting of sanctions against the importation of beef. Those countries, especially Canada and the United States, had had BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, better known as mad cow disease, a disease which we know had been transmissible to human beings. Of course, we all know about the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom in the middle part of the last decade. Japan, unfortunately, had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, so they ceased to be an applicant under this process.

What was interesting in that whole process is that it came down to a national livestock identification system. The United States of America claimed that we were imposing sanctions, hurdles or barriers on them which we did not impose on ourselves. We in this country do have an NLIS for our cattle herds. For a consumer purchasing a retail product today, should anything adverse occur we can go right back through the supply chain from that product in the retail store, back through the wholesaler, back to the facility at which it was processed and then through to the original property. So we were able to prove to the Americans that, since they did not have a national livestock identification scheme, we were not imposing on the Americans anything greater than we imposed on our own producers.

Acting Deputy President Sterle, you were of course part of that committee process. Basically, it was World Trade Organization agreements playing out in the correct space. So America was unable to continue that line of argument. To finish off the trifecta, right in the midst of it all a seven-year-old Angus cow from Manitoba in Canada was diagnosed with BSE. The end result was that Mr Burke, the then agriculture minister, did require that an import risk analysis process be undertaken.

I make that point to the chamber because it shows that we are part of international trade and how important international trade is. The two examples that I have given—one that went against us with the importation of apples from New Zealand and one which went in our favour in relation to the importation of beef from North America—are prime examples of the fact that, at the end of the day, the umpire must be allowed to regulate and to dictate. If you want to play on the field, you have to be subject to the rules of the umpire.

What the bill would do is actually skew those rules. It would impose on our importers a greater burden than we would be imposing on our own producers or that we would want imposed on ourselves as exporters. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways. We need to ensure that a country's mandatory import requirements do not create unnecessary barriers to trade, taking account of the risks that noncompliance with those requirements would create.

I will give you yet another example of how important it is that we retain and maintain the regulatory environment in which we now work. As a young veterinarian I recall that the importation into the United States of our manufacturing beef was a growing market. Today it is, of course, vitally important. Australia exports manufacturing meat equivalent to what the McDonald's chain in the United States itself actually sells on a daily basis. But back in the early 1970s, when these rules were not as strong as they now are, the United States beef lobby was strong enough to influence the US Department of Agriculture to place upon Australia a set of requirements—in this case, that we be free of tuberculosis and brucellosis, which indeed America was not and to this day is still not free of. You might ask: when it comes to brucellosis, where was the importance?

Senator BACK: I am glad you asked that, Acting Deputy President, because brucellosis is actually a disease of the reproductive system and has got nothing to do with meat quality. In the case of tuberculosis, what were the Americans doing requiring Australia to be free of TB when they themselves were not? That was a trade barrier. Because the industry was so important to us in the early 1970s Australia in fact did eradicate it. We had the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme. We were the only country in the world to have eradicated both of those diseases, of which our profession today and the Department of Agriculture at the time are justifiably proud. But it makes the point that a barrier had been placed upon this country simply for trade imposition purposes. When we actually got rid of brucellosis and tuberculosis, they had another go. They said, 'Your export abattoirs have got to be lifted to a very high standard, indeed, a standard higher than those of the American abattoirs for their own domestic consumption.'

So we have moved on in the world and now both our sanitary and phytosanitary measures, some of which I have given examples of today—the SBS agreement—and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement are critically important pillars in the World Trade Organization framework. Those, in my very strong view, have to be protected and enhanced.

The difficulty that would confront us is that this bill, if passed, would actually make trade negotiations with other countries, those critical to Australia, our export wellbeing and the wealth of this economy, very much more difficult. It would have the effect of actually putting barriers in place, because if we impose any barrier on an importer then we can expect there will be an equivalent action against us as exporters. As I have just pointed out, we actually export about 65 per cent of everything that we produce.

The bill, if passed, would require Australia to give less favourable treatment to goods imported from free trade agreement partners than treatment given to goods from other countries. In other words, we would once again be skewing the market and removing what in fact is critical to international trade. We would be giving one group of importers an unfair advantage over others. They, in turn, would logically, necessarily and quickly impose exactly the same sorts of restrictions on Australia. The bill, if passed, would require that Australia not consider applications for Australia to accept conformity assessment procedures in other countries as being equivalent to those in Australia. I draw, again, on the analogies I have just given you with regard to BSE beef of that exact circumstance, that of conformity and assessment procedures in other countries being equivalent to those in Australia.

Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you will recall because you were part of that committee process, that at that time we said, 'We are not imposing on those other countries anything greater than we impose on our own producers. We have the national livestock identification system and therefore we would expect any importing country to meet those same levels of requirement.'

The bill, if passed, would require that Australia not consider applications for Australia to accept that another country's requirements are equivalent to Australia's in terms of policy objectives being pursued. There is an analogy here with New Zealand apples. We argued that case. We believe that a different set of requirements were being imposed. It involved, if you remember, the use of the antibiotic streptomycin, used at some stages in the production cycle of apples in New Zealand and not used here in Australia. And that was the argument which you and I and others presented at the time, but which the umpire determined otherwise. If we want to be part of international trade, as we do, we have simply got to say with respect to this particular case: the umpire's decision is final.

As an aside, I still regard that we probably did not do as good a job as we could have done in the appeals tribunal but you, Acting Deputy President Sterle, in football circles would probably have appeared before the tribunal more often than I did. So maybe we should have sent you to Geneva to argue the case.

Another point I need to make is that, if the Madigan bill is passed, it would require that Australia adopt import requirements that have the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to trade. The example I give you, again, is that of the United States doing that to us in the 1970s, with diseases like brucellosis, tuberculosis et cetera. We cannot have that. We have moved on from that circumstance. Just look at what an advantage that has been to our country. Look at the current level of export of agricultural produce, in the case of manufacturing beef, to the United States of America. Of course, we all know of the possibility of retaliatory action. One of the great strengths of the WTO process is its binding dispute settlement system. We just cannot opt out if we do not like what the chairman of stewards tells us. We take it on the chin, we correct it and if we want to stay playing in the game and keep on the course we must then obviously comply. We cannot opt out, and it is tremendously to Australia's benefit that we continue to opt in.

It is the case that the dispute settlement rules do allow a complaining country—and we do plenty of that—to apply retaliatory action against a defending country's exports if the defending country has been found to be acting in breach of its rules and does not act to remedy those breaches. We are in an exciting phase now. We recently concluded the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We are hopefully in the final processes of concluding the Japan-Australia Free Trade Agreement. And we witnessed the signing the other day by trade minister Robb and the trade minister from China of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These are all incredibly exciting opportunities.

I want to conclude by talking about Australia's role as a developed country in assisting least developed countries, underdeveloped countries and the small island development states. The best way we can help those countries is to encourage their development of trade, to encourage their domestic consumption so that they will get to the stage where they themselves will be net exporters and we have a set of rules and guidelines in place that will allow them to actually grow economically and to develop their people to move them towards middle-class aspirations, all within a World Trade Organisation framework. That is where I stand.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (11:09): Labor understands, appreciates and values Senator Madigan's concerns in the area of fair trade. His activism has been well known, and we value it. As we know, this time of the debate is when I turn around and tell Senator Madigan that we are not supporting his bill; that seems to be the way it operates. But we want to go into the range of issues that are being brought forward and into why we are not supporting the bill at this time. I also want to put on record how much my dad would have enjoyed those comments made by Senator Back, about the beef industry. As a long-term member of the beef industry and a cattle buyer, he would have loved to hear those terms running off your tongue, Senator Back—the diseases of cattle; he loved them. We had books all over our library at home that talked about all those conditions. So, your speech brought back good memories.

I will now turn to Senator Madigan's bill, the Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013. The stated purpose of the act as spelt out is to increase the standard of products sold on the Australian market in a fair and reasonable way. Its principal object, as contained in section 3, is to encourage Australia's trading partners to ensure that goods that are imported into Australia from a country that has a trade agreement with us are subject to minimum standards in relation to the quality of the goods. The bill will require Australia's trading partners to ensure that companies that export goods to Australia take responsibility for ensuring that their manufactured goods meet Australian standards prior to being sold on the Australian market. Australia's trade negotiators will be required to ensure that the appropriate requirements are included in any trade agreement that Australia enters into with any other country.

We believe that the Senate should not pass this bill, because the bill has not been drafted or explained in a way that would allow the Senate to have the confidence that, if enacted into law, it would achieve the objectives we have just spelt out, which sound fair and reasonable and would ensure that those objectives would be met. I know—and it is a very difficult issue—that resources at Senator Madigan's disposal to research and prepare a bill and an explanatory memorandum for presentation to the parliament are limited, and that is one of the issues in the way the process operates. Certainly they do not even come close to what we in the opposition have or to what the government has. However, when we are asked to consider passing a bill into law, the quality and the details of the legislation must be of paramount consideration. We are not convinced that the bill we are debating today achieves the very objectives that Senator Madigan intends. Nor are we convinced that it represents good legislation in its form.

It is of grave concern to us that this bill has the potential to actually damage Australia's trade relationships, which are essential to the growth of our economy—although we accept that this is not and never has been the intent of Senator Madigan's bringing forward the bill. The bill purports to protect Australian consumers from products that do not meet Australian standards and have been known to risk people's lives. We have seen media reports around that, and it has been extremely concerning. There are recent cases that have received considerable media attention about imports that have not met standards and have caused damage and in some cases death. So, there is a background there and a strong need to take action. However, while we share Senator Madigan's concerns about the reliability and safety of goods, we are not convinced that trade policy is the mechanism for enforcing appropriate standards. And that is what this bill is about.

Australia has domestic product standards and a very strong associated compliance framework that should not be tied to preferential trade agreements. This bill imposes high regulatory burdens and additional costs on Australian exporters and foreign firms for what could be of little or no foreseeable benefit. It also discriminates by only imposing restrictions on imports from countries with which Australia has a trade agreement. Although we recognise that Senator Madigan sees this as a legitimate avenue for addressing the problems, it goes without saying that goods imported into Australia do not come only from those countries with which we have a trade agreement. Senator Madigan has talked about double standards. The premise lying behind the bill is that Australian manufacturers are being undercut by cheap imports. Yet we believe that an unfortunate consequence of the bill is that it would impose restrictions on our trading partners—the very countries on whom our exporters rely for their income—yet not on imports from those countries with whom we do not have a relationship through trade agreements.

In the adjournment debate here in the Senate on Tuesday 23 September, Senator Madigan gave this explanation for why he has introduced the bill into the Senate:

In the media in recent months, we have been inundated with examples of products being imported from overseas that do not meet Australian standards, yet they are not covered under the ACCC’s area of authority or anyone else's area of authority.

This bill creates a holistic solution, which will ensure responsibility and accountability so that standards are enforced across borders, with the assistance of foreign diplomatic assistance at the highest level.

We say to Senator Madigan: if the problem is the standard of products on the Australian market, then we should be addressing that problem where it matters—right here in Australia. The problem does not stem from our trade agreements. Trade agreements did not create a gap in Australia's domestic policies for the regulation of product safety. Unfortunately, we believe this is an attempt to increase protection for one part of the economy, not for consumers, which will in fact come at much greater cost to Australian exporters and, in fact, Australian consumers. Senator Madigan makes no secret of this with his second reading speech outlining that this is not a bill about consumer protection but about levelling the playing field between importers and domestic producers.

Let me now go to the text of the bill and address Labor's concerns in specific terms. Section 4 requires a trade agreement to include certain provisions, creating a binding obligation between the countries party to the agreement to enforce each other's product standards. The substantive provision is subsection 2, which states that, prior to entering into the agreement, the Commonwealth must ensure that the trade agreement includes a binding requirement that goods sold to a purchaser located in one country by a company or entity located in the other country should comply with all applicable product standards that apply in the purchaser's country; or, if the goods do not comply with all applicable product standards that apply in the purchaser's country, the company or entity selling the products must ensure that the goods are improved to standards that comply with all applicable Australian product standards.

This is the crux of the bill, so let me break it down. The provision binds the Commonwealth to include this clause in every trade agreement it signs. It means that products must meet the higher of the Australian standard or the standard of the country they are being exported to, or that products being imported into Australia must meet the Australian standard regardless of any other standards that might apply in the exporting country. Section 4, subsection 1, states this applies to a new trade agreement and an agreement that amends an existing trade agreement. Imposing such conditions on new trade agreements will be difficult, but it also applies to existing agreements where they are amended, even if the amendment is made in an area totally unrelated to the import and export of goods.

Unfortunately, whilst Senator Madigan is seeking to close the gate on imports below a certain standard, we believe this provision would in fact leave that gate slightly open. Let us accept for the purposes of this argument that there is a problem with below-standard products being imported into Australia and that somehow it is possible to fix this problem through a trade agreement. If this is a problem, under the provisions of this bill, not only is this problem not actually resolved but Australians could face a situation where products imported under a new agreement are covered, products imported under an existing agreement are not covered, products imported under an existing agreement that has been amended are covered, but products imported from a country with which there is no agreement exists are not covered at all. This is not the best approach. Consumer safety must be of paramount importance and we all agree on that. We believe that the situation put forward in this bill will not make the Australian consumer feel any safer. I return to the point that trade agreements are not the place to enforce product standards. They are not the place to enforce product standards because, as the example I just gave demonstrates, there are in fact no standards at all.

Section 5 creates the prohibition on the Commonwealth entering into trade agreements that do not include the product standard requirements. Section 6 defines the meaning of a trade agreement as being an international agreement that the Commonwealth has entered or will enter into with the government of another country or with the governments of a group of countries that will abolish or decrease tariffs or other import charges that are levied or charged by Australia at the time goods are imported into Australia. I note that this includes agreements negotiated under a World Trade Organisation or United Nations framework.

It is unclear how the obligations imposed by the bill would be enforced. This is a flaw in this legislation that provides an obstacle to our support. The explanatory memorandum only says that this would be the responsibility of embassies, by stating 'standards are enforced across borders, with the assistance of foreign diplomatic assistance at the highest level'. I have a great deal of confidence in our diplomats and staff in agencies such as Austrade, but I am not sure how their expertise translates to being the gatekeepers for products being exported out of the countries in which they are based to ensure they meet technical standards. If product standards are a problem, and in particular the testing of products, then there is a much greater imperative to act. It would be more appropriate if Senator Madigan talked about how we could bring forward some proposals to arrest a gap in the regulation of product standards and compliance. We believe that should be done domestically.

Trade liberalisation is essential for Australia to secure markets for our exports, as long as Australia's national interest is not traded away. The opening of Australia's economy, including the dismantling of barriers to trade, has been one of the most important reforms of the modern era. It has built today's dynamic and competitive Australian economy. It has improved the living standards of millions of Australian working people, and it has stimulated the growth of innovative and entrepreneurial Australian businesses. Australia is no longer a closed economy. That is not something that has just happened this year, in the last five years or, indeed, in the last 10 years. No longer do we live in a country shielded by a wall of tariffs and protection, closed to the world. This is not where we have lived in for a very long time. There is a sense in some quarters of this debate that somehow competition from overseas is some sort of new innovation, but barriers to imports in this country have progressively been dismantled over more than four decades.

I am now going to be indulgent and talk about Labor's history in this area. It is a good time to talk about the good times. I think of the dramatic cuts to tariffs under Gough Whitlam, the first bold steps to create a new approach to trade policy after the protectionism that was one of the five pillars of the Australian settlement, enduring from Federation in 1901 until the 1970s. Then we move forward to the economic reforms of Bob Hawke. I remember Hawke's Treasurer, Paul Keating, working alongside him to achieve these objectives. And then Keating became Prime Minister. He led the nation with not just an economic vision but a social and cultural one that included opening our relationships with our neighbours in Asia and recognising that Australia's export future lay in our region. In that cabinet they had John Button, Labor's industry minister from 1983 to 1993, who worked to assist employees of industries that were no longer competitive to transition into new employment. Those transitions were hard—and people remember how difficult that time was and the debates that occurred across the community and, indeed, across our own party at the time—but it was agreed that the change was necessary. In the trade portfolio, John Dawkins founded the Cairns Group of agricultural exporting nations, an important bloc in the World Trade Organization which has advocated for freeing up trade in farm goods. Peter Cook, with whom I was privileged to serve for a period in this place when I was first elected, helped bring the World Trade Organization's Uruguay round to a successful conclusion.

The legacy continued with the Rudd and Gillard governments. Both of those prime ministers maintained a strong focus on Australia's international relationships whilst in office. They were supported in many portfolios by Simon Crean and Craig Emerson. As Minister for Trade, Crean negotiated free-trade agreements with Chile, the Association of South East Asian Nations and New Zealand, whilst Emerson negotiated a free-trade agreement with Malaysia, helped launch negotiations for a global trade-in-services agreement and opened new pathways for progressing the World Trade Organization's Doha round.

All these Labor governments have played important roles in dismantling protectionist barriers. Labor recognises that reducing barriers to trade can boost our economic growth, create more competitive industries and give consumers access to a wider range of goods and services at lower prices. However, the imposition of this sort of legislation without consultation with industry would lead to the loss of Australian jobs. So when we talk about protecting jobs—and I know that Senator Madigan is very strong in this area—we need to consider how we can really ensure a secure future for Australian workers. In the decisions that we make in this parliament we can seek to achieve this objective by either looking backwards or looking forwards.

We in Labor will continue to do what we have done for the last 40 years and look forward, recognising that our national prosperity will only increase if we are able to find new markets for new exports. In order to achieve these important goals we must also reciprocate and open our markets to other countries. This debate will continue; it must continue, because that is our future. When we are talking about interaction in this free-trade environment, there will be concerns raised, but they must be acknowledged and then we can work together to see how we can make sure we balance the protection we need for our jobs and industries and our important role in future trade agreements. That must continue.

With Senator Madigan proposing in this bill to set up a mechanism in a trade agreement in an attempt to solve a problem relating to consumer safety, it means that we are confusing the responsibilities we have. We acknowledge that we have deep concern about product quality and the protection of consumers, but we do not believe this debate should be had within the trade portfolio. Labor supports mechanisms that improve safety for Australian consumers, and that means deep scrutiny and exposing products that do not meet Australian standards when they are in our community. That surveillance must continue and it must be strengthened if there are weaknesses seen in that area. This bill does not achieve that objective. It attempts to create a legislative protection that only applies in a narrow and limited circumstance with countries with which we have trade agreements, and we believe it is not enforceable. What is more, it effectively winds back policies to open international markets to Australian exporters, which will damage Australian industry and the Australian economy.

We understand the intent of the bill. We want to work to ensure that we have protection for the standards in our community, and we acknowledge the people who work in that part of compliance across the nation. We also acknowledge the loss of life that has occurred—and it has been publicised—through bad products that should be excluded from our market. We should always remember that these debates are stimulated by real cases, and I do not think we should have the debate without acknowledging those people who have been injured or killed. Recently it was to do with connections to telephones. There were cases around telephones and a young woman who was killed overnight by that use. Naturally, we all share an abhorrence of that and it should not be allowed to continue. However, we do not believe that linking product safety and product standards in the Australian community with impositions on our trade and the trade portfolio is the best way of working forward to achieve the common goal of safety and security for Australian consumers and Australian industries.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:27): First of all, I congratulate Senator Madigan on raising this issue which deals with fair trade and Australian standards. It is an important discussion. It is particularly important to the part of the world that I come from. In fact, I have just had to leave a meeting in my office with my Queensland LNP Senate colleagues—Senator O'Sullivan unfortunately had to leave a little earlier—and the mayors of five of the shires in the Townsville region who are all very keen to promote their parts of North Queensland for trade and investment with the booming Asian economies. I thank Mr Ewen Jones, the hardworking and ever active member for Herbert, based in Townsville. I was pleased to welcome to my office Mayor Jenny Hill, from the Townsville City Council; Councillor Frank Beveridge, the mayor of the Charters Towers Regional Council; Mr Rodger Bow, the chair of the Hinchinbrook Shire Council; Mr Alf Lacey, from the Palm Island Council; and my own mayor, Councillor Bill Lowis, from the Burdekin Shire. Those five shires are banding together. They have come to the national capital this week at the invitation of Mr Jones to make sure that their message is heard in relation to trade considerations with Asia. They have been ably supported by both Townsville Enterprise Limited and the Townsville Chamber of Commerce who have a very clear focus on trade between this part of Northern Australia, Asia and the Pacific. Trade is always something that is very much front-of-mind for those of us who live in Northern Australia. For that reason I am delighted to participate in this debate that has been initiated, as I understand, by Senator Madigan.

I regret to say that, whilst I understand the sentiments of the bill that Senator Madigan has proposed, there are some issues with the bill that perhaps could be unintentionally counter-productive. Just by way of background, I indicate that Australia always retains the right, both under its World Trade Organization commitments and its free trade agreements, to regulate goods sold in Australia and to prevent the import of goods that do not meet Australia's mandatory standards, and that is very important. It is a principle that has been in Australia's trade relationships for a long time. Australia's import requirements for goods are established by taking into account the framework of rules established by the WTO. Australia benefits very substantially from those rules because, without them, Australian exports could be vulnerable to political and protectionist pressures in other countries. That is always a problem with trade negotiations, generally.

I suspect there would not be many senators in this place who have not, at some time in their lives, been approached by a constituent who said something like, 'Look, why don't we stop the Philippines importing bananas into Australia? Why don't we stop Asian countries importing motor vehicles into Australia so Australian industries can have a free go?' That is okay, and in the old days that was the way things were. What we have to understand is that, if we want the Philippines to buy our goods and services and if we want the Asian manufacturing countries to buy our technology, our services and our agricultural products, then we have to make sure that we have the freest possible trade between the countries. If we start putting up trade barriers, then you can be assured that other countries will retaliate, and you would not expect otherwise.

Particularly for our primary producers, it is essential that we have the freest possible trade. Australia produces much more in the way of food and general agricultural produce than we can possibly consume. So, Australian industries—two that I am very familiar with in the north are the sugar industry and the beef industry—can only exist because countries buy the products we sell that are surplus to our own needs. I might say that in both those instances the surplus is far more than what we consume nationally. So, the freest possible trade is essential. When you do things that interfere with that trade, like the absolutely, ludicrous, ridiculous and unintelligible ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia, you get retaliation, and that is what we do not want in our trading arrangements.

In looking at Senator Madigan's bill a couple of the things that spring to mind lead me, in this instance, not to support this bill. The bill, as I read it, would make free trade negotiations, which are crucial to Australia,—particularly to our agricultural and horticultural industries—much more difficult to negotiate. The bill suggests that Australia would be required to give a less favourable treatment to goods imported from free trade partners than treatment given to goods from other countries. Free trade agreements are, of course, all about making trade easier and more efficient.

This bill would require that Australia not consider applications for Australia to accept conformity assessment procedures in other countries as being equivalent to those in Australia. Similarly, as I understand this bill, it would require Australia not to consider applications for Australia to accept that another country's requirements are equivalent to Australia's in terms of policy objectives being pursued, even if the detail of those requirements is not the same. This bill would require Australia to adopt import requirements that have an effect of creating unnecessary and therefore unfortunate obstacles to trade. Also the bill, as it is drafted, would place a legal burden on a foreign exporter in their own jurisdiction, in contrast to the current process which places the onus on the importer operating with Australia.

If these measures were introduced, you could expect some retaliation. As I said, the most recent example that comes to mind is the Indonesian—understandable—reaction when, overnight, we cut off a food supply which provided about one-third of the protein supplements for that populous nation to our north.

We have to be very careful in all trading arrangements to make sure that we do not invite retaliatory measures, because Australia as a nation—no matter how good we are, how rich we are or how many natural resources we have—cannot exist as a nation without the freest possible free and open trade. I mention that in the North, and in the recent free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China, the sugar industry do feel as if they have been singled out for bad treatment because unfortunately sugar has not done very well in any of them. But there is a reason for that. With the most recent agreement we understand that there is a significant sugar industry in China, and the Chinese were going to have a particular local political problem if cheaper better Australian sugar was going to enter the Chinese market. We had to recognise the Chinese difficulties in the negotiations, as they recognised some of the issues that we had with the state development regulations—which we would like to have seen more explicitly mentioned.

Sugar is a very important export commodity from Australia. Most of the Australian sugar crop is exported. I am hopeful that the fantastic negotiations by Mr Robb will mean that sugar will again be considered in the review in three or four years' time, which has been negotiated as part of the overall China free trade agreement, as I understand it. There I hope sugar may be a bit better dealt with. We do already export quite a lot of sugar to China, but there is room for improvement in that. But most essentially, in any negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement sugar must be included in a way that benefits Australia. The sugar industry—and, indeed, many of my colleagues and myself—will draw a line in the sand if sugar is ignored in any future Trans-Pacific Partnership arrangements. I digress slightly from the bill, but I wanted to indicate just how important it is, and how delicate negotiations are, for free trade agreements.

I mention again the high-powered delegation of mayors from five of the more prominent local authorities in Australia who are in Canberra making their views known and working very hard to advance the economic base of their own communities—which flows on to the economic base for Australia. They are determined to make sure that their shires and, indeed, to ensure that the whole of Northern Australia is seen as a liveable place and a good place to be with all the necessary social services. There are a number of ways that this can be done. The Australian government, of course, has to do its bit to help. I know our tourist traffic with Asia could increase substantially if we had a little bit more access from Northern Australia into the burgeoning Asian economies, those with increasingly large numbers of middle-class Asians who are looking for holiday experiences elsewhere. Already in the North we have good international airports in Darwin and in Cairns, and we continue to promote those places as destinations.

There is a group called AirAsia who would like to establish a new direct international link from Townsville—clearly numerically the biggest city in Northern Australia—direct to Denpasar in Bali and from Denpasar out of the AirAsia hub to the rest of the world. I understand that the fares that are being talked about are so attractive that even someone of my limited means would be able to fly from Townsville direct to Bali and then on to Asia if the air link were able to be established. I know that Townsville airport is limited but those who run the airport there are very keen. They have set everything up, they have made concessions and they are well advanced in opening this new international link. Unfortunately, the difficulty is the cost of getting Australian Custom' support for an airport that does not have a permanent Customs presence at the airport. Customs do have a permanent presence at the Port of Townsville, the seaport, and I hear—and I will explore this later in estimates this afternoon—that there is some diminution in the numbers of Customs staff at the Townsville port. I want to explore, as Mr Ewen Jones has suggested to me, why those Customs people could not be moved from the Townsville port to the Townsville airport to deal with this new proposed direct international flight from Townsville to Denpasar. Those are the things that have to be looked at and have to be considered as Australia pursues its trade and investment options.

I know there are other people who want to speak on this bill so I will not continue. Again, I thank Senator Madigan for raising the issue. I understand the sentiments behind the bill. There are some elements of the bill, some principles of the bill, that I do support, but I think because of the concerns that I understand might follow from the implementation of this bill, I would, at this stage, be against the adoption of this particular measure.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I advise senators that the time for this debate will end at 11.53.

Senator KETTER (Queensland) (11:44): I rise to make a contribution in respect of the Fair-Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013. I regret to say that, despite the well-intentioned motives of Senator Madigan with this bill, I cannot support it. There probably would not be a parliamentarian in this place who would not want to see proper standards being imposed in respect of manufactured goods in Australia. When we look at the explanatory memorandum of this bill, we can see some quite laudable objectives. The memorandum says:

The Bill will require Australia's trading partners to ensure that companies that export goods to Australia take responsibility for ensuring that their manufactured goods meet Australian Standards prior to being sold on the Australian market. The requirement will require the Minister to ensure that appropriate requirements are included in any trade agreement that Australia enters into with another country.

That all sounds very good and there probably would not be too many people that would object to the intentions behind the bill. Unfortunately, there are a number of shortcomings with it.

One of the concerns that I have, as a senator for Queensland, is that I live in a state which is currently being mismanaged by the Newman government. The other factor that I think is relevant here is that Queensland is a state which depends upon trade. It is a very important part of the Queensland economy. Unfortunately, it would appear that Senator Madigan's bill has the potential for damaging Australia's trading arrangements with other countries. If that is in fact the case, then we certainly have some major concerns about it. If we look at the Queensland situation at the moment, we see that our state cannot make any further changes which would make it more difficult for our struggling Queensland government to meet its obligations to ensure that we have a thriving economy. Right now, we have got very big employment worries across regional Queensland. It has been revealed that we have seen unemployment at seven per cent, seasonally adjusted, in Queensland, with youth unemployment rates particularly high. This is a concern that I have: if we have a bill which, despite its good intentions, may lead to retaliation from our trading partners, then this could particularly adversely affect the good people of Queensland.

Apart from the intention behind the bill being quite laudable, we have some concerns about the way in which the bill has been drafted. We are concerned about the fact that it may not have the effect that Senator Madigan intends for it to have. The bill, unfortunately, has not been drafted or explained in a way that would allow the Senate to have confidence that, if it were enacted into law, it would achieve those laudable objectives.

As I have said, the bill would probably lead to some retaliation. I heard the contribution from Senator Macdonald, and it is probably one of the rare occasions that Senator Macdonald and I would agree on something. Unfortunately, if you leave things fairly loosely worded in the bill then it is likely that there are going to be some unintended consequences.

The bill, unfortunately, imposes higher regulatory burdens and additional costs on Australian exporters and foreign firms, for what would appear to be little benefit.

Trade liberalisation is essential for Australia, and particularly Queensland, to secure markets for our exports, so long as we do not sell out our national interest in meeting those liberalisation objectives. The opening-up of the Queensland economy and the Australian economy, including the dismantling of barriers to trade, has been one of the very important reforms that have occurred in recent times. I am very proud of the fact that Labor was at the forefront of that in the eighties, expanding the Australian economy and making the Australian economy much more outward looking. This, over time, has had the effect of improving the living standards of millions of Australian working people. And of course it has stimulated growth of innovative and entrepreneurial Australian businesses.

Whilst Senator Madigan might be seeking to protect Australian consumers, what he seems to be, in effect, doing is protecting Australian industry. I understand the intention behind that, and perhaps in other circumstances I might be more supportive of this type of approach, but the current bill does not advance the cause in a way that is helpful or constructive. We recognise that Australia is no longer a closed economy, and this is not something which just happened in the last five years or so; it has happened over the last couple of decades.

I would also like to point out that we understand that reducing barriers to trade can boost our economic growth but, unfortunately, this bill is not going to achieve this objective (Time expired)

Senator DAY (South Australia) (11:53): I table a replacement to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2014.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:54): I present the 15th Report of 2014 of the Selection of Bills Committee. and I seek to have the report incorporated in Hansard

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Senator BUSHBY: I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 15 OF 2014

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 at 7.35 pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the provisions of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 February 2015 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Direct Lending and Other Measures) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 February 2015 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Biosecurity Bill 2014, the Biosecurity (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2014, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2014 and the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 March 2015 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

Australian War Memorial Amendment Bill 2014

Freedom to Marry Bill 2014

Save Our Sharks Bill 2014

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014

Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014.

The committee recommends accordingly.

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

ACT Government Loan Bill 2014

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Local Content) Bill 2014

Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2014

Corporations Amendment (Publish What You Pay) Bill 2014

Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014

Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2014

Mining Subsidies Legislation Amendment (Raising Revenue) Bill 2014

Motor Vehicle Standards (Cheaper Transport) Bill 2014

Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for Single Parents) Bill 2014.

(David Bushby)

Chair

27 November 2014

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITT EE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To understand the impact on shareholder participation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

28/29 January

Possible reporting date:

11 February 2014

(signed)

Senator Rachel Siewert

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Direct Lending and Other Measures) Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The impact of substantially expanding the scope of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) and its consequences in relation to aid spending

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Human Rights Law Centre

Jubilee Australia

Aid Watch

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

3 February 2015

Possible reporting date:

11 February 2015

(signed)

Senator Rachel Siewert

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

APPENDIX 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Biosecurity Bill 2014

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This proposes a major change to our biosecurity framework and requires scrutiny

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Farming sector, invasive species experts, environmental sector

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

17 March 2015.

(signed)

Senator Rachel Siewert

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (11:58): On behalf of Senator Cormann, I move:

That, for the purposes of paragraph 48(1)(a) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, the Senate:

(a) supports the making of regulations re-instating provisions the same in substance as the following provisions of Corporations Amendment (Streamlining Future of Financial Advice) Regulation 2014, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2014 No. 102: Schedule 1 Items 5 (Accountants’ certificate renewal period); 11 (Stamping fee provision); 12 to 17 (ASX24 related provisions); 27 (non monetary education or training benefit not conflicted remuneration); and 28, 29 and 31 to 35 (Grandfathering arrangements); and

(b) rescinds its disallowance resolution of 19 November 2014 relating to the above regulation, to the extent necessary to permit the re-making of the aforementioned provisions in the regulations.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:00): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Family Tax Benefit (Tighter Income Test) Bill 2014 will, if enacted, reduce payments of Family Tax Benefit Part A payments for days on and after 1 July 2015.

This will reduce government spending by more than $800 million by June 2018, with spending cuts to continue in subsequent years. Such a reduction of government spending improves the Budget position, improves the sustainability of social security, and reduces the long term taxation burden.

The reduction in government spending will include a reduction in departmental costs, reflecting lower processing costs for the Department of Human Services as fewer families would be in receipt of Family Tax Benefit Part A.

The Bill reduces Family Tax Benefit Part A payments for around 15 per cent of recipient families, while preserving payments for families with the least income.

The Bill only changes one number in the law—it sets the 'higher income free area' to zero.

Families with no income and families in receipt of certain income support payments are unaffected by this change. For other families, their Family Tax Benefit Part A will continue to be reduced by 20 per cent of any family income over the (current) $50,151 threshold. However, this reduction will not stop when the base rate is reached. Instead, the reduction will continue until the payment reaches zero.

No family with an income below $50,151 will be affected.

For families with incomes between $50,151 and $66,084, adverse impacts can only arise for those in receipt of substantial child maintenance payments. This is the case because, under current law, the Family Tax Benefit Part A payments for such families can be reduced to the base rate, irrespective of income levels. As such, once incomes exceed $50,151 and the income test commences, it will be possible, under this Bill, for the Family Tax Benefit Part A payment to fall below the base rate. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimate that 5,530 families may fall into this category.

For other families, adverse impacts can only arise for families with incomes in excess of $66,084. The majority of families who will incur an adverse impact will be families with incomes over $90,000.

Tax-welfare-churn is where people pay tax then get some of it back in welfare payments, only after the bureaucracy takes its cut, and only after taxpayers expend considerable effort to apply for the welfare payments on offer. Only through spending cuts such as those proposed in this Bill will tax-welfare-churn fall.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (12:01): On behalf of Senator Xenophon, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Charter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator MADIGAN: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (12:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill is a response to the long-held concerns of members of the public, many of my colleagues in this place, and ABC staff members themselves.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is known as our ABC' for a reason. As Australia's public broadcaster, it has a specific role and responsibilities, as set out in its Charter. The aim of the Charter is to ensure the ABC represents a wide range of voice from a wide range of areas, and remains non-partisan and unbiased.

Over the last few years, we have seen an increasing 'centralisation' of the ABC, as many of its state- or territory-based production, journalism and broadcasting services have been rolled into the main offices in Sydney and Melbourne. The result has been a reduction in diversity of stories and voices, and an increased focus on east-coast metropolitan interests.

Most recently, the Government announced cuts to the ABC's budget of $254 million over five years. In response, the ABC has announced hundreds of job cuts and the cancellation of the state-based 7.30 program editions. The television production unit in South Australia—the last remaining unit outside Sydney or Melbourne—will also close.

Further, the ABC annual report for 2013/14 shows that New South Wales was the only state to see significant growth in staff over the past decade, while the rest of the country shrank or remained flat as a fraction of total staff numbers. New South Wales now accounts for more than half (51 per cent) of the ABC's 4,679 full time equivalent jobs. South Australia's stake saw the sharpest drop of all, from 8 per cent to 6.9 per cent.

The aim of this Bill is to amend the ABC's Charter in response to this centralisation. The Bill inserts specific requirements into the Charter regarding the production and dissemination of local content to ensure that journalism, production and broadcasting occur outside Sydney and Melbourne.

Specifically, the new provisions will require the ABC to have a 'distinct and discernible presence' across each State and Territory, across all of its platforms. This includes but is not limited to news programs, including at least one weekly half-hour current affairs program, investigative journalism and regional journalism. This content must be produced in, of, for and by that State or Territory.

Further, the ABC must also fund internal television production units in at least four States and/or Territories outside New South Wales and Victoria and including the existing facilities in South Australia, which are resourced to the extent that they are able to produce content beyond news and current affairs. The ABC must set aside at least 0.5 per cent of its annual budget for the operation of each unit.

These measures are a direct response to the winding back of local content within the ABC. It is vital that Australia's public broadcaster fully represent all members of our society, not just those who live in Sydney and Melbourne. This Bill will protect and enhance the ABC's provision of local content, and will ensure it truly remains 'our ABC'.

Senator MADIGAN: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (12:21): I, and on behalf of Senators Macdonald, Leyonhjelm and Urquhart, move:

That the following bill be introduced: A bill for an act to establish the Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (12:22): I present the explanatory memoranda and I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

REGULATOR OF MEDICINAL CANNABIS BILL 2014

Cannabis is an ancient plant that has been used for thousands of years to alleviate pain and treat certain medical conditions. It has been used to relieve some distressing symptoms, especially when front-line treatments have failed to work.

The anecdotal evidence from those who have used medicinal cannabis has been corroborated by international studies and trials, and there is a growing body of evidence appearing in peer reviewed and reputable medical and scientific journals supporting the use of medicinal cannabis under strict regulations.

That is why I am introducing a Bill to establish a Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis.

The Regulator will be responsible for licensing the production, manufacture, supply, use, research and import and export of medicinal cannabis.

The Regulator's role will be to approve medicinal cannabis products for inclusion in a register. This system of regulating medicinal cannabis will operate separately from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

The establishment of the Regulator would not prevent pharmaceutical companies applying to the TGA instead of using the scheme established by this Bill. They will effectively have a choice about which system to use. So too will the States and Territories, who under this Bill can elect to be part of a regulated system for the cultivation, supply, research and use of medicinal cannabis.

This Bill has been drafted so that it is consistent with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and ensures that cannabis used in ways not authorised or licenced by the Regulator will be subject to state and territory criminal sanctions.

The Bill is divided into five parts, each setting out the functions and operations of the Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis. The Regulator will provide a national system for licencing the cultivation and manufacture of cannabis for medicinal purposes; it will authorise people to obtain and use medicinal cannabis and it will facilitate research into cannabis for medicinal purposes.

The Regulator will also maintain a number of confidential registers encompassing people granted licences to be authorised cultivators, producers, users, researchers and importers and exporters. Additionally, the Regulator will create and maintain a register of regulated medicinal cannabis products. To be included on the register, the Regulator must be satisfied that the cannabis is suitable for medicinal use, that it meets the appropriate standards, and that all designated requirements are met. The register is modelled on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

The registration process and the register will have a number of rules prescribed for those people applying to be included on the register and the Regulator will have the power to remove or vary registration.

In this way, the Bill will ensure that medicinal cannabis is manufactured, supplied and used in a safe, consistent and controlled way. The licensing scheme ensures that all standards and regulations are complied with and the product will have to meet certain standards. Those authorised to use medicinal cannabis will likewise be required to meet strict criteria.

It is important to note that State and Territory criminal sanctions relating to illegal substances and drug use will still apply to anyone who misuses medicinal cannabis or fails to comply with the intent of this Bill. For example, if an authorised cultivator or manufacturer was to sell medicinal cannabis in any way not prescribed by the Regulator, or an authorised user was to sell or supply medicinal cannabis, they would be subject to the criminal sanctions that apply in the relevant State or Territory the offence was committed in.

The principle purpose of this Bill is to create a scheme whereby authorised patients, their carer or their medical practitioner can access specific medicinal cannabis products for medical use.

The Bill is intended to operate in conjunction with medical practitioners, who can apply to the Regulator on behalf of a patient or carer.

Research and development of medicinal cannabis is a growing field of science. It is important that research into types and strains of cannabinoids and medicinal cannabis be encouraged and furthered by the Regulator. The experimental cannabis licensing scheme, which will be operated by the Regulator, will allow authorised persons to develop, evaluate, test and improve cannabis products for medicinal purposes. The Regulator will also be responsible for issuing licences and prescribing a scheme for research and experiments with medicinal cannabis.

The on-going research into medicinal cannabis is an exciting field and Australia can play a lead role in improving methods of cultivation, evaluating efficacy and safety, improving delivery methods – such as how medicinal cannabis can be consumed by an authorised patient – and performing other clinical trials. This will further our understanding of cannabis as a medicinal product.

The Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis will be a listed entity with codified functions and powers, such as a Board, Chief Executive Officer and staff. The Minister will appoint the Chair and qualified members. The authorisation to cultivate or use medicinal cannabis necessitates expertise in a number of areas, such as plant cultivation, pharmacy, medicine, legal implications and criminality, so membership of the Regulator will include people with expertise in one of the following fields: Medicine, Pharmacology, Palliative Care, Botany, Horticulture, Law and Law enforcement or patient advocacy.

The membership must include at least one medical practitioner, one member of the Australia Federal Police and one person representing patients and users. This provides a balance of interests.

Finally, this Bill recognises that cannabis is a drug that is not legal in Australian states and territories. As with the Australian poppy industry, cannabis can be used for medicinal purposes as well as being a drug that is not legally available and carries criminal sanctions for cultivation, possession and trafficking. It is necessary that sanctions and penalties apply to any authorised person who abuses or misuses their obligations to the Regulator to provide, supply or use cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Both the public and law enforcement agencies must be confident that there are strict provisions in place so that only those authorised have access to medicinal cannabis and that manufacture and use is conducted under strict guidelines.

The monitoring and investigative powers in the Bill apply only to people authorised by the Regulator to cultivate, supply, use or experiment with medicinal cannabis. A person or persons applying to the Regulator for a licence will be advised of the monitoring and investigative powers.

This Bill establishes a strict and controlled Regulator to licence every aspect of medicinal cannabis, from cultivation through to end users. It will allow authorised people to use a medicinal cannabis product where front-line treatments have failed or where it can alleviate pain or other symptoms.

Debate adjourned.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (12:23): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) That the Government's 2014 15 Budget included cuts of $589.6 million from housing and homelessness initiatives, including axing the $44 million capital budget in the National Partnership Agreement for Homelessness (NPAH) used for shelters and housing for the homeless,

(ii) continued uncertainty over the future of the Government's responsibility for housing places at least 3 400 highly specialised jobs across 180 initiatives providing services to 80 000 clients every year under the NPAH at risk, and

(iii) even at current levels of funding there are 100 000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in Australia and another 225 000 Australian families on waiting lists for social housing; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, no later than noon on Wednesday, 3 December 2014, statements to the Senate clarifying the Government's commitment to:

(i) homelessness beyond June 2015, including progress on review and negotiations of the NPAH, and

(ii) affordable housing, including the future of the National Affordable Housing Agreement.

Question agreed to.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:24): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 540 standing in my name for today relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the China-Australia trade agreement before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave not granted.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( 12:24): Leave is not granted, Senator Whish-Wilson. You can either move the motion as it is or not move it. That concludes formal business.

The PRESIDENT (12:25): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The PRESIDENT (12:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This bill, the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014, amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to provide that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, be a member of the Security Management Board. Alternatively, in place of the commissioner, a deputy commissioner or senior executive AFP employee, may be a member of the Security Management Board for Parliament House upon nomination by the presiding officers. The bill also amends the existing functions of the board to include the operation of security measures.

As President of the Senate, my primary concern is for the safety of Parliament House, but more importantly its occupants, and to ensure that people may go about their business in a safe and secure environment. As senators will be aware, the existing security arrangements for Parliament House have been enhanced and strengthened over the past weeks, following the national terrorism public alert level being raised from medium to high. Security arrangements in the parliamentary precincts are under continual and careful assessment, and I am working closely with a range of departments including security and intelligence agencies, in carrying out the necessary security works within the parliamentary precinct.

Together with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, we have already implemented additional measures here at Parliament House, including enhanced perimeter controls, changed access arrangements for the public and private areas of Parliament House, and an armed response capability. We have also increased the armed presence guarding our parliament, which now includes long armed weapons. Whilst we have taken the necessary steps on security early, building occupants will notice significant building security works being undertaken in the weeks and months ahead.

As part of the physical security enhancements, we have been reviewing the governance arrangements for security matters within Parliament House. This bill seeks to further strengthen those governance arrangements in two important areas.

Firstly, this bill will enable a representative of the Australian Federal Police to be a full member of the Security Management Board, a board which is established under section 65A of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999. This board provides advice to the presiding officers as required, on security policy and the management of security measures, for Parliament House.

Other members of the board include representatives from the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, and the Department of Parliamentary Services. The function of the board is to provide advice to the presiding officers on a range of security measures, and having the Australian Federal Police as a member of the board will boost the board's capability and reach on security matters.

Secondly, this bill will amend the remit of the board, which is set out in subsection 65A(5) of the Act, to allow the board to provide advice to the presiding officers on the management or operation of security measures for Parliament House. This will mean that the board may provide a wide range of advice to the presiding officers on both short-term and long-term security matters.

Accordingly, I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bill be listed on the Notice Paper as an order of the day.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (12:26): By leave, I had intended to add Senator McLucas's name to my general business notice of motion No. 542. I am just wondering, with leave of the Senate, if I can just correct that.

Leave granted.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There being no objection, we will have that noted.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (12:27): I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (12:27): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 2014

The Customs Amendment Bill 2014 is an omnibus bill that proposes a number of minor changes to the Customs Act 1901 (the Customs Act).

Firstly, the bill will amend the Customs Act to extend Customs powers of examination to the baggage of domestic travellers on international flights and voyages, and to domestic cargo that is carried on an international flight or voyage. Domestic travellers and their personal effects and domestic cargo are often carried on domestic legs of international flights or voyages between Australian ports or airports and places other than proclaimed ports and airports by approved ships and aircraft.

There is a serious vulnerability that dutiable or prohibited goods will be transferred where domestic travellers on international flights can access the sterile areas of airports and mix with international travellers during embarkation and disembarkation processing. The intermingling of domestic cargo and imported goods (or goods for export) also presents risks for diversion of cargo from one stream to the other.

The amendment will ensure that Customs control and powers of examination are provided for the goods of domestic travellers and of domestic cargo on international flights or voyages equal to the powers to examine the goods of international travellers and international cargo. This will close the gap in the treatment of identified border risks and reduce the advantage taken by criminal entities where domestic and international interactions can occur.

This bill will also extend Customs control to those places at which ships and aircraft often arrive in Australia that are not proclaimed ports or airports and where government agencies do not have a strong presence. International ships or aircraft may seek permission to bring a ship or aircraft to a place other than a proclaimed port or airport. For instance, the cruise ship industry regularly seeks permission to visit non-proclaimed areas of the Australian coastline. Industries involved in offshore resource activities do not utilise traditional port facilities and often seek permission to bring vessels direct to an offshore installation. The master of a ship or pilot of an aircraft may also bring the ship or aircraft to a place other than a port or airport due to stress of weather or other reasonable cause.

It is in these instances that vulnerabilities exist when ships or aircraft brought to non-proclaimed places as part of an international journey may also be involved in disembarking travellers or unloading goods in those locations. Extending Customs control and examination powers to these non-proclaimed places will minimise the risks that these activities may pose.

This bill will improve, and make consistent with other parts of the Customs Act, the application processes for permissions to load and unload ships' and aircraft's stores, permissions to transfer goods between certain vessels and applications for a certificate of clearance. These amendments will also support initiatives to enable online applications for industry to seek these permissions.

The bill will also provide greater flexibility in relation to the reporting of the arrival of ships and aircraft in Australia and reporting stores and prohibited goods on such ships and aircraft. These changes will allow earlier assessment and the planning of resources required if the stores or prohibited goods reported present risks, including the management of firearms, weapons and narcotics.

The bill will also correct a technical error in relation to the interaction of Customs and Border Protection's Infringement Notice Scheme and claims process for seized goods under the Customs Act.

Finally, the bill will also improve the administration of the appointment of authorised officers by class under the Customs Act.

SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014

Employers operating in multiple states deal with different workers' compensation schemes and work health and safety regulations in each jurisdiction around Australia. This increases red tape for employers and is confusing for workers who are subject to different regulation and benefits depending on which state or territory they are employed in.

While in the past, certain private sector corporations have been able to self-insure for workers' compensation coverage through the Commonwealth's Comcare scheme, a moratorium on new corporations entering the Comcare scheme was imposed in 2007 by Labor. This was despite evidence from the 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry into National Workers' Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Frameworks which found that the cost for multistate employers of complying with multiple state workers' compensation arrangements was considerable. Those costs could have been used more effectively to create new jobs and improve the safety standards within the enterprise. The Howard government responded to the Productivity Commission inquiry recommendations by allowing eligible private corporations that operated in multiple states to apply for a self-insurance license with the Comcare scheme.

There are currently 30 licenced corporations who are benefiting from the reduced red tape and cost by having one set of workers' compensation arrangements for their national workforce. Ten of these are current or former Commonwealth authorities such as Australia Post and Telstra. The remaining twenty are private corporations such as Optus, TNT, the National Australia Bank and John Holland Corporation. The work health and safety performance of these companies since joining the Comcare scheme has been strong and in most cases has been better than it was under multiple state schemes. These companies have the benefit of significantly reduced red tape, cost and bureaucracy which frees them up to work more effectively with their employees to improve work health and safety in their organisations.

Following a campaign from the union bosses, the previous Labor government banned multistate companies from joining the Comcare scheme. Labor refused to lift the ban despite a 2012 review of the Comcare scheme commissioned by Labor led by Dr Allan Hawke AC, which recommended lifting the moratorium preventing multistate employers from joining the Comcare scheme, finding the requirement to insure in multiple states and territories to be inefficient and costly. The Leader of the Opposition sat on his hands and did not enact any recommendations of the report as workplace relations minister.

On 2 December 2013, the Coalition government lifted the moratorium so that multistate employers, which meet rigorous financial and governance criteria and demonstrate suitable work health and safety performance, can apply for a license to self-insure in the Comcare scheme, rather than through multiple schemes. It is the government's intention to also allow the multistate employers who choose to apply to self-insure for workers' compensation arrangements with Comcare, to also have one set of work, health and safety regulation rather than be subject to multiple state requirements and regulators.

This bill seeks to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) and the 11 to expand the eligibility of corporations to self-insure through the Commonwealth's Comcare scheme.

The amendments:

remove the need for the minister to declare eligibility to apply for a self-insurance licence while maintaining the ability for the minister to issue directions to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. This will streamline the current two-stage approval process;

remove the outdated requirement that a corporation must be in competition with a Commonwealth authority, or former Commonwealth authority, to enter the Comcare scheme; and

broaden the range of corporations that are eligible for a licence to self-insure under the Comcare scheme to 'national employers' defined as an employer that is required to meet workers' compensation obligations under the laws of two or more states or territories.

This approach will reduce red tape while ensuring a strong and robust approval process by the independent Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.

These important productivity reforms are critical for multistate employers. They will give these employers the option of continuing to operate under multilayered worker's compensation and work health and safety regimes, or to apply to have one set of national arrangements.

It is anticipated that the reduction in red tape and significant savings that could be realised for business could be spent on creating jobs and reinvesting in the economy.

Group licences

Currently, corporations applying to be covered under the Comcare scheme must be assessed individually for eligibility. A feature that business has been seeking for some time is the introduction of group licences to the SRC Act.

The bill provides for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to grant a licence to an eligible group of corporations that are owned by the same holding company, in line with the state schemes and the commercial reality of modern multicompany corporate structures.

Introduction of group licences will reduce red tape and costs for corporations as it recognises that groups of interrelated corporations often share return-to-work and work health and safety systems within the group. It will also recognise that each entity that forms part of a group does not individually need to meet the definition of a national employer.

This reform will be better for businesses, better for workers and better for the economy.

Serious and wilful misconduct

Currently under the SRC Act, workers' compensation can be claimed by a worker who is injured while involved in payable employment where an injury caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee results in death or serious and permanent impairment.

The bill removes access to compensation where any injury sustained by an employee is caused by their own serious and wilful misconduct.

While claims in this category are rare, the Australian public rightly expects that employees should take personal responsibility for their actions. The government believes that the workers' compensation scheme should be geared towards people acting in a proper and safe manner and not include a safety net for people who break the rules and put at risk not just themselves but other employees as well.

Offsite recess breaks

Currently workers' compensation is payable for injuries that occur during recess breaks, even if the employee is not at the place of work when the injury occurs, contrary to the position in South Australia and Tasmania.

The SRC Act as originally drafted provided compensation coverage for employees who were injured while absent from their place of work during an ordinary recess. This provision was removed by the coalition government in 2007, and then reintroduced by the Labor government in 2011.

The effect of the previous government's change to the Act is that workers' compensation could be payable, for example, where an employee sustains an injury while shopping, at a restaurant or playing sport away from the employee's place of employment during a lunch break. This is despite the employer having no control over the activities of the employee or the environment in which the employee engages in such activities. The proper avenue for people to seek recompense for injuries under such circumstances is through the owner of the premises where an injury occurred, not through their employer who has no control over the matter.

This bill addresses this unfair arrangement. Workers who are injured at work, even while having a recess or lunch break, will remain fully covered. Injuries that occur while the worker is away from the workplace undertaking activities associated with the employee's employment or at the request or direction of the employer will also still be covered.

Conclusion

This bill will reduce red tape and help to build a stronger and more prosperous economy. The real savings to business that will be realised under this bill can be reinvested in jobs and in the economy.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (12:28): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (12:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I am delighted to be able to introduce this bill today, because it is an important part of our package of RED TAPE reduction on repeal day, contributing to a reduction in business compliance costs, especially for small- and medium-sized businesses.

The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, or Efic, plays an important role in maximising Australia's trade potential. It helps ensure that Australian small- and medium-sized businesses have access to the finance they need to grow their business overseas and in turn, support our economy.

In recognition of Efic's valuable role and to restore funds removed by the previous government, the Coalition has provided Efic with a capital injection of $200 million in the 2014-15 budget. At the same time, we have renewed Efic's focus to the provision of support to SMEs, which combined with the capital injection will provide the flexibility to ensure Efic's products and its operations can respond effectively and efficiently to the evolving needs of our economy.

The Abbott government recognises the importance of finance as the oxygen of enterprise to small business and is refocusing Efic to increase its capacity to finance small- and medium-sized businesses seeking to capitalise on global trade opportunities. The vast majority of Australia's exporters are small- and medium-sized enterprises, but traditionally they find it more difficult to secure export finance through banks, particularly when exporting to emerging markets.

Efic plays an important role in supplementing the provision of credit for exporters and we are repositioning it to best support exporters into the future.

Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that only five per cent of Australian goods exports are capital goods. And yet, under the current Efic Act, Efic can lend directly in support of capital goods but not all goods. This means Efic cannot lend for exports of many of the products in which Australia excels, like pharmaceuticals, or consumer goods like food and wine. For example, this means Efic can support the export of cows, but not milk.

The government has, therefore, decided to enhance Efic's capacity to support small- and medium-sized businesses by allowing it to lend for the other 95 per cent of exports, thus improving the export potential of Australian small- and medium-sized businesses. To implement this measure, this Efic Amendment Bill is required to delete the word capital from the definition of an eligible export transaction in the Efic Act.

This amendment will also support the government's deregulation agenda and benefit exporters by reducing the time and paperwork required to access Efic support. The new direct lending arrangements will remove the need for exporters of non-capital goods to obtain a guarantee from Efic before they can secure funds from a bank, which doubles the due diligence processing time and requires two sets of documentation and legal fees.

This has a real impact on business.

For example, consider the case of the South Australian family-owned paint manufacturer Astec Paints. In recent years, Astec Paints has experienced increasing demand in Japan for its innovative paint products.

The company's elastometric paints, which are designed and manufactured in Adelaide, meet Japan's strict earthquake-resistant building codes, giving them a competitive edge in the market. Thanks to the elimination of all tariffs on paint products under the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, the company anticipates that strong growth in the Japanese market will continue.

To meet this demand, Astec required additional working capital to scale-up production. Although Astec's bank was supportive of their growth plans, it was unable assist without additional security. Efic stepped in to provide a $600,000 Export Working Capital Guarantee to Astec's bank. This allowed the bank to provide the funds Astec required.

However, under the current arrangements, Astec had to make two separate applications–one to Efic and another to their bank. As a result, they had to pay two sets of lender fees and charges.

Another Efic client, PCT Global, manufactures EnduroShield, an easy-clean surface treatment. The product was recently used to coat the spire of the new World Trade Centre building in New York. PCT also produces Home Do-It-Yourself (DIY) kits, which it distributes domestically through Bunnings Warehouse.

The DIY product was recently featured as one of Time magazine's top 10 most compelling products. Building on this success, PCT secured a multimillion dollar supply agreement with Home Depot in the United States – the world's largest home improvement retailer.

PCT needed additional working capital to expand production, but their bank was unable to provide further assistance. In response, Efic worked with PCT's bank to provide a US$650,000 working capital guarantee facility, which enabled PCT to meet the increased demand from this business-changing contract. However, without the benefits of the proposed deregulatory measures, PCT faced additional fees, interest charges and administrative costs to secure the guarantee facility.

These are just a couple of examples of how these changes will assist Australian SMEs and why this is such an important amendment to Efic's direct lending arrangements.

However, to ensure these changes do not bring Efic into direct competition with private sector financiers, the government has decided to apply competitive neutrality principles. This also implements the recommendation on competitive neutrality in the 2012 Productivity Commission Report on Australia's export credit arrangements. To achieve this change, the bill provides for Efic to pay a debt neutrality charge and a tax equivalent payment.

This will allow Efic to help commercially viable exporters overcome financial barriers without discouraging private sector participation in the market.

In conclusion, the amendments in this bill will be of particular benefit to small- and medium-sized businesses, the engine room of our economy, while at the same time aligning with the government's commitment to reduce business compliance costs by $1 billion per annum.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:29): In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 11 February, 2015.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (12:29): When I left off on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 a couple of sessions ago, I noted that vice-chancellors had a lot to say about the interest charges, demanding the government reconsider plans to impose a new higher interest rate on students' HECS loans.

University students and graduates with existing HECS-HELP debts—currently about 1.2 million people—will be hit with thousands of dollars extra in interest on their loans after 2016, and that is clearly not acceptable and was certainly not something students were expecting when we voted in the general federal election in 2013. Currently there are 750,000 undergraduate students and 250,000 postgraduate students who will face future HECS-HELP liabilities under this bill.

Both existing and new HECS-HELP debts will feel the impact of the Abbott government's changes to interest rate indexation from a CPI of two per cent to the government bond rate, capped at six per cent. The current government bond rate of 3.8 per cent is historically very low, and more typically stands at five to six per cent.

The government has broken yet another promise—and let us hear them deny that, but this is another broken promise. This is a recipe for social harm, inevitably leading to a society made up of the 'haves' and the 'have nots', part of the Abbott government's plan—a plan for $100,000 degrees, crippling debt and vicious cuts to university course funding. This sort of impost on students is not fair—the government is not only asking students to make up the money lost to its cuts, it is asking them to pay for scholarship programs and for research.

The experience of deregulation or the removal of price controls across the world in higher education is that fees increase and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, women and mature age students get left behind. Certainly, as a mature age student in my mid-twenties, there was no way I could have imposed a debt of $100,000 on my family when I had two children at primary school. I would not have been able to go to university under this proposal; clearly I could not have done that. And that seems to be a fact the Abbott government fails to acknowledge when it says over and over again: 'There are no up-front fees.' There is certainly a big fat debt at the end of a university degree and, as a mature age student at Murdoch University, I could not have saddled my family with that sort of debt.

The fact that lending institutions now, already, ask applicants seeking housing loans about their HECS debt indicates that students will take the prospect of a huge HECS bill into account as well. Housing prices of course have increased significantly—certainly, they have increased in Western Australia—as have other aspects of the cost of living, not to mention the cost imposts imposed by the 2014 budget in and of itself: the tax on GP visits, the petrol excise increase, and so on. So a student with a big fat HECS debt fronting up for a housing loan may in fact be refused by our lending institutions. It is certainly more probable that those from disadvantaged backgrounds will be deterred from even entering university.

It is interesting to see that some on the Abbott government side and their supporters are calling our campaign to let university students know about these $100,000 degrees a 'scare campaign'. In my home state of Western Australia, one of our prestigious universities, the University of Western Australia, was the first university to announce its 2016 fees under the proposed system: bachelor-level courses have fees of $16,000 per annum, or $48,000 for three years. Minister Pyne is correct that UWA's fees have not hit the $100,000 mark. But of course what he neglects to say is that three-year degrees are not worth very much these days, and, in fact, for many professions, do not lead to a final qualification.

So an undergraduate bachelor degree is simply not enough to be competitive in the jobs market, and that one degree is not enough to achieve the qualifications required for many professions. To do a law degree at the University of Western Australia you need to do a three-year bachelor degree and then a two-year masters degree. Fees for that program are currently $47,200. So, in effect, the real cost to get a law degree at UWA would be closer to the $100,000 mark. For an MBA, you would pay an extra $47,885 on top of undergraduate fees; for post-graduate civil engineering, another $46,604; for those wanting to be clinical psychologists or masters of pharmacy, the fees are between the fifty thousands and sixty thousands, and, indeed, with the Master of Pharmacy degree, up into the seventy thousands. And those fees are all on top of the $48,000 for the three-year undergraduate degree. So, a message to Minister Pyne: those are $100,000 degrees. And of course you cannot be in a profession, in those areas I have just talked about, without doing the additional two years. They are the sorts of degrees that the Abbott government likes to talk about as ones where people end up on higher incomes, well able to afford paying it back—but of course these, in and of themselves, are degrees which will hit the $100,000 mark. These are real examples from my home state of Western Australia at the prestigious University of Western Australia.

The Group of Eight universities like UWA will significantly increase fees to fund research. Fee deregulation, for these universities, is basically a licence to print HELP debt that students may never, ever be able to repay. Universities Australia has modelled the potential cost of engineering and nursing degrees. They found:

At the medium fee increase scenario, and with a four per cent interest rate, an engineering graduate working full-time faces a HELP debt of between $98,952 and $113,169 and would repay it over a period of 20-25 years. This is compared with [the current] $46,701 to $49,284 debt and 14 to 18 years repayment time under the existing arrangements.

A nursing graduate under a medium fee increase scenario who works part time for six years after working full time for six years will pay off their student loan of $51,620 over 20 years, compared with 17 years to repay a HELP debt of $24,646 …

That is from the Universities Australia media release of 4 June.

In addition, initial fees provide little indication of how high they will climb. The US deregulation of fees showed us this when their fees skyrocketed. A two-year investigation by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, investigating the rapid expansion of for-profit college enrolments in the USA, found that for-profit colleges are more interested in generating profits than they are on the education or welfare of their students.

Senator Fifield: What a ridiculous thing to say.

Senator LINES: A recent story in TheGuardian in the UK—

Senator Fifield: You are damning the entire sector because of blind ideology.

Senator LINES: 'Private sector and students profit at the college they call 'the ATM'' revealed that recent changes in the United Kingdom that allowed private for-profit colleges—

Senator Fifield interjecting—

Senator LINES: to enrol students eligible for government supported tuition loans—

Senator Fifield interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Fifield, order!

Senator LINES: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. So we have these 'ATM colleges' in the United Kingdom that allow private for-profit colleges to enrol students eligible for government supported tuition loans and this has resulted in what has been termed 'cashpoint colleges'. Students are encouraged to enrol in these colleges because they can get access to up to £11,000 of student income support, while the college collects the student tuition fees from the government who lends it to them on behalf of the students—a scheme similar to the HELP scheme in Australia.

This has led to a substantial increase in the level of student debt. It has also raised serious concerns about the quality of education that students at these colleges receive, given that there seems to be little regard paid to whether students attend classes or complete assignments. The USA and the UK experiences demonstrate that there will be private for-profit providers eager to enter the higher education market where public subsidies are available. These businesses target the most disadvantaged students with persuasive marketing.

This attempt by the government to deregulate and turn our universities into some kind of commercial market is wrong. It has been widely condemned by the public; it has been widely condemned by student associations. It is not liked by the university themselves, and that is why Labor will not vote to allow these changes through the Senate today.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (12:41): Before I go to the specifics of the proposed higher education changes contained in the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, it is important to ensure we are having this debate in its proper context. This debate is really about the sort of society we want to live in. Whether we are discussing reforms to higher ed, whether we are discussing some of the changes proposed to our health system, whether we are discussing changes to income support, particularly for young people, or whether we are having a discussion about the role of the ABC we have to recognise that this is part of a much broader agenda that fundamentally challenges long held views about the nature of Australian society. It is a very deliberate and a very clear assault on the nature of contemporary Australian society.

What we are basically involved in at the moment is a debate about the sort of country we want to live in. On one side we have the current conservative government, whose project is to forge a path for a new Australia—one where there is smaller government, lower taxes and a move towards a user pays society. I know Senator Ryan is dying to interject—I saw his face light up as I mentioned those things—but let us be frank: that is what this is about. I have to say I am grateful in one sense to the coalition because we often have debates in this place that are really meaningless; they are lots of froth and bubble. This is actually a debate about something of substance; it is a debate about the sort of country we want to live in. And at least we are having a debate that means something. If there is anything that I can say that is positive about these changes, it is that, at the very least, we are having a debate about what is the role of government. What is it that we want from our elected leaders? What is the role of education; what is the role of universal health care and how should those things be funded?

Let us perhaps look at some of the underlying tenants that lead to these changes. The first one is that Australia's public service is bloated, that it is inefficient, that we spend too much. But when you look at the facts, this is where it becomes a little more difficult for the conservative side of politics because, when challenged with some hard data, it is very hard to maintain the view that we have an inefficient and bloated public sector. In fact, our public sector and level of debt is much lower than similar OECD countries. There is no evidence to suggest that we need to move towards shrinking our public sector, particularly when you look at the evidence relative to other similar developed countries.

And then of course there is the question: what is the correlation between the size of government, the rate of economic growth and the wellbeing of those societies? There is no real correlation. Some countries have big public sectors, they have a high rate of growth, they have done very well and their citizens have a high quality of life. We have other countries with very small public sectors where the opposite is true. There is no obvious correlation, so the idea of big government or small government is much less important than whether what we have got is good government—that is, whether we have the efficient use of public resources, whether we are allocating those resources in a way where there is minimal waste and where those resources are distributed in a fair and equitable manner. That really is the question that we should be asking ourselves.

Debate interrupted.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:45): I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. On behalf of the opposition I indicate our position, which is as was expressed in the other place: that we support the passage of these bills, which are an important part of the implementation process of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement.

I do want to raise an issue about timing, and there may be a clear explanation of this, but the government announced negotiations on this agreement concluded on 7 April 2014. The opposition, at the request of the government and from representations by Japan, has facilitated timely parliamentary consideration. But we are debating this legislation in the second-last sitting week of the year. As I said, there may be an explanation for the time frame between April and now as to why that is the case but it does seem that there has been some delay.

Enough of that: I want to move at the outset to the importance of trade. Labor has a long history of supporting stronger trading relationships with our region and the world. In fact, when I had the privilege of giving the 'Light on the Hill' speech and exploring some of the speeches and policies of Ben Chifley, the former Labor prime minister, it was quite clear that in fact even then the Labor Party was talking about the importance of trade with Asia. Of course, previously in this place, I laid out the history of trade liberalisation under Labor governments, whether under the Chifley government or subsequently the Whitlam, Hawke, Keating and, of course, the Rudd and Gillard governments. We in the Labor Party support trade because it is all about ensuring that we can try to create more jobs and build higher living standards for Australians. Fundamentally, Australia—given the size of our market—will not be able to do that if we sell only to ourselves. So it is a fundamental economic principle, and that has guided this trade liberalisation approach of the Labor Party over successive Labor governments.

The most recent exposition of Labor's position on this in many ways in government was the Australia in the Asian century white paper, which the former Labor government commissioned. That mapped out the opportunities and challenges for Australia in our region. My colleague in the other place, Ms Plibersek, outlined some of these pathways. These, of course, were part of a whole-of-government plan to encourage and support Australian business operating in and connecting with growing Asian markets. The white paper noted that Australian business and their employees have their potential to be big winners from the Asian century, with new and expanding opportunities for our miners, manufacturers, farmers and, importantly, service providers. Services are obviously a large part of our domestic economy and a smaller part of our exports. Over the decades to come I think all Australians would hope to see high-quality services being delivered to the growing markets of Asia, enabling good jobs and better living standards for Australians.

But, as we all know, Australian businesses, no matter how competitive they are, no matter how highly skilled their employees are and no matter how innovative they are cannot participate fully in the Asian century if they have restricted market access. This is why, in addition to pursuing multilateral progress and plurilateral agreements, the former Labor government was committed to concluding high-quality bilateral trade agreements with our trading partners.

I want to turn now to the initial reaction to the economic partnership agreement with Japan. I regret to say that this criterion of high-quality agreements has, certainly from the perspective of many stakeholders, been downgraded by the government in its quest to stage signing ceremonies to coincide with bilateral visits. Many Australian industries have expressed concern about being short-changed. We know that the announcement of the Japanese agreement was timed to ensure that it coincided with the Prime Minister's visit to Japan in April.

The public record records the disappointment of the National Farmers' Federation and of key export sectors. The NFF said the agreement falls far short of the mark and it does not improve, or marginally improves, market access and terms of trade for a number of sectors, such as dairy, sugar, grains, pork and rice. Australian Pork Limited described the agreement as 'substandard' and a 'missed opportunity'. Canegrowers called it 'yet another kick in the guts for Aussie cane growers'. The Ricegrowers' Association of Australia was extremely disappointed. The Dairy Industry Association of Australia observed, 'Our words fell upon deaf ears.' One wonders, given the litany of views that I have outlined from these industries, where the National Party was when these complaints were being raised with the government.

After the tabling of the text of the agreement some months after the conclusion of negotiations, there have been two parliamentary inquiries relating to the economic partnership agreement. The first was by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, known as JSCOT. I thank the committee on behalf of the opposition for its work in investigating and reporting on the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement and also to those businesses, organisations and individuals for their valuable and informative submissions and statements made to the inquiry.

The JSCOT report was unanimous and, whilst it acknowledged the limitations of the agreement, the committee report highlighted several benefits of the bilateral trade agreement. These benefits included improved market access for some Australian exporters of goods and services including particularly beef, wine, horticulture, energy and resource products as well as services. Secondly, they included a first-mover advantage for Australian industries, providing exporters with time to build strong, quality and reliable brand names in households throughout Japan. I note this is of some significant advantage because Japan is currently negotiating a number of trade agreements, including some with some of Australia's key agricultural competitors. Thirdly, they included favourable review mechanisms and most favoured nation provisions which hold promise for wider and deeper market access. And finally, they are a first step with potentially greater improvements to come as a result of the outcome of ongoing negotiations that are occurring regionally.

JSCOT concluded that it was satisfied that the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement has the potential to provide Australian business and industry with a range of profitable opportunities, and that binding treaty action should be taken. The opposition agrees that this agreement does have the potential to provide opportunities and we urge the government to assist business in realising those opportunities. We welcome industry outreach in education programs, in particular by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, but note there is more to be done. We also commend efforts by industry groups and business groups, including the Export Council, to extend the reach of benefits under free trade agreements. Labor also maintains its position of encouraging greater transparency and simplicity in administration and rules so that many businesses can possibly benefit from the opportunities in this agreement. We urge the government to proactively utilise the review mechanisms built into the agreement in order to gain further access to the Japanese market.

The second inquiry was conducted by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee which examined the provisions of the bills before the chamber, and we welcome the second report. During a prior inquiry into bills relating to the implementation of the KAFTA—the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement—the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that customs make available a table which refers to each of the specific provisions of the KAFTA, and identify where those provisions have been adopted or have been proposed to be adopted into legislation, regulation or procedure. Such a table was subsequently produced and is now available on the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service website. This is a practice which arose directly out of Senate committee recommendations—an example of government and legislative process being improved through the adoption of Senate committee recommendations—and I urge the government to continue to take this approach. I understand that a similar table in relation to the partnership agreement before us is not yet available, and will be after the legislative processes are finalised. Labor's suggestion is that the recommendation of the committee—that the customs service make publicly available the table which refers to each specific provision and which also identifies where those provisions have been adopted or are proposed to be adopted, whether in the bills otherwise in legislation or regulations or by procedure—be accepted. So, consistent with recommendations not just from the Senate committee but also from groups such as the Customs Brokers and Forwarders Council of Australia and the Export Council of Australia, I would ask the government to ensure that the table for the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement be published today. I note that the minister's adviser is here in the box and I wonder if he could do us the courtesy, perhaps, of passing that indication from the opposition on to the government, particularly in light of our facilitation of the legislation before the chamber.

We also urge the government to improve transparency on trade agreements. I again draw the attention of the government to the resolution passed by the Senate on 11 December 2013 requiring the tabling of concluded trade agreements at least 14 days prior to signature. The government's announcement of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement—another photo-opportunity—is another example of trade agreements being choreographed by the Prime Minister's office with little transparency about the detail of the agreement. I reiterate that the opposition expects the government to table the concluded agreement before signing, particularly given the government has already announced substantial portions of the agreement. There is no argument by the government that it should not table the text after the agreement is concluded but prior to signing.

I would also indicate, given that the minister's adviser did not acknowledge my previous request, that I would be grateful if the representing minister could perhaps pass this on. The opposition wrote to the government on Wednesday 19 November seeking a full briefing on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I did have a conversation with the minister to follow up this request, but we have not yet received a response to this request. In the interest of ensuring that the opposition is fully briefed on such an important arrangement, I would ask if the government could follow this request up. We have demonstrated a cooperative approach in relation to this bill, and where possible—and it is not always possible, but where possible—the opposition seeks to bring a bipartisan approach to trade policy and legislation where it is in the national interest. I would ask the government to do the opposition the courtesy of responding to that request shortly.

There are some areas in terms of trade policy where we do part company from the government, and I am pleased to say that one of those aspects is not an issue in this agreement. We welcome the absence of an investor-state dispute settlement provision in this agreement. In contrast to other agreements concluded by the government, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement does not provide foreign investors with greater rights than domestic investors. We note with some concern the review mechanisms embodied in this agreement do make reference to ISDS, and it is difficult to understand why the signing of a future agreement with another nation containing an ISDS provision should trigger a review under Australia's agreement with Japan. Last week the government announced it had substantially concluded negotiations on a preferential agreement with China that regrettably includes an ISDS and we remain concerned on this side of the chamber with that inclusion.

Pursuant to the terms of this agreement with Japan, Australia must commence a review within three months following the date the China-Australia agreement enters into force with: 'a view to establishing an equivalent ISDS mechanism,' under the agreement with Japan. I wish to record our concern with this. I wish to, again, say that the government should not ignore the concerns of many Australians—including the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia— regarding investor state dispute settlement provisions.

The Labor government announced, in 2011, it would not agree to provisions in investment and trade agreements that confer greater rights on foreign businesses than domestic businesses and, in particular, that we would not see their inclusion in any trade agreement. We, again, urge the government to rethink its decision to include settlement provisions such as these in trade agreements, and we caution against any possible backdoor introduction of such an agreement through the review provisions in the Japan-Australia agreement. I flag that a future Labor government would exercise Australia's right as a party to the agreement to propose the excision of any subsequently included ISDS provisions.

Another area where the opposition has laid down a marker is in relation to the movement of people provisions. We do believe that any trade agreement should increase, not replace, Australian jobs. We do believe that the movement of people provisions should include the requirement to undertake labour market testing or other safeguard in the agreement. We do believe Australians should have the opportunity to fill job vacancies where they have the capacity to do so. The government's failure to include labour market policy space for labour market testing in this and other agreements do not support that objective.

Australia and Japan have a strong and stable relationship, a good relationship, and one that we do want to continue to build on. We welcome the opportunities provided by this agreement to further build on that relationship and to grow our economies and domestic employment. Labor do believe that the Abbott government should have secured a more comprehensive and inclusive agreement with Japan. However, we do recognise the agreement provides benefits to Australia. We support the bills before the chamber, which are critical to the implementation of the agreement.

Consistent with the position we outlined in the other place this support is not without reservations and, for the reasons I have canvassed, both in this debate and more broadly, I move the following second reading amendment, which has been circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) not agree to any inclusion of investor state dispute settlement provisions in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement;

(b) enact policies to ensure that Australian workers benefit from jobs growth created under the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement; and

(c) utilise the review mechanisms in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement to seek further market access gains, especially in agriculture.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (13:03): I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and related bill. Can I, at the outset, indicate that I did not get an opportunity to talk on Report 144 of the Treaties Committee. I am on the Treaties Committee and did want to use this time to speak on the bill and obviously underline a treaty that now supports it. Of course, the Treaties Committee plays a very valuable role in both looking at the treaty itself, the national interest analysis provided by the government, and looking at the submissions from a range of individuals about the impact of the treaty. The interest that this treaty did provoke, not only in agriculture, but in minerals and energy and a range of financial services highlights the interest from stakeholders in this particular treaty. Some may ask why. If you look at Japan from Australia's perspective it is our second largest export market, which is in the vicinity of $4 billion. We have had attempts to finalise a treaty arrangement with Japan for some time now, so I do congratulate the government for finalising this important agreement.

I note that Labor has always supported stronger trading links within our region, and in government we had pursued and successfully completed a number of free trade negotiations with our regional neighbours. As I indicated, Japan is Australia's second largest trading partner after, of course, one of our near neighbours, China. It is an important agreement, nonetheless, which will open up many opportunities for agriculture, for financial services sector, and for oil and gas. The Regulatory Impact Statement for this agreement shows that Japan has granted tariff reductions to beef, sugar, seafood, wine and horticultural goods. I will come back to sugar in a moment. Japan will also eliminate its tariffs on Australia's mineral and fuel resources within 10 years. Australia has been given increased quotas for goods such as pork, dairy and grains. I might just come back to pork as well.

However, there are some concerns as noted by the National Farmers' Federation which said the agreement 'falls short of the mark'. That was said by the National Farmers' Federation, which represents the interests of farmers right across Australia. They also said that it:

… does not improve—or marginally improves—market access and terms of trade for a number of sectors such as dairy, sugar, grains, pork and rice.

Australian Pork Limited said the agreement is 'substandard' and a 'missed opportunity'. Cane growers said, more stridently, it was 'yet another kick in the guts for Aussie cane growers'. When you look at the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report, we do go through some of these issues; although I think the government did play down the missed opportunities for both pork and sugar. The sugar industry in my home state plays a significant role in our economy, and it was looking for a much better opportunity in its export markets. It supports many regional economies in Queensland, it supports jobs and opportunity and it supports investment as well. It would have been good to see the sugar industry benefit. Having not been part of the negotiations—these are matters for the executive to do—I encourage the executive to continue to press for better opportunities for sugar for Queensland specifically, although I do recognise that New South Wales does contribute to the sugar industry; but I am not going to talk about New South Wales.

It is important that we do have a government that remains focused on agriculture, because the benefits for agriculture in Japan are very good. We did mention sugar briefly in the treaties committee when dealing with agriculture. Japan is our second-largest agricultural market with an estimated total market of $4 billion. In real terms that amounts to about 10 per cent of Australia's agricultural exports in 2013. Significantly, beef is up there as one of the high marks, and beef will have reduced tariffs, from 38.5 per cent to 19.5 per cent for frozen beef, and 23.5 per cent for fresh and chilled beef over 18 years and 15 years respectively. This will ensure that we maintain our ability to compete in that market with the US and that we can continue to have opportunities in the domestic market in Japan. Of course, these cuts are heavily front loaded because they do provide an early benefit to beef. From the perspective of the negotiators of this agreement, they did listen to the beef industry, who had been seeking much better access over some time for this market.

There are some areas where Australia will be permanently exempt from Japan's global snap back safeguard, whereby Japan has the right to increase the tariff to 50 per cent should beef imports from all sources exceed a volume limit. There is also improved access for offal preserved meats and live cattle. When we talk about beef people often think about rump steak and T-bones. But it is important that the whole animal—in its broken-down state, of course—including offal, accesses these markets, because that is where the beef processors can realise some great opportunities and sustain interest in those markets.

The pork industry will gain preferential access for a large volume of product—more than 10 times the current trade and around 40 per cent of Australia's total pork exports to all countries. The industry acknowledges the significant quota for Australian pork but it does highlight Japan's continuing high surcharges.

I will deal with sugar before I go on to deal with the broader issue that I think the pork industry has touched upon. The report of the treaties committee says that the Australian sugar industry has expressed disappointment that low polarity raw sugar was excluded from the agreement. The sugar industry had pushed for improvements in its access for high polarity raw sugar, and I mentioned their view on that. But one of the areas overall, and I think the pork industry did highlight it, is that it is about the agreement providing opportunities into the Japanese market by having a reduced tariff and by having those opportunities. But one of the areas where the government must remain vigilant is in ensuring that there are no technical barriers to the trade, that the Japanese market remains open and that Australian exporters can compete, because it is noted in the treaties report that there are non-tariff barriers. While it says that the significance of the tariff elimination reductions are generally acknowledged, there remains considerable concern over ongoing non-tariff barriers inhibiting access to the Japanese market. This is where the government who has signed this agreement must remain very vigilant to ensure that those non-tariff barriers do not get in the way of Australian exporters going into that market. The Export Council of Australia told the committee:

… that Japan's 'relatively complex and multi-layered regulatory framework' proved a deterrent to Australian businesses …

It is important that this government works with the Export Council of Australia and its members to make sure that those non-tariff barriers are not significant, that they can be ironed out and that they do not provide a barrier to trade between Australia and Japan, particularly in agricultural products.

This agreement comes with the support of the Labor Party. That is why the previous government released the Australia in the Asian Century white paper—because we believe it is important to have a plan for the opportunities as well as to prepare for the challenges in our region. The white paper is clear on how we can move forward in this regard:

The Asian century offers a wealth of opportunities and career choices in a variety of businesses (including small and medium-sized enterprises), especially for Australia's young people:

in mining and resource related sectors—continued economic development in the region will drive demand for energy and mineral resources

in tourism, sport, education, the arts and creative industries, professional, banking and financial services, and science and technology—thanks to growing affluence in Asia

in agriculture—rising food demand, connected to rising populations and an expanding middle class in Asia, offers an opportunity for Australia to be an important supplier of high-value food, requiring greater investment by agribusinesses to boost output and research, adapt to regulatory change and build capacity

in manufacturing and services—as Australian businesses join regional and global value chains and over time become increasingly integrated and specialised, they will offer high-value and innovative products and services

in environmentally sustainable growth, natural resource management, infrastructure development, urban design and health and aged care—as Australians leverage their expertise to do business with their neighbours.

The Australia in the Asian Century white paper laid down these fundamental principles about how we should engage with Asia, because it is important to have a plan for the future. I note that the Abbott government has shunned the Australia in the Asian Century white paper. It has been taken down from the website of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. That concerns me for many reasons but for one in particular. It seems to be just like the Abbott government to do this, because it does not have a plan for Australia in the Asian century. It also reflects on a government that does not have a plan for health, education, infrastructure, defence, manufacturing—and the list goes on, unless you consider that the only plan that they have is cuts, cuts, more cuts, a bit more pain and a few more cuts. That appears to be the only plan that they could have.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator LUDWIG: Some others that do not have a plan—if we want to get under their skin—are the Newman government in my home state of Queensland. We have seen the impact that that can have on the economy. Business confidence and investment and trade opportunities for Queenslanders can slump. The unemployment rate today in Queensland is 6.8 per cent. That is right—6.8 per cent. When Labor was in government, it was 5.4 per cent. That does rouse the opposition, but what are they doing to assist exporters in sugar and other industries to ensure that they have opportunities in Queensland, to create jobs and to ensure that we have great export markets into Japan, other than just whinge from the sideline? That seems to be their major way of progressing the issue.

Let me deal with some of the key benefits of implementing the agreement. We have a first-mover's advantage. Australia has secured preferential market access for some of its goods and services ahead of any other country. This preferential access, coupled with Australia's clean, green image and reliable supplier status, will result in increased exports to Japan, and they should grow over time as these tariff barriers come down. I just hope that this government remains focused on ensuring that technical and market access issues are dealt with quickly and in the right way to ensure trade continues to grow.

The joint standing committee, as I referred to, provided a unanimous report, with no additional comments or dissent, because of the significance that Japan has to Australia. The report provided a balanced view on the benefits, as well as—and I have touched on these—the suboptimal outcomes and the regulatory complexity that could be a barrier to trade. Importantly, multiple parties support this agreement—including the National Party in Queensland, because of sugar, I suspect. They can explain to that industry what happened, and they can then clearly indicate to beef and the remaining agricultural industries that there has been a good outcome by this Liberal government federally. But, if I want to go back, the work started in 2007 under Labor. I visited Japan to push for an agreement and a reduction in tariff barriers for agriculture. Why? Because I recognise the importance of Japan to agriculture, both in Queensland and nationally. It has been difficult across the divide, particularly in agriculture, to get our countries focused on ensuring that we could reduce those tariff barriers.

Turning to some of the important parts of this agreement and the subsequent amendments, the tariff amendments bill will ensure that the customs duty rates applied by Australian Customs to Japanese goods will be in accordance with the preferential rates and phasing-out periods agreed to in the agreement. It will provide rules and procedures to identify and certify Japanese goods that qualify for preferential tariff rates and related matters, and it will ensure that the operative amendments come into force on the day of the agreement so that agricultural products and industries can benefit from this agreement in the first part of 2015.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (13:22): I too rise to make a contribution in this debate on the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the related bill.

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, I might have mentioned to you previously that the Senate is a wonderful place and you come across information, which in the normal course of your life you would never, ever stumble across. I thank the Parliamentary Library as they are always a source of incredibly pertinent and succinct information.

The total value of Australian exports to Japan in 2013 was $47,501 billion; imports from Japan—$18,914 billion—so total trade, exports and imports, is around $67 billion. That is a significant figure from my perspective and, I suppose, for any elector in the street, it is a significant amount of money. It is instructive to note that, of Japan's principal destinations, we only rank at No. 10—we are 2.4 per cent of Japan's principal export destination; however, of principal import destinations, we are in the top three—it is China, United States and then Australia.

This is a critically important piece of treaty making, if you like, for the economic welfare of this country. As a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, we sought some submissions in respect of the making of this treaty and the passing of the enabling legislation. I put the caveat up front that I am going to quote selectively from a group of people who made submissions. It is not my intent to alter their support or general goodwill towards the making of this treaty; it is for a specific purpose, which I will get to in the latter part of my contribution.

We go to the Australian Lot Feeders' Association. They say:

The JAEPA promises to deliver significant tariff reduction gains to the Australian beef industry in what is our largest export market. Under the JAEPA, the tariffs on frozen Australian beef entering Japan will drop from 38.5% to 19.5% over 18 years (with an 8% cut on entry into force (EIF)), while the tariffs for chilled beef will fall from 38.5% to 23.5% over 15 years—including a 6% cut on EIF.

Whilst falling short of the beef industry’s tariff elimination objective, modelling suggests that the tariff reductions will benefit Australian beef export sales by around $5.5 billion over 20 years and annual gross value of Australian beef production by up to 7%.

These are not small figures. The interesting thing is: why would country put a tariff on protein?

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to visit Japan and Korea last month. When that question was put to our ambassador, he simply said they have a recent history of famine in this country. There are still people around who can remember not having enough food, so food security is extremely important to them. They want to grow food or produce beef in their country. It is a particular type of beef for their palate, and they do not want to have to import all their food. That was particularly instructive for me, because I could not understand why you would pay $35 a kilo for beef when you can probably get it a lot cheaper. The second point is that farmers in Japan are a very powerful lobby group. In particular, members of the Diet will be more stringent and protective than some elements of our parliament here in respect of that. I respect that, so it was an instructive visit.

The Cattle Council said:

While the objective of total tariff elimination was not met, under the JAEPA there are significant tariff reductions which will have positive implications for the Australian beef industry.

Once again, the economic modelling takes it up to $5.5 billion over 20 years, despite the fact we will still have significant tariffs.

Senator Ludwig mentioned Australia Pork. They say:

APL welcomes the outcome for Australia's pork producers through the reduction (within quota) of the ad-valorem tariff on all fresh, chilled and frozen pork lines and Australia's exemption from Japan's global gate price safeguard.

However, APL questions the need for an arbitrary quota of 14, 000 tonnes when there has been no application of tonnage restrictions to date. Moreover, with recent annual Australian exports to Japan only a fraction of this quota, pork exports from Australia to Japan pose no threat to the profitability of Japanese pork producers. Given the JAEPA has already been signed, APL seeks that the Australian Government requests the abolition of the quota following the conclusion of the implementation period.

It goes on.

Very close to Senator Edwards and my hearts is the Australian wine industry, because we know—I don't think we will get any interjections or contention—that South Australia produces the best wine in Australia and, arguably, some of the best wine in the world.

Senator Bilyk: Bar Tasmania!

Senator GALLACHER: South Australia produces the best wine in Australia and, potentially, the best wine in the world. But we face a 15 per cent or 125 yen per litre tariff, whichever is the lower, on entering Japan. Unfortunately, the wine of Chile has attracted a preferential rate since 2008 and, as a result of the free trade agreement between Chile and Japan of the previous year, between 2008 and 2013, imports of Chilean wine to Japan increased from 13.3 to 36.4 million litres while imports of Australian bottled wine have fallen: 7.3 to 6.8.

Chilean wine, unfortunately, now constitutes about 20 per cent of the Japanese wine market with Australia contributing less than four per cent. Upon agreement, the tariff on Australian bulk wine exported to Japan will be eliminated upon entry into force. The tariff on Australian bottled wine will decrease in instalments over a seven-year period—only eight per cent of Australian wine exported to Japan is dispatched in bulk, so it is not a perfect solution for the Australian wine industry and, in particular, the greatest producer of that: South Australia.

The Minerals Council said:

No other option … exists at this time to deepen the Australia-Japan economic relationship. Without JAEPA, Australia would gradually lose competitiveness in important sectors of the Japanese market.

The Australia Japan Business Co-operation Committee clearly state:

The Australian ambition in all its trade negotiations is to eliminate tariff and other barriers to trade and investment. The AJBCC is very supportive of this ambition. The AJBCC has warmly congratulated each Minister and government official whom, over the seven years, worked tirelessly for the desired … outcome. Being a WTO comprehensive agreement amongst two sophisticated economies ensured that it would be a tough road. The result has been broadly welcomed across the sectors. Whilst for the present, not all aspirations have been met, the AJBCC welcomes the review mechanisms that have been incorporated within the Agreement as providing for the potential of earlier and/or further liberalisation.

RMAC state:

Whilst falling short of the beef industry's tariff elimination objective, modelling suggests that the … tariff reductions will benefit Australian beef export sales by around $5.5 billion over 20 years and deliver an increase in the annual gross value of Australian beef production by up to 7%.

These submissions all support the prompt passing of this legislation. Very importantly, they all make a similar comment. Another submission states:

These Japanese tariffs in our view are extremely high compared to other importing countries and a constraint on trade and cost on Australian beef processors and ultimately the Australian beef producer in servicing this market. The Australian beef processing sector has and continues to face increasing competition … from the United States.

So we have Chile, the United States and New Zealand in dairy. We are facing a situation where a large economy has great demand for our products and we are actually in these agreements competing with other countries for access. It is not a straight up and down free trade agreement. Some people do not realise that in a free trade agreement some items are free into Australia next year, lots of stuff is free into Japan this year and a whole swag of stuff will be subject to quite high and extraordinary tariffs.

That sets me up for the next part of my contribution. I foreshadow that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee has agreed to conduct an inquiry into the Commonwealth's treaty-making process. This morning I lodged in this chamber a notice of motion to refer this matter to the committee for inquiry and report by the middle of the year. The timing of such an inquiry, particularly in light of the growing number of bilateral and multilateral trade deals negotiated by both Labor and coalition governments, will enable the committee to examine such matters as whether there is scope for the parliament and parliamentary committees to play a greater and more meaningful role in negotiating, approving and reviewing treaties, whether the current mechanisms for consultation within and between federal and state and territory governments are adequate and whether there is room for improvement, whether there is scope for individual independent assessment, analysis and review of treaties both before and after implementation and, perhaps most importantly, whether the current process for public and stakeholder consultation with government provides an adequate level of openness, transparency and accountability.

Having said that, I accept that, under the Westminster system and the Constitution and consistent with the practices in other Westminster parliaments, the power to enter into treaties is an executive power within section 61 of the Constitution, and I do not see that changing any time soon. Hence this proposed inquiry does not intend to rake over the constitutional and legal grounds covered in great detail by the 1995 report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee entitled Trick or treaty? The Commonwealth power to make and implement treaties. However, it has become clear from some of the evidence received by recent parliamentary inquiries into the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement and, most likely in the future, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership that many of the concerns raised in the mid-1990s about a so-called democratic deficit—a lack of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in the treaty-making process—remain as strong, if not stronger, than ever before.

It has been nearly 20 years since wide-ranging reforms to the treaty-making process were introduced as a result of the Trick or treaty? report's recommendations. The tabling of treaties in parliament at least 15 days before binding action is taken, the preparation of a national interest analysis and the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT, were all significant changes and improvements to the process at the time—I acknowledge that—yet it has been nearly 20 years since a Senate committee has looked exclusively at the way Australia negotiates and enters into treaties from the perspective of the community and stakeholder engagement during the initiation and negotiation phase of treaty making. That is the nub of the matter for this proposed inquiry by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. I believe it is time for the Senate through a public inquiry process to have another look at the 1996 reforms to see if there are opportunities for more openness, transparency and accountability in the way that treaties and in particular free trade agreements are negotiated between Australia and foreign governments.

I know—as you do, Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson—lots of people who have a view on agreements. They come from their particular points of expertise, involvement or business. It is not hard to find fault with the treaty-making process that we have in Australia if you have a siloed approach or you have a particularly strong view—maybe on the manufacturing of motor vehicles in Australia. It is not hard to find people who say that free trade agreements are wrong.

It is our job in this place to get across all of the detail that we can. The democratic deficit that has been alluded to in this contribution—as you well know, Acting Deputy President, with the TPP—is that it is almost impossible to get advice about what is being negotiated prior to its being tabled here for enabling legislation.

I think that trade is important to this country, and the benefit is easy to quantify and articulate in aggregate. In aggregate it is clear that we do very well with Japan and we do very well with Korea. It is interesting to note that some 30-odd per cent of Japan's imports from Australia are as a result of their nuclear shut-down. The LNG is now going into Japan and having a detrimental effect on their national budget. That may well change in the future, when 20 of those nuclear stations come back on line.

But I think it is incumbent on everybody on this place who has an involvement in these areas to get across some of the detail and to understand that the complexity that the department has in negotiating these agreements. One case that comes to mind is the honey industry—the beekeeping industry in Australia—who do not benefit from access under these agreements. When asked, on notice, whether the department simply forgot about the honey producers of Australia, the answer was. 'No; we did not forget about them; it was just that the other side was insistent on not allowing Australian products into that market.' That is a little strange for our side of the table to accept, when, as the treaty processes through, we will be accepting zero tariffs on motor vehicles from Hyundai or Kia but we cannot even get a bucket of honey into Korea. It seems as if there is no logic in all of that.

However, they have a very strong view on their domestic sectors. Quite clearly, they are prepared to make their populations pay more for staples such as protein than we would be prepared to accept here in this country. I have experienced first hand the ongoing battle that our negotiators face. We had a session in the Japanese parliament and I said, 'Why do you tax your people for beef? Why do you have a tariff on protein in a country as wealthy as this?' The answer is, as I said before, that they have a very politicised sector. They have a very vigilant sector that protects itself. There is a history in the country of people going without food. They do not want to have all their eggs in one basket. They want to have food security, and that involves producing some themselves.

So Japan does not buy all of their coal from one place; they do not buy all of their gas from one place. They spread it out a bit. They do not want to be beholden to any particular market place. But we are pre-eminent in that space. We are one of the best trading partners Japan has. That was very clear from all of the politicians I met, along with the rest of the delegation in the Japanese parliament. They like our wine. They like our gas. They like our coal. They like our iron ore. We are a reliable trading partner. Somehow or other, we need to be able to push them a bit harder on access for or agricultural products, because we are probably not doing as well as we could.

I complimented the chair of the foreign affairs trade committee of the diet on his negotiations in agriculture. I said, 'You've done very well, because we would have preferred these tariffs to come down a whole lot quicker.' And even in the translation the irony was not lost. They did laugh. They know perfectly well. Our treaty makers—our negotiators—are doing a damn good job and are pushing as hard as they can.

My only comment is that there is not enough transparency in the system. We are not taking every stakeholder with us. If this inquiry that we have foreshadowed is able to put some recommendations up to improve the treaty-making process then this Senate will have done its job.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (13:42): The Labor Party's lengthy discussion of legislation previously considered non-controversial continues. Senator Wong raised a few issues, which I know have been brought to the attention of the minister's office as requested.

Senator Gallacher mentioned the reforms of 1996 to the treaty-making provisions. I might say that in a past life I had some work to do with those reforms before they were enacted by the Howard government. However, I will correct the record to say that those reforms were the product not of issues that had arisen out of trade discussions; they were the product of public concern about the number of treaties that were being entered into by the executive in an attempt to override state powers and abuse the external affairs power under the previous Keating government. They were not the product of discussion about trade treaties.

Turning to this legislation, the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901. These amendments implement Australia's obligations under chapter 3 on the rules of origin as set out in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. These rules are essential for the purposes of determining whether goods imported from Japan are eligible for preferential rates of customs duty under the economic partnership agreement.

The bill also includes amendments to include relevant obligations on Australian exporters and producers who wish to export Australian goods to Japan under the agreement and obtain preferential treatment for those goods. Certain powers are also conferred on authorised officers to examine the records and ask questions of exporters or producers of goods exported to Japan in order to verify the origin of such goods.

The Customs Tariff Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that will implement Australia's tariff commitments set out in the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. These amendments are complementary to those contained in the Customs Amendment (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. I take this opportunity to indicate that while the government will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, we will not be dividing on it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that second reading amendment moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (13:45): I move:

That the bills be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (13:45): I move:

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

   Question agreed to.

   Bill read a first time.

    Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (13:45): I move:

   That this bill be now read a second time.

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

   Leave granted.

   The speech read as follows—

I am pleased to present legislation that will give effect to the Government's election commitment to prohibit the imposition of parking and entry fees at the Australian War Memorial.

The Australian War Memorial is the nation's home of reflection, remembrance and commemoration.

It houses our national story of service in times of war and peace.

Every year, close to one million Australians, and over 200,000 school students, visit the Memorial to pay their respects to the fallen, as well as to visit the world-class Museum.

It has been ranked by TripAdvisor as Australia's number one tourist destination and is the only Australian location listed in the group's world top 20 destinations.

The Government is determined to ensure that current and future generations of Australians, as well as international visitors, can continue to visit the Australian War Memorial at no charge.

As we enter the Centenary of Anzac this decision takes on greater meaning as more and more people plan to visit Canberra to learn about Australia's military service during the First World War.

The Bill will amend the Australian War Memorial Act 1980 to prohibit the levying of parking and entry fees at the Memorial's Campbell site.

The Australian War Memorial combines a shrine, a world-class museum, and an extensive archive.

The Memorial's purpose is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war.

The Memorial's mission is to assist Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of war and its enduring impact on Australian society.

The concept of a national memorial and museum was first conceived by Charles Bean, a war correspondent and the Official Historian of the First World War.

His words, recorded after the Battle of Pozieres in 1916, captured the importance of a national memorial:

Many a man lying out there at Pozieres or in the low scrub at Gallipoli, with his poor tired senses barely working through the fever of his brain, has thought in his last moments: "Well— well—it's over; but in Australia they will be proud of this."

At the Memorial, visitors can see and experience the Roll of Honour, the Hall of Valour, the dioramas and the Hall of Memory containing the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier.

The names of more than 102, 000 Australians who have given their lives in war and other conflicts are remembered on the Roll of Honour in the Cloisters that line the Commemorative Courtyard, which contains the Pool of Reflection with its Eternal Flame.

The Hall of Valour honours Australian recipients of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross.

The Government has invested over $27 million in the redevelopment of the First World War galleries at the Australian War Memorial, a key project as part of the Centenary of Anzac.

These redeveloped galleries will complement the galleries telling Australia's story of service and sacrifice in the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam, as well as peacekeeping operations and the War in Afghanistan.

This Bill will ensure that entry to, and parking at, the Australian War Memorial remains free for evermore.

Senator CONROY (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:46): I rise to speak on the Australian War Memorial Amendment Bill 2014. The bill amends the Australian War Memorial Act to prohibit the levying of entry or parking fees at the Australian War Memorial premises in the Australian Capital Territory.

It is very reasonable that Australians should be able to visit the home of our country's commemoration, reflection and remembrance for free. The Australian War Memorial, located in Campbell, just over Lake Burley Griffin from parliament, is world class. It is a shrine, a very high-quality museum which has an extensive archive. Its purpose is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war. In 1948, Charles Bean, Australia's official World War I historian, said of the War Memorial:

Here is their spirit, in the heart of the land they loved; and here we guard the record which they themselves made.

CEW Bean played an enormous role in the creation of the Australian War Memorial. He recognised the need for a place where Australians can reflect on, remember and, possibly most importantly, learn about the contribution Australia has made to military conflict throughout the world. The Australian War Memorial states that its mission is to assist Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of war and its enduring impact on Australian society. It achieves this through three subprograms—the national collection, the public programs and the corporate services.

To aid this mission, the Australian War Memorial offers a number of services. These include venue hire and educational programs. The fees from these services contribute to the funding of the Australian War Memorial. This amendment does not affect those programs or the Australian memorial's ability to collect fees for services. Nor does this amendment affect the Australian War Memorial's ability to receive bequests or voluntary donations from members of the public.

The history of the Australian War Memorial, as explained by CEW Bean in his role as our World War I correspondent, saw an enormous amount of action on the Western Front. It was in this role, in the aftermath of the Battle of Pozieres in 1916, that he began to develop plans for a national museum, to commemorate the sacrifices made by his fellow Australians. As a first-hand witness to the horrors of war, he saw a need to preserve the legacy of what he saw and he had the foresight to include future events in his vision. He felt it was important for such a memorial to include an extensive military collection in order to help Australians at home understand that wartime experience. In his book The Spirit of Gallipoli he wrote:

It had always been in the mind of many Australians soldiers that records and relics of their fighting would be preserved in some institutions in Australia, and to several of us it had seemed that a museum housing these would form the most natural, interesting and inspiring memorial to those who fell.

It was in 1917, the year after Pozieres, that the Australian War Records Section was established under the command of Captain John Treloar, to manage the collection of documents and relics. Attached to this section were members of the Australian Salvage Corps, who collected from the battlefield salvage for scrap or to locate and repair as items of interest. Captain Treloar was appointed the first director of the Australian War Memorial in 1920. Today, the memorial stands in the Australian Capital Territory where it commemorates the sacrifices of Australians who have fallen in wars. The Australian War Memorial lists on its website Anzac Day and Remembrance Day as two of its most significant anniversaries and says:

Each year on Anzac Day (25 April) and Remembrance Day (11 November), the two major days of commemoration in Australia, the Memorial holds National Ceremonies on the Parade Ground. These are attended by thousands of official guests and visitors and are followed by the wreath laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier.

I attended the dawn service on Anzac Day this year. I was there not in any official capacity; I was there to pay my respects to those Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice. I was moved not only by the service but by the sheer number of people from all backgrounds, young and old, who had come out on a cold Canberra morning to pay their respects.

But the Australian War Memorial is not just important on those major days of commemoration; it is important all year round. The Australian War Memorial's website highlights this role. Official visitors to the memorial usually pay tribute to Australia's war dead by laying wreaths at the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier or the Inauguration Stone. School groups and veterans' groups also conduct commemorative wreath-laying ceremonies in these areas. The War Memorial is a place of quiet contemplation, including its commemorative courtyard and sculpture garden. In addition, the Australian War Memorial is also an educational and informative museum, featuring a well-resourced military collection. The website describes the aim of the museum as to provide direct evidence of the lives, actions and fates of the men and women who served and died for Australia in war and military operations. The loss of over 60,000 Australian lives in the First World War and 40,000 in the Second World War, and numerous deaths in other conflicts, might become little more than statistical information if not for the memorial's national collection which illustrates the effect of war on individuals, families and communities. Whenever I have visited the Australian War Memorial, I have been impressed by the grounds, the collections and the displays. I am lucky enough to be going there tonight for an RSL function. I will reacquaint myself with many of the exhibits and displays because they are truly a world-class testament to the staff and volunteers that care for them.

The Roll of Honour and the Commemorative Roll are stark reminders of the cost of war—a price that over 102,000 Australians have paid. Their names and their stories are written, kept and maintained at the Australian War Memorial through the dedicated and professional work of the historians that work and volunteer there. It is through their efforts that the memories of these men and women live on.

In addition to the data collections and displays we can see that, at Australian War Memorial, there is an enormous amount stored in archives. Some of this is accessible through the Treloar Technology Centre in Mitchell, but much of it is preserved in archives where researchers can access it for their investigations. The need to have this wealth of information accessible to researchers and the public ensures that we remember and learn from the lessons of history. The Australian War Memorial stands as a link to Australia's past—a link where we remember and respect the sacrifice of those who died during conflict. The scale of suffering during conflict is beyond comprehension. The Australian War Memorial is the official and public Australian recognition of that pain and the sacrifices made by their families.

Last year, prior to the 2013 election, Mr Tony Abbott said, 'The coalition will take the action necessary to preserve, protect and enhance the Australian War Memorial.' But earlier this year, in yet another broken promise, the Abbott government cut the Australian War Memorial's travelling exhibitions program. This heartless cut removes the possibility for hundreds of thousands of Australians to have access to important history about Australia's involvement in wars and the sacrifice of so many. The exhibitions program was funded by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and had been running continuously for 17 years as part of the memorial's National Collection Branch. In those 17 years it travelled to venues in every state and territory of Australia as well as to many international venues. To date, an audience of over 3.8 million visitors outside of Canberra viewed the travelling exhibitions. In the year of the Centenary of Anzac it is a disgrace that this government has cut the entire funding for this valuable program. This is wrong. These cuts must be reversed.

With the Anzac Centenary just a few months away it is more important than ever that every Australian has access to our wartime history. During the Anzac Centenary we will remember the Anzacs who served at Gallipoli and on the Western Front. This started a few months ago with the commemoration of the Cooee and other recruitment marches and the Albany Convoy Commemorative Event to remember the voyage of our first Anzacs.

In concluding, the Australian War Memorial is a cultural institution dedicated to commemorating the service and sacrifice of Australian service men and women who have died in the wars and conflicts which Australia has participated. It is an institution of international standing and one of Australia's major tourism attractions. Right from CEW Bean's first vision, the memorial was imagined as a shrine and a museum that supports commemoration through understanding and an archive holding key war records. Throughout its evolution and development, we have remained true to this vision. For many Australians, it serves as a deeply emotional and personal link to loved ones. The exhibitions in the memorial galleries take advantage of the exceptional and diverse national collection to deliver interactive visitor experiences that are both engaging and educational. It is important that it remains free for visitors to visit our nation's home of commemoration, reflection and remembrance. Labor is fully supportive of this bill. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator RONALDSON (Victoria—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Special Minister of State) (13:58): I thank those in the other place and those in the Senate today for the support for this bill. I am disappointed that Senator Conroy did not take out the politics towards the end but, nonetheless, I am grateful for the Senate's support for this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The PRESIDENT (13:59): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I will call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill to be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RONALDSON (Victoria—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Special Minister of State) (13:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (15:07): I table a document in response to an order for the production of documents referencing notice of motion 510 passed by the Senate on Monday, standing in the name of Senator Carr.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) (15:39): I present the government’s response to the 137th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, treaty referred on 15 January 2014. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report:

Report 137 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (Abu Dhabi, 31 July 2012)

August 2014

Government Response to

Report 137 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Australia-UAE Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.

The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates on Cooperation in the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy, done at Abu Dhabi on 31 July 2012 ("the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement"), which was tabled on 18 March 2014. Binding treaty action was completed on 14 April 2014 in Abu Dhabi. The Government provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that, prior to ratification of the proposed Treaty, the IAEA undertake physical inspections of UAE facilities that will handle Australian obligated nuclear materials.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol on strengthened safeguards in force with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These two agreements provide the IAEA with reporting and access to facilities necessary to verify the UAE's compliance with its commitment to use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes. Under these two agreements all nuclear material and facilities will be subject to IAEA safeguards verification.

The IAEA will have early and thorough inspection oversight at nuclear power plants in the UAE well before any Australian uranium is potentially supplied. However, given the construction of the first nuclear power plant at Barakah has not yet reached a stage where design features relevant to IAEA safeguards are installed the IAEA has not yet commenced inspections. The Barakah Nuclear Power Plant is scheduled for completion in 2017 and the first IAEA inspections will likely commence in 2015 or 2016. In the meantime the IAEA is receiving good cooperation from the UAE national regulator in preparing for inspections. The following summarises current and planned activities in the UAE in relation to nuclear regulation:

The UAE has received the following IAEA review and appraisal missions:

Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review in January 2011

Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) in December 2011.

The UAE has committed to the following further review and appraisal missions:

International SSAC (state systems of nuclear accountancy and control) Advisory Service in May 2014

IRRS Follow-up Mission in February 2015

Emergency Preparedness Review Service in March 2015.

with IAEA for the period 2013-2017, under which are arranged expert missions and training workshops in safety, security and safeguards.

The Government is satisfied that the IAEA inspection regime will be sufficient to provide assurances on the peaceful use of Australian uranium, and nuclear material derived from its use. The UAE has displayed a high level of transparency and cooperation with the IAEA, and has entered into binding treaty commitments with regard to nuclear safeguards and security.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Government report to the Parliament on what action it has taken to implement the recommendations of the United Nations System Wide Study on the Implications of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant .

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has considered the UN System-Wide Study on the Implications of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and is supportive of its recommendations. Australian approaches to nuclear safety are consistent with the recommendations of the report in relation to the protection of people and the environment.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has taken a number of actions in the area of nuclear safety and emergency preparedness in response to post­Fukushima accident analysis. ANSTO has submitted to ARPANSA a preliminary assessment of the implications of the Fukushima accident for the Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) reactor. The OPAL post-Fukushima safety and emergency preparedness action plan is currently being evaluated by ARPANSA.

ANSTO is currently finalising a Safety Reassessment of OPAL in the light of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident, which is based on the IAEA guidance contained in Safety Reports Series No.80: Safety Reassessment for Research Reactors in the light of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which was published earlier this year.

ARPANSA, ANSTO and local and national emergency organisations routinely review and exercise emergency preparedness and response arrangements for adverse events for the OPAL reactor, including relevant scenarios drawn from the Fukushima accident.